21000 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 0:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha(larry) --- Dear Larry and Swee Boon, Larry you write that "My main point is that rupa shouldn't be considered to be more real than concept. Though it seems solid and substantial, rupa is just as empty and vacuous as concept and ultimately is a concept/representation. But any object is a reality simply by the meaning of the word "object" and all objects are ultimately subject representations."" Rupa is an aggregate(khandha) it is sabhava dhamma, paramattha dhamma . Concept is not a khandha, it is asabhava dhamma. They are utterly different. Relating this to the question Swee boon asked: "Some people say the crux of the crux of the Buddha's Teachings is to differentiate the distinction between concept and reality. Is there any sutta that supports this?" There are many hundreds of suttas where the Buddha talks about paramattha dhammas – the khandhas, dhatus and ayatanas. For example in this sutta he tells the story of a king who was so entranced with the sound made by a lute.. And Lute is a metaphor for the concept of self. Once the `whole' of lute was analysed and found to be merely a term for a collection of diverse elements the King lost interest. Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.IV, par. 205, The Lute : `…Suppose, monks, the sound of a lute has never been heard by a rajah or royal minister. Then he hears the sound of a lute and says: 'Good man, pray, what is that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind?' Then they say to him : 'That, lord, is the sound of what is called a lute, that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Go, my man. Fetch me that lute.' So they fetch him that lute and say to him : 'This, lord, is that lute, the sound of which is so entrancing... of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Enough of this lute, my man. Fetch me that sound.' They say to him: 'This lute so called, lord, consists of divers parts, a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts, to wit, owing to the belly, owing to the parchment, the handle, the frame, the strings, owing to the bridge and proper effort of a player. Thus, lord, this lute, so called, consists of divers parts, of great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts.' Then that rajah breaks up that lute into ten or a hundred pieces. Having done so, he splinters and splinters it again. Having done so, he burns it in fire, then makes it a heap of ashes and winnows the heap of ashes in a strong wind or lets them be borne down by the swift stream of a river. Then he says: 'A poor thing is what you call a lute, a lute, my men, whatever a lute may be. Herein the world is exceeding careless and led astray.' Even so, monks, a monk investigating body as far as there is scope for body, investigating feeling, perception, the activities (sankharakkhandha), investigating consciousness, [ie. The five khandhas, paramattha dhammas] so far as there is scope for consciousness, - -in all of these investigations, whatever there be of 'I' or 'I am' or 'Mine', there is none of that for him'. Jon quoted from Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation from the Abhidhammata Sangaha Ch I, section 2 on realities and concepts: Guide to #2 Ultimate realities [paramattha dhammas - the khandhas, ayatanas and dhatus] are not only the ultimate existents, they are also the ultimate objects of right knowledge. As one extracts oil from sesame seed, so one can extract the ultimate realities from the conventional realities. Concepts do not possess ultimacy. It is the objective actualities that lie behind our conceptual constructs – the dhammas – that form the ultimate realities of the Abhidhamma. Ultimate realities are knowable only to wisdom- Guide to #2 Ultimate realities are so subtle and profound that an ordinary person cannot see them. His mind is obscured by concepts. Only by means of wise attention to things (yoniso manasikara) can one see beyond the concepts. Thus `paramattha' is described as that which belongs to the domain of ultimate or supreme knowledge."endquote RobertK 21001 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 0:35pm Subject: Different Roads Dear Group, Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow the Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the same time. I wonder what others think? I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - just in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the needs and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to whatever that is? metta, Christine 21002 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 4:30pm Subject: Way 72, Clear Comprehension 7 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 7. Clear comprehension of walking and so forth Now we come to the explanation of the instruction dealing with clear comprehension "in walking, in standing in a place, in sitting in some position, in sleeping, in walking, in speaking and in keeping silence" = Gate thite nisinne sutte jagarite bhasite tunhibhave. By the words: "When he is going a bhikkhu understands 'I am going,'" and so froth, postures of long duration are indicated. And by the words, "in going forwards and backwards... in bending and in stretching," postures of middling duration; and by the words, "in walking, in standing... In sleeping," postures of short, brief duration. Therefore in these three parts of the instruction the practicing of clear comprehension should be known even by the triple method stated here. [Tika] Postures of long duration [addhana iriyapatha]: postures kept up long or postures existing in a process of going for or of one wayfaring long. [T] Postures of middling duration [majjhima]: postures proceeding neither too long in time nor involving too long wayfaring, namely, those connected with wandering for alms and so forth. [T] Postures of short duration [cunnika iriyapatha]: postures become diminutive, by reason of brief duration and proceeding by way of going about and so forth in the monastery or elsewhere. The Elder Tipitaka Maha Siva indeed said: Who, after walking or exercising long in the ambulatory, stands and reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed during the time of exercises on the ambulatory ended just there on the ambulatory", is called a doer of clear comprehension in walking. When, after standing for a long time in study or answering a question or minding a subject of meditation, sits and reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed during the time of standing ended just at the time of standing," is called a doer of clear comprehension in standing. Who, after sitting for a long time in study or other similar work, lies down and reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed when sitting ended just at the time of sitting," is called a doer of clear comprehension in sitting. Who, after lying down falls asleep, and, then, after getting up from his sleep, reflects: "The bodily and mental things which existed during the time of sleep ended just during sleep," is called a doer of clear comprehension in sleeping and waking. [T] By reason of proximity of the word "waking", here the action of lying down is only sleep in the sense of the descent of the mind into the state of the life-continum. It is not merely the stretching out of the back. 21003 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 4:50pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Dear RobertK, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: Dear KKT, < snip > KKT: Thanks for your long post, it's very instructive. ------------ > > The main point raised by > the question is its criticism > of the theory of Momentariness > of Abhidharma. The author > of the criticism is Shankara, > founder of the Advaita Vedanta > school of Hinduism (8th century) if you tell me more about this criticism i'll be happy to respond. RobertK KKT: According to Shankara, << Ultimate Reality is Pure Consciousness >> which is also Atman/Brahman of the Upanishads. Only Consciousness is << real >> The world is unreal, illusory because it is subjected to change. Consciousness is the << ground >> underlying everything. It is eternal and not bound by time and space. Therefore, it is not a surprise if Shankara had to attack the Theory of Momentariness of Abhidharma (in fact, he attacked Abhidharma of the Sarvastivada school because at this time there was no more Theravada in India) The main point of his criticism of Abhidharma is that << the MOMENTARY ultimate dhammas (paramattha dhamma) cannot combine by themselves >> Take the example of << computer >> The << whole >> thing called computer is represented either by the << concept >> computer or by << in reality >> a series (or combination?) of utimate dhammas. Shankara objected that without an intelligent principle which may unite them, the series is impossible because: __Rupa, citta, cetasika are << momentary >> and in addition rupa is << unintelligent >> __If this is citta (ie. consciousness) that unites them then citta must come into existence in the first moment and must unite them in the second moment which would mean that citta exists at least for two moments and is therefore not << momentary >> __If the series is formed on account of Dependent Causation then in the Wheel of Causation (Paticca-samuppada) each preceding link is the immediate efficient cause of the succeeding link only, but not of the << whole >> series. This is summarily Shankara's criticism. Metta, KKT 21004 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 4:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Robert, All I can say is I find this concept/reality dualism incoherent. How can an object of consciousness not exist? What is a concept if not a mental formation (sankhara)? What is a ditthi without a concept? Can we not divide a sound into as many pieces as a lute? However, you are correct that the texts don't support the view I concocted. Larry 21005 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" Regards, Victor KKT: No objection, Victor. What is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" is certainly dukkha. Why? Because this << feeling >> of I, me, mine, myself is inherently charged with << conflict, contradiction >> and thus suffering (dukkha) But don't say that I hold a wrong view since this feeling is very << vivid >> inside myself and is not simply a thought or a pure concept :-)) Peace, KKT 21006 From: azita gill Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] from babyhood to corpse, fearfully --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Nina (& Lodevijk), > > Perhaps if Lodevijk has no problem with computer as > concept, he can send a > few helpful comments to Victor too;-) > > Perhaps the jump from ‘computer as concept’ to ‘Nina > as concept’ is too > big and so the babyhood reminds me that we need to > introduce some baby > steps;-) How about a plant and then an insect and > then a dog before > Nina??? > > We cling to ‘computers’ and ‘Ninas’ as being > realities and perhaps fear > that the world we’re so familiar with will fall > apart or we find it too > painful to consider the world through the 6 doors. I > understand this, but > instead of being fearful, I find it the greatest > comfort to understand at > this moment that there is just the world of seeing, > the world of hearing > and so on. K.Sujin always reminds us that anything > can happen at any time. > We don’t know when we will get sick or experience > good or bad vipaka. > Understanding realities a little more helps us to > face up to any test. > > When we take the concepts for truths, it’s so > disturbing ....snip... > For Victor and Lodevijk, the question also is, if > Nina is real, what > doorway is she experienced through? > > I hope you both have a good trek. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > dear Sarah, such good reminders, Sarah, and so relevant for me at this moment. I am feeling very distressed about my daughter, Zoe, who seems to be very unhappy and also non-communicate about anything. I am finding it quite difficult living with her. When I read Rahula's letter on worry and fear, I thought, yep, that's me, the only difference being I know what's worrying me. I remember K. Sujin's words about real life being the best test, and how true that is. There are many good reminders here in this group and how I appreciate them at this time especially. Mostly, I keep my personal life to myself, but this situation is causing me some anxiety and like Rahula, I look to this group for support - in a Dhamma sense. There are many other 'conventional' helpers out in the community, but what I look for here are the reminders about the only Truth - the Dhamma. I wish I could teach the Buddha's truth to Zoe but she is totally uninterested, seemingly in most things. When our loved ones are unhappy we generally are affected. At moments of interaction with her, there is no sense of 'no-one', or of anything kusala!!!! I appreciated RobK's reply to Rahula. So succinct. from a not-so-cheerful Azita > > 21007 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:44pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: KKT < snip > Each of the 5 aggregates has the characteristic of 'no-self'. The more understanding there is of the true nature of the 5 aggregates, the more there is the seeing of 'no-self'. Jon KKT: Could you tell me what is the meaning you give to this phrase << Each of the 5 aggregates has the characteristic of 'no-self' >> Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21008 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 6:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I was not asking if you agree with me or not, and my question was not "Is what is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." dukkha? My question to you is: Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I > am. This is my self?" > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: No objection, Victor. > > What is fit to be regarded thus: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" > is certainly dukkha. > > Why? > > Because this << feeling >> > of I, me, mine, myself > is inherently charged with > << conflict, contradiction >> > and thus suffering (dukkha) > > > But don't say that I hold > a wrong view since this feeling > is very << vivid >> inside myself > and is not simply a thought > or a pure concept :-)) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 21009 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 6:52pm Subject: Re: Different Roads Hi Christine, I think the quote from the discourse Digha Nikaya 21 Sakka-pañha Sutta Sakka's Questions is relevant to your questions. Then Sakka, having delighted in & expressed his approval of the Blessed One's words, asked him a further question: "Dear sir, do all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?" "No, deva-king, not all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." "Why, dear sir, don't all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal?" "The world is made up of many properties, various properties. Because of the many & various properties in the world, then whichever property living beings get fixated on, they become entrenched & latch onto it, saying, 'Only this is true; anything else is worthless.' This is why not all priests & contemplatives teach the same doctrine, adhere to the same precepts, desire the same thing, aim at the same goal." "But, dear sir, are all priests & contemplatives utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate?" "No, deva-king, not all priests & contemplatives are utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate." "But why, dear sir, are not all priests & contemplatives utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate?" "Those monks who are released through the total ending of craving are the ones who are utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate. This is why not all priests & contemplatives are utterly complete, utterly free from bonds, followers of the utterly holy life, utterly consummate." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow the > Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the same > time. I wonder what others think? > I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, > one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - just > in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different > spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it > simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the needs > and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's > beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to whatever > that is? > > metta, > Christine 21010 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 3:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi again, James - In a message dated 4/5/03 8:25:13 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > Hi, James - > > Your point is well taken. The primary venue is that of meditation. But > there is also an everyday analogue that us useful. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 4/4/03 11:38:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > >Hi Howard, > > > >I hate to belabor this point, but this article, and what you are > >describing, relates to meditation, not to everyday mindfulness. > >This type of Right Effort, as taught by the Buddha, was intended to > >be performed during meditation and was very specific to overcoming > >the hindrances to meditation. I really don't believe this is > >related to what I have been saying about everyday mindfulness and > >futile attempts at mind control from the top down. But thank you > >for drawing my attention to this interesting resource. > > > >Metta, James > > > > ============================= With regard to the "everyday analogue," the following, taken from ATI, is the part of the Samma~n~naphala Sutta, the 2nd sutta of the Digha Nikaya, dealing with guarding the senses. It does not pertain to meditating: (Sense Restraint) "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. On hearing a sound with the ear... On smelling an odor with the nose... One tasting a flavor with the tongue... On touching a tactile sensation with the body... On cognizing an idea with the intellect, he does not grasp at any theme or details by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the intellect -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. Endowed with this noble restraint over the sense faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. This is how a monk guards the doors of his senses. This doesn't involve the "replacement" technique - that's true. But it does involve a kind of avoidance - it involves a quick turning away of the mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion. The details that might lead to these reactions are glimpsed and immediately let go of, so that reaction will not set in. It is a kind of nipping in the bud. 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) 21011 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hello my good friends in the dharma. My name is Jeff Brooks, I live in Tucson, AZ and I sat my first vipassana retreat with Robert Hover here in Tucson in 1985. I have been an active member of the vipassana and other contemplative communities for 30 years and I now publish an electronic newsletter called the Southwest Insight E'letter which is focused on the practice of vipassana and sangha related issues. I also publish a resource guide for retreats and centers in the Southwest. Back issues for both are available on the Albuquerque Vipassana Sangha website at http://www.cs.unm.edu/~richards/sangha/home.html. I arrived here in your webspace while seeking a forum for dialog on Theravadan Buddhism and the practice of vipassana. May you all be free from suffering, Jeff 21012 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Dear Selamat, I was delighted to hear about all your activities and your interest in Abhidhamma. It is really encouraging to hear this. And then all your efforts going around to different places. If you can, it is very nice if you write more often about what you discuss. I had no ID card copy now, but I wrote to Mrs Sasmita and told her about the case. I hope this helps. Tomorrow I am going away for three days. I still keep the bell from Burobudur you gave me in my shrine corner. Anumodana for all your good works. It is good you share this with us so that we can have anumodana, Nina. op 06-04-2003 13:41 schreef cbn op nana_palo@c...: > In last three years, Abhidhamma has a growing interest by many Buddhists in > many Viharas in line with the growing interest for practising Vipassana in > Indonesia. 21013 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Help (Fear, Worry, etc...) Dear Mike, very well said and in such a nice way. Good for Lodewijk, Thanks, Nina. op 06-04-2003 17:10 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: It's worth noting > that there's no one afraid behind the fear--just fear itself fearing for a > very brief moment, then disappearing. If you're walking down the street > afraid and suddenly hear birdsong, or see a nice smile, for a moment there's > delight--but no one behind the delight. 21014 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, I was not asking if you agree with me or not, and my question was not "Is what is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." dukkha? My question to you is: Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor KKT: If this is your question then my answer is yes, what is dukkha is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." and dukkha is much more, for example anicca (impermanence) is also dukkha. Regards, KKT 21015 From: Date: Sun Apr 6, 2003 10:38pm Subject: sound and lute Hi Robert and all, Let's investigate this further. Sound and lute are both compounded, but every part of the experienced sound is sound while no part of the lute is lute. This shows us a significant difference between sound and lute. Both sound and lute are impermanent. Sound depends on lute. What is it that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound? Larry ps: I think this sutta is more about the flimsiness of compounds than differentiating concept and reality, but I would like to pursue the concept/reality question. ------------------- Salayatana-vagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Fourth Fifty, Ch.IV, par. 205, The Lute : `…Suppose, monks, the sound of a lute has never been heard by a rajah or royal minister. Then he hears the sound of a lute and says: ´Good man, pray, what is that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind?´ Then they say to him : ´That, lord, is the sound of what is called a lute, that sound so entrancing, so delightful, so intoxicating, so ravishing, of such power to bind.´ Then he says: 'Go, my man. Fetch me that lute.' So they fetch him that lute and say to him : 'This, lord, is that lute, the sound of which is so entrancing... of such power to bind.' Then he says: 'Enough of this lute, my man. Fetch me that sound.' They say to him: 'This lute so called, lord, consists of divers parts, a great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts, to wit, owing to the belly, owing to the parchment, the handle, the frame, the strings, owing to the bridge and proper effort of a player. Thus, lord, this lute, so called, consists of divers parts, of great number of parts. It speaks because it is compounded of divers parts.' Then that rajah breaks up that lute into ten or a hundred pieces. Having done so, he splinters and splinters it again. Having done so, he burns it in fire, then makes it a heap of ashes and winnows the heap of ashes in a strong wind or lets them be borne down by the swift stream of a river. Then he says: 'A poor thing is what you call a lute, a lute, my men, whatever a lute may be. Herein the world is exceeding careless and led astray.' Even so, monks, a monk investigating body as far as there is scope for body, investigating feeling, perception, the activities (sankharakkhandha), investigating consciousness, [ie. The five khandhas, paramattha dhammas] so far as there is scope for consciousness, - -in all of these investigations, whatever there be of 'I' or 'I am' or 'Mine', there is none of that for him'. 21016 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi James, “You let Sarah have the last word...and that just won't do! ;-).” ..... LOL, and now I’m here to spoil your fun again;-) --- buddhatrue wrote: > > I see that Howard isn't going to pick up this thread anymore, so I > am. ..... Perhaps you meant that he wasn’t tough enough on me;-( Apologies in advance for lots of snipping and hope I don’t take your comments out of context too much as a result. >It would be very much > like these fad diets which are supposed to work for everyone all the > time, dream on! ;-) We all have different metabolisms and there > isn't one type of diet that will work for everyone every day. The > same goes for meditation. Surely you can appreciate and understand > this reality? ..... Not really - different concepts and stories, but the truths, the realities appaearing and to be known are the same for all. Hence the universality of the teachings. ..... > > For example, when the Buddha came to the first five ascetics and > taught them the Four Noble Truths, some reached enlightenment almost > immediately but some did not. He taught meditation, one-on-one, > with the remaining monks for several days until they also reached > enlightenment. But the suttas don't describe what he taught them or > what they each needed, because that wouldn't be helpful or necessary > to others. ..... On the contrary, I find the teachings in all parts of the Tipitaka to be very detailed indeed and to contain exactly what is ‘needed’. ..... > Surely you don't believe that there were so many arahants during the > Buddha's time because they walked around labeling nama and rupa? ..... No. On the other hand I do believe there were so many arahants during this time because when they heard him talk about namas and rupas they were able to comprehend the truth of his message - the truth that our whole world we cling to so dearly are merely these namas and rupas, arising and falling away, inherently unsatisfactory and not-self. ..... > Meditation is the key to truly discovering anatta. ..... I agree. However, when I use the word ‘meditation’ it is as a translation of bhavana or mental development as applied to samatha or satipatthana with right understanding. Do you agree there can be meditation at this moment and that this moment is the only moment there ever is for meditation? ..... >I stress and > sincerely believe that anatta cannot be known without some type of > meditation practice…period, the end. .... No problem depending on the understanding of ‘meditation practice’. .... > Not every technique of Vipassana meditation is > going to fit every person; ..... I’ve never seen a reference in the texts to any ‘technique of Vipassana meditation’. I know exactly what you mean, having studied with a ‘Vipassana meditation technique’ teacher, but I think this is not the understanding of vipassana as taught by the Buddha. ..... >it is up to the teacher to instinctively > know what will work for his/her student. ..... It’s true that the Buddha would know at anytime what object was appropriate for anyone at anytime as object of samatha or what particular realities a person needed to hear about, such as his son Rahula. In that instance and the gold lotus one discussed before, even Sariputta could not know exactly what was appropriate. I would be very hesitant to agree that teachers today could “ instinctively know what will work for his/her student.” ..... >Like Howard, I have gone through periods of intense > meditation and no meditation; I have focused on calmness, > concentration, and/or both at various times; and I have also had > Enlightenment Experiences (`Sati') and they are quite real and life > transforming, as Howard explains…which you don't seem to understand, > which is understandable. ..... No problem;-) What is the object of sati or the EEs at these times? What is the purpose of focussing on calmness and concentration? Is there any panna (understanding) and if so, what does it know? ..... > This will be my first of two posts. In my next post I will > address `catching' moments as they arise to foster wisdom and `real' > wholesome mind states vs. `artificial' ones. ..... Right, I’ll get back on part 2 also. Thx for splitting it up. I like your challenging comments and agreeable disagreements;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 21017 From: christhedis Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:30am Subject: Re: equanimity Hi James, Is there any reason for me to worry that I will be irreversibly conditioning my mind, so that if I decide vipassana meditation is not for me, I will be stuck with the results? Anyone else? Thanks, Chris. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > Thanks for your reply. It's very nice. > > > > Although I am interested in what might happen after death, I am > > more "concerned" right now about what might happen to me now in > this > > lifetime if I practise Buddhism. > > Hi Chris, > > I wasn't completely sure what you were 'concerned' about, just that > you were 'concerned'. As far as the results of Vipassana > meditation, I only have one bit of advice through such a medium as > the Internet: It will get worse before it gets better. > > Metta, James 21018 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi again James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah, > To paraphrase what you further > explain, Vipassana means to be aware of arising and falling reality > in the present moment, and that should be a 24-Hour endeavor, not > just something done during meditation. I hope that I am following > you correctly. ..... Not bad;-) I would stress the development of insight with the emphasis on panna (wisdom). If there is no awareness of the present reality, there cannot be the development of insight or the higher stages of directly understanding and being aware of the arising and falling realities. I wouldn’t refer to vipassana as an endeavour as that sounds like a kind of special work or effort again. Also, while we’re fast asleep, no chance, so not quite 24hrs of possible realities to be known;-) Nina discusses more in detail about the meaning of vipassana in this post: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/6954 > First of all, Vipassana, meaning the awareness of reality, cannot be > practiced while you are typing, reading, cooking, shopping, > teaching, or anything else of that nature, it can only be practiced > while you are meditating. ..... Did the Buddha say this? ..... >The mind has far too many things to > attend to during those activities to really see the process that is > going on. What is needed is to slow the mind down, concentrate it, > and focus on just a few sensations, thoughts, feelings, etc. at a > time. If it was possible to do Vipassana during everyday > activities, we would all be enlightened by now. ..... We have a different understanding of sati and panna. To my understanding, there is no need and no way to ‘slow the mind down’ as others have commented and I think that the idea of focussing on selected (or unselected) phenomena suggests a lack of confidence in the power of sati and panna to be aware and know what is appearing at this moment. Never mind whether it’s one ‘finger-snap’ or many of awareness. Any idea of slowing down the mind, suggests an idea of self and control as I read it. I agree that if ‘it was possible to DO Vipassana during ......we would all be enlightened....’. the point is that it isn’t possible to do or to control in anyway. No self to do anything. .... > ego. It is with the tool of awareness, directed to each of these > moments as they occur, that stops the process. ..... I’d put this differently It is the mental state of awareness that cannot be directed but with understanding can be aware of one dhamma (i.e a nama or a rupa) at a time. It doesn’t stop, slow down or affect the process, but is accumulated and a condition for more awareness to arise in future. ..... >Why? Because then > there is awareness of it…no more ignorance. It isn't by force or > will that they process is stopped, it is only by knowledge of it. ..... Not stopped but understood. .... > My understanding is that you are advocating the ability of panna > (higher wisdom), which is supposed to come about through reading and > consideration of the Tipitaka (especially the Abhidhamma), to bring > about wholesome mind states and awareness of present realities. ..... Yes;-) ..... > This sounds really lofty so let me put it in more simple terms. You > believe that awareness of unwholesome mind states and wholesome ones > will allow a person to substitute one for the other, namely good for > bad, whenever they arise and that this will increase awareness of > present reality. ..... Instead of ‘a person to substitute’, I’d rather say ‘will allow understanding to develop and gradually be a condition to see the benefit of the good, the danger of the bad and will increase awareness of present realities’. ..... >You also recognize that this will take a long time > to perfect in a person. Sarah, I'm sorry, but this isn't Buddhism, > this is bio-feedback. ..... What you describe in the substituting, slowing down, stopping, focussing and labelling - yes. You’ll also be amused to hear that in subsequent posts between you and Howard, I agreed with comments you made about guarding the senses NOT referring to ‘replacing one mind state with another’, though I also don’t understand it to refer to any ‘refocus’ or re-center’ which imo are also attempts to control rather than understand and be aware. I know someone Howard has posted a useful passage from the Sammannaphala Sutta which we can look at later.I haven’t read his comments yet. ..... >Meta-cognition of mind states, seeing > negative ones and replacing them with positive, is simply cutting > the tree of desire down again and again…and each time it re-grows > because the roots are still present. This is the same type of > technique that psychiatrists use to stop smoking, over-eating, or > other destructive behaviors caused by negative thoughts. It isn't > necessarily a bad thing to be doing (except for the mistaken belief > that it is somehow `special') but it isn't destroying the roots of > suffering. ..... Agreed;-) .... The Buddhadhamma isn't a `self-help' teaching interested > in superficial happiness that has to be self-cultivated > continuously, it is interested in elimination of the root of the > problem, which requires Vipassana meditation practice along with the > remainder of the eightfold path. ..... Fine until we come back to the understanding of practice. ..... > Again, I mean no disrespect to anyone and their long-held beliefs. ..... Thanks and likewise to all. This is a very pleasant and cordial discussion and I’m appreciating the dialogue. Metta, Sarah ====== 21019 From: cbn Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Dear Nina, anumodana you wrote letter to Mrs Sasmita. I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. Dear all, Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this phenomena. Greatly appreciate if you or all in this list could suggest me how to give some reasonable answers. Anumodana. selamat ----- Original Message ----- From: "nina van gorkom" To: Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:08 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group > Dear Selamat, > I was delighted to hear about all your activities and your interest in > Abhidhamma. It is really encouraging to hear this. And then all your efforts > going around to different places. > If you can, it is very nice if you write more often about what you discuss. > I had no ID card copy now, but I wrote to Mrs Sasmita and told her about the > case. I hope this helps. Tomorrow I am going away for three days. > I still keep the bell from Burobudur you gave me in my shrine corner. > Anumodana for all your good works. It is good you share this with us so that > we can have anumodana, > Nina. 21020 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > Hi KKT, > > I was not asking if you agree with me or not, and my question was > not > > "Is what is fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This > is my self." dukkha? > > My question to you is: > > Is what is dukkha fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I > am. This is my self."? > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: If this is your question > then my answer is yes, what is > dukkha is fit to be regarded thus: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." > and dukkha is much more, for example > anicca (impermanence) is also dukkha. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21021 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Regarding the feeling that you mentioned, is this feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: No objection, Victor. > > What is fit to be regarded thus: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self?" > is certainly dukkha. > > Why? > > Because this << feeling >> > of I, me, mine, myself > is inherently charged with > << conflict, contradiction >> > and thus suffering (dukkha) > > > But don't say that I hold > a wrong view since this feeling > is very << vivid >> inside myself > and is not simply a thought > or a pure concept :-)) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 21022 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry (and Robert) - In a message dated 4/7/03 1:39:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Robert and all, > > Let's investigate this further. Sound and lute are both compounded, but > every part of the experienced sound is sound while no part of the lute > is lute. This shows us a significant difference between sound and lute. > Both sound and lute are impermanent. Sound depends on lute. What is it > that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound? > > Larry > > ========================== The "sound" that is a complex is actually not a sound; it is rupa-based, but is not rupa. The so-called lute-sound that is delighted in is actually not a sound, and while certainly conditioned is not a complex. What it is actually is a lute-melody, which is something constructed by the mind from the detection of a pattern among a multitude of sequential lute-sounds, and it is that rupa-based but mind-only lute-melody which is what is found delightful. 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) 21023 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: > Hi Robert and all, > Let's investigate this further. Sound and lute are both compounded, but > every part of the experienced sound is sound while no part of the lute > is lute. This shows us a significant difference between sound and lute. > Both sound and lute are impermanent. Sound depends on lute. What is it > that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound? As I understand it, the answer is 'sabhaava'--nature; condition; disposition; reality. Sound refers to the paramattha dhamma that can be cognized by hearing, while 'lute' refers to the concept assembled from various other sense contacts, lacking sabhaava, cognizable by mind as a mind object but incapable of supporting vipassanaa. This is a theoretical distinction for me; I make no claim to profound insight or understanding. > ps: I think this sutta is more about the flimsiness of compounds than > differentiating concept and reality, but I would like to pursue the > concept/reality question. I think so too, though I would say specifically about the 'not-selfness' of compounded things, sankhaarakha.nda. I think the question of concept/reality differs between the suttanta method and the abhidhamma method mainly in the degree of detail of analysis. Because of this, it's harder (I think) to approach the abhidhamma from the perspective of the suttanta method (fitting 'bigger' concepts into 'smaller' ones) than to approach the discourses from the abhidhamma (fitting 'smaller' concepts into 'bigger' ones). I wouldn't tell an automechanic, a physicist, a metallurgist, a thermodynamicist, a crystalographer etc. that a car doesn't exist. I would say, though, that through their various disciplines, they can understand the nature of the cars they're driving in greater detail than can someone without any of these kinds of knowledge. This is the way it seems to me, anyway--my apologies for the strained metaphor. mike p.s. Thanks for the reminder of this great sutta. 21024 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Regards, Victor KKT: To regard something as << not mine, I am not, not my self >> presupposes that you know << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> otherwise how could you deny something without knowing it? So what is for you this << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> ? I asked you this question sometime ago but you have not yet answered. Regards, KKT 21025 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:34am Subject: Re: equanimity --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christhedis" wrote: > Hi James, > > Is there any reason for me to worry that I will be irreversibly conditioning > my mind, so that if I decide vipassana meditation is not for me, I will be > stuck with the results? > > Anyone else? > > Thanks, > Chris. > Hi Chris, Yes, the insight that arises from vipassana cannot be reversed. Once you do it, you will begin a journey that is nearly impossible to stop. If that scares you, don't do it at this time. Metta, James 21026 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > "You let Sarah have the last word...and that just won't > do! ;-)." > ..... > LOL, and now I'm here to spoil your fun again;-) Hi Sarah, Well, it was fun, but these two posts of yours disturb me. Not for my sake but for yours. I am just going to let you have the last word...or this would go on forever. If you CAN notice, every response of yours to my text is basically the same. No matter what I say, you have the same response. You call this 'sounding like a broke record', but I think it is far more serious and dangerous...it is a clear sign of the brainwashing of a cult. And I don't mean this in a discourteous way, I just can't think of a more euphemistic way to state it. I would hope that if I started showing signs of the indoctrination of a cult, someone would come right out and tell me also. It is not possible for everyone else to be wrong and just the "Followers of A. Sujin" to be right. Think about that. Metta, James 21027 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The question you asked is misguided. It is misguided in the sense that it is based on the assumption of self view. It is based on the assumption that one must see something (whatever it is) thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." in order to see what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing something, whatever it is, thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." is in itself an assumption, a self view. Now, regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, my question to you is: Is this feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > > What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self." > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: To regard something as > << not mine, I am not, not my self >> > presupposes that you know > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> > otherwise how could you deny > something without knowing it? > > So what is for you this > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> ? > > I asked you this question sometime ago > but you have not yet answered. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21028 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The question you asked is misguided. It is misguided in the sense that it is based on the assumption of self view. It is based on the assumption that one must see something (whatever it is) thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." in order to see what is impermanent, dukkha, subject to change thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing something, whatever it is, thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." is in itself an assumption, a self view. KKT: Before deciding whether this is a self << view >> or not, we must at least understand each other on the level of language. Because to communicate to each other we use words which represent concepts. Concept could be purely imaginary, for example: a flying purple elephant or stands for a << real >> object for example: a computer. So my question to you is: when you use the words << mine, I, my self >> in your question, what do they stand for? You cannot talking about something without referring to a real object or a concept, it is absurd, right? So you have to answer to my question firts before we could go further. Regards, KKT =========== Now, regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, my question to you is: Is this feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > No, what is dukkha is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > > What is dukkha is to be regarded as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self." > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: To regard something as > << not mine, I am not, not my self >> > presupposes that you know > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> > otherwise how could you deny > something without knowing it? > > So what is for you this > << what is mine, what is I, what is my self >> ? > > I asked you this question sometime ago > but you have not yet answered. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21029 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The terms "I", "mine", "self" are used in the following sense: The term "I" as pronoun: the one who is speaking or writing; the term "mine" as pronoun: that which belongs to me; and the term "self" as reflexive pronoun: that identical one that is I. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: Before deciding whether > this is a self << view >> or not, > we must at least understand > each other on the level of language. > > Because to communicate to each other > we use words which represent concepts. > Concept could be purely imaginary, > for example: a flying purple elephant > or stands for a << real >> object > for example: a computer. > > So my question to you is: > when you use the words << mine, I, my self >> > in your question, what do they stand for? > > You cannot talking about something > without referring to a real object > or a concept, it is absurd, right? > > > So you have to answer to my question firts > before we could go further. > > > Regards, > > > KKT [snip] 21030 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: equanimity Hi Chris, I am sure someone here will have a far more lucid explanation for you, but I thought I would make a small contribution here. It maybe worth reflecting first on what the word vipassana means. It is often translated as 'insight.' When we often speak of vipassana, we often erroneously think of a meditation technique that we were taught in a retreat. But, the technique of body scanning, or whatever, is just a technique that leads to the subjective state of insight, it is not actually the state or condition itself. So, to answer your question, body scanning, and the many other methods that are used to bring the practitioner to the state of insight, are just techniques. They are forms of mental gymnastics, that are intended to expose the natural state of insight. If you just keep in mind that you are a thinking and reasoning being, and you therefore have your freedom to choose at all times, then you can choose to do whatever you want with your mental training. If you want to maintain an endlessly agitated mind, your are free to do that. If you want to endlessly practice body scanning and thereby avoid the revealing of insight, then you are free to do that as well. Once you realize that insight is a natural condition, which is a product of the stilled and calmed mind (equanimity), then the technique becomes irrelevant, and you simply pursue and maintain equanimity at all times, even in your sleep. Just remember the technique is just meant to bring you to the necessary precondition of a calm and stable mind for which you will discover insight, which is a natural condition of the calm mind. I hope this helps, Jeff Brooks president, UofA Meditation Club editor, Southwest Insight E'letter In a message dated 4/7/03 12:30:53 AM, charnett@y... writes: << Hi James, Is there any reason for me to worry that I will be irreversibly conditioning my mind, so that if I decide vipassana meditation is not for me, I will be stuck with the results? Anyone else? Thanks, Chris. >> 21031 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group My good friend, Anumodana, I believe it is always best to find a way, if possible, to articulate the dharma in the native language of the student, and to, whenever possible, avoid specialized terminology and adherence to pali terms that may not be familiar to the student. This way the student can quickly understand the dharma and be satisfied with little effort. Best regards, Jeff Brooks president, UofA Meditation Club editor, Southwest Insight E'letter In a message dated 4/7/03 4:10:54 AM, nana_palo@c... writes: << Dear Nina, anumodana you wrote letter to Mrs Sasmita. I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. Dear all, Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this phenomena. Greatly appreciate if you or all in this list could suggest me how to give some reasonable answers. Anumodana. selamat >> 21032 From: nidive Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Robert (& Sarah), > And Lute is a metaphor for the concept of self. "Self" is not merely a concept. It is also an ultimate reality that arises and falls away. It is not-self. If "self" were merely a concept, we would all be sotapannas. There would be no difference between a worldling and a sotapanna. There is an ultimate reality that arises and falls away and is not-self. Its function is to construe a self as being real. If the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities is the crux, then which is the crux of the crux: mindfulness of the concept of self, or mindfulness of the ultimate reality of 'self'? I just think that it's horrible how Sarah goes at length to play down concentration. > Concentration is not a rarity, everyone has it. But our objects of concentration are the > concepts built upon ignorance accumulated over eons. This is why according to my > understanding, any development along the path of buddhadhamma, hinges upon the > distinction between concept and reality. And that distinction can only start with the > intellectual knowledge of the Teachings. Saying the above is just like saying that mindfulness is not a rarity and that everyone has it. Why bother about mindfulness then? Just do the minimum (or the maximum ?): know the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities. I don't think this is the crux of the Buddha's Teachings (although I think that this distinction is important). In short, this distinction does not override the development and strengthening of the factors of the Noble Eight-fold Path. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21033 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 11:15am Subject: Re: Defining Self-view: For Victor Hi Suan and all, I am fine. Thank you for your explanation. I think this link on self-view/self-identity view/personality-belief might be of some interest. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#sakkaya Let me know what you think. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Dear Victor > > How are you? > > You asked: > > "I am interested to know what you mean by self-view and how you > define it." > > Buddhists do not accept the existence of self because they accept > only the four ultimate selfless realities, which are matter, mind, > mental associates and nibbana. > > But, the selfless view of the Buddhists at the pre-awakening level is > mainly based on reasoning. They haven't penetrated the selfless > nature of things like an Ariyan has. To become an Ariyan, one must > reach at least the stage of a stream insider (sotaapanna). > > In short, Buddhists still work with self-view while they know > intellectually that there is no self. > > A pre-enlightenment Buddhist does not believe in the existence of > self, but behaves as though there were self. > > Self-view can be defined in terms of the result of failure to observe > and deconstruct the natural phenomena thoroughly. > > To cure the illness of self-view, one must regularly observe the > natural phenomena and learn the practice of their exhaustive > deconscruction. > > Someone who regularly observe and deconstruct the natural phenomena > exhaustively is called a specialist in Abhidhamma. Only specialists > in Abhidhamma are true followers of Gotama the Buddha becuase the > Buddha taught only the natural phenomena in various formats, > combinations and lengths. > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Suan, > > I am interested to know what you mean by self-view and how you > define it. > > Regards, > Victor 21034 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 11:27am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a personality view. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Robert (& Sarah), > > > And Lute is a metaphor for the concept of self. > > "Self" is not merely a concept. It is also an ultimate reality that > arises and falls away. It is not-self. > > If "self" were merely a concept, we would all be sotapannas. There > would be no difference between a worldling and a sotapanna. > > There is an ultimate reality that arises and falls away and is > not-self. Its function is to construe a self as being real. > > If the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities is the > crux, then which is the crux of the crux: mindfulness of the concept > of self, or mindfulness of the ultimate reality of 'self'? > > > I just think that it's horrible how Sarah goes at length to play down > concentration. > > > Concentration is not a rarity, everyone has it. But our objects of > concentration are the > > concepts built upon ignorance accumulated over eons. This is why > according to my > > understanding, any development along the path of buddhadhamma, > hinges upon the > > distinction between concept and reality. And that distinction can > only start with the > > intellectual knowledge of the Teachings. > > Saying the above is just like saying that mindfulness is not a rarity > and that everyone has it. Why bother about mindfulness then? Just do > the minimum (or the maximum ?): know the distinction between concepts > and ultimate realities. > > I don't think this is the crux of the Buddha's Teachings (although I > think that this distinction is important). > > In short, this distinction does not override the development and > strengthening of the factors of the Noble Eight-fold Path. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21035 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 0:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The terms "I", "mine", "self" are used in the following sense: The term "I" as pronoun: the one who is speaking or writing; the term "mine" as pronoun: that which belongs to me; and the term "self" as reflexive pronoun: that identical one that is I. Regards, Victor KKT: So what do << me >> and << I >> refer to in your experience? For example, a feeling, a sensation, a thought, a concept or whatever ? Regards, KKT 21036 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 1:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I use the word "I" as a pronoun that refers to the one who is speaking or writing. The word "me" is an objective case of the word "I". Regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, is that feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer, although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > The terms "I", "mine", "self" are used in the following sense: > > The term "I" as pronoun: the one who is speaking or writing; > the term "mine" as pronoun: that which belongs to me; and > the term "self" as reflexive pronoun: that identical one that is I. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > KKT: So what do << me >> and << I >> > refer to in your experience? > > For example, a feeling, a sensation, > a thought, a concept or whatever ? > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21037 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group ---Dear Selamat, I am also very happy to hear of your long continuing Dhamma work. I know you do so much in Indonesia. For your question for the new members: "" differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after > some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were > always late to comprehend them."" Remember that the object of insight is always the present moment. When there is trying to catch the reality this can be with subtle clinging. And clinging can look 'right'- but if it is clinging (tanha) then it is only adding to samsara. Also the present moment may be akusala or kusala OR it could be sound or kiriya or feeling. The characteristic of anatta is lack of mastery, powerlessness over dhammas, including sati. So insight should come with detachment; no idea of 'me' making it happen. Then one doesn't mind if there is akusala - the object is to understand not to change. And then change comes by conditions not by 'self'. RobertK 21038 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, I use the word "I" as a pronoun that refers to the one who is speaking or writing. KKT: Could you elaborate a little bit more about this << the one >> in your experience? Is it a feeling, a sensation, a thought, a concept, etc. ? ----------- The word "me" is an objective case of the word "I". Regarding the feeling that you mentioned, the feeling inherently charged with conflict, contradiction, is that feeling fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? KKT: In my experience, the feeling I mentioned I have clearly described many times as << the feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> ie. the feeling of exclusive self-interest, self-centeredness. Therefore it is naturally fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." -------------- You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer, although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor Regards, KKT 21039 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 2:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The feeling that you mentioned is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." This feeling is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." The question that you are asking is leading to self-identity view. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: Could you elaborate > a little bit more about this > << the one >> in your experience? > > Is it a feeling, a sensation, > a thought, a concept, etc. ? [snip] > > KKT: In my experience, > the feeling I mentioned > I have clearly described many times as > << the feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> > ie. the feeling of exclusive > self-interest, self-centeredness. > > Therefore it is naturally fit > to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > [snip] > Regards, > > > KKT 21040 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, I would like to voice the same sentiment. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > My good friend, Anumodana, I believe it is always best to find a way, if > possible, to articulate the dharma in the native language of the student, and > to, whenever possible, avoid specialized terminology and adherence to pali > terms that may not be familiar to the student. This way the student can > quickly understand the dharma and be satisfied with little effort. > > Best regards, > > Jeff Brooks > president, UofA Meditation Club > editor, Southwest Insight E'letter 21041 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, I hadn't considered what is *really* delighted in. Could you expand your reply. The sutta says the sound is delighted in. Are you saying the melody is a noncompounded concept? What is your view on what is negated, what doesn't exist? Also, do you see any difference between sound and lute (are they both real or not)? What is the lute? Larry ------------------ Howard wrote: The "sound" that is a complex is actually not a sound; it is rupa-based, but is not rupa. The so-called lute-sound that is delighted in is actually not a sound, and while certainly conditioned is not a complex. What it is actually is a lute-melody, which is something constructed by the mind from the detection of a pattern among a multitude of sequential lute-sounds, and it is that rupa-based but mind-only lute-melody which is what is found delightful. 21042 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 3:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The feeling that you mentioned is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." This feeling is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." The question that you are asking is leading to self-identity view. Regards, Victor KKT: Before saying that << The feeling that you mentioned is not fit to be regarded thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self." >> you have to tell me first what you << experience >> when you mean by << mine, I, my self >> in this phrase. I have suggested to you whether it is a feeling, a sensation, a thought, a concept, etc ? Without knowing what you mean how could I understand your point? Regards, KKT =========== --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: Could you elaborate > a little bit more about this > << the one >> in your experience? > > Is it a feeling, a sensation, > a thought, a concept, etc. ? [snip] > > KKT: In my experience, > the feeling I mentioned > I have clearly described many times as > << the feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> > ie. the feeling of exclusive > self-interest, self-centeredness. > > Therefore it is naturally fit > to be regarded thus: "This is mine. > This I am. This is my self." > [snip] > Regards, > > > KKT 21043 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 4:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Mike, You wrote in answer to the question: "What is it that doesn't exist in the lute but does exist in the sound?" M: "As I understand it, the answer is 'sabhaava'--nature; condition; disposition; reality. Sound refers to the paramattha dhamma that can be cognized by hearing, while 'lute' refers to the concept assembled from various other sense contacts, lacking sabhaava, cognizable by mind as a mind object but incapable of supporting vipassanaa." L: I would say "lute" refers to the physical assembly we call lute. Because this assembly is composed of disparate parts does that mean that it is not real (as an assembly) and unconditioned? I would say the word "lute" and the meaning of the word "lute" are concepts and therefore _possibly_ are not objects of vipassana. But the object the word "lute" refers to is an object of vipassana because it is real. The same goes for the word "sound". A sound rupa has a beginning, middle and end. If we think of a sound as a group (or hear a sound as a group), does that make it unreal? The main difference I see between sound and lute is one of simple and complex, although there is something about the parts of sound or enchantment being all sound or all enchantment while none of the parts of a lute are lute. How do you see this? Although somewhat outside the focus of this issue, we should also say in the sutta both sound and lute are not self, not worth desiring. Since that is the main point, how does differentiating between concept and reality lead in the direction of disclosing that undesirability? I think you made a good point about the difficulty of mixing suttanta method and abhidhamma method. I'm not sure, at this point, how to resolve that. It certainly makes for endless debate. Larry 21044 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Larry, I'm glad you responded to this. I've admired your posts. ----- Original Message ----- From: > You wrote in answer to the question: "What is it that doesn't exist in > the lute but does exist in the sound?" > > M: "As I understand it, the answer is 'sabhaava'--nature; condition; > disposition; reality. Sound refers to the paramattha dhamma that can be > cognized by hearing, while 'lute' refers to the concept assembled from > various other sense contacts, lacking sabhaava, cognizable by mind as a > mind object but incapable of supporting vipassanaa." > > L: I would say "lute" refers to the physical assembly we call lute. > Because this assembly is composed of disparate parts does that mean that > it is not real (as an assembly) and unconditioned? As I understand it, two different answers: In the abhidhamma method, yes--in the suttanta method, no. > I would say the word > "lute" and the meaning of the word "lute" are concepts and therefore > _possibly_ are not objects of vipassana. But the object the word "lute" > refers to is an object of vipassana because it is real. In my opinion, the object the word 'lute' refers to can be an object of conventional understanding but not of vipassanaa. This is mostly a borrowed opinion but I do find it convincing. > The same goes > for the word "sound". A sound rupa has a beginning, middle and end. If > we think of a sound as a group (or hear a sound as a group), does that > make it unreal? I'd say 'no', just because sound (in the abhihdhamma method) is a paramattha dhamma even though 'compounded' in the sense of having a middle, a beginning and an end. > The main difference I see between sound and lute is one > of simple and complex, although there is something about the parts of > sound or enchantment being all sound or all enchantment while none of > the parts of a lute are lute. How do you see this? I hope this doesn't sound like a cop-out, but I still think the answer differs according to method. In abhidhamma method, 'sound' might be said to be 'simple' (an instant of hearing consciousness) or 'complex' (a word or a chord, say)--the former a paramattha dhamma, the latter a concept. The metaphor in the sutta is, I think, about the absence of self in conditioned phenomena--a different matter, if correct. > Although somewhat outside the focus of this issue, we should also say in > the sutta both sound and lute are not self, not worth desiring. Agreed, in both methods, I think--although I THINK 'not worth desiring' is also outside the focus of the sutta. > Since > that is the main point, how does differentiating between concept and > reality lead in the direction of disclosing that undesirability? I think that 'differentiating between concept and reality lead(s) in the direction of disclosing that undesirability' only in the abhidhamma method or in the suttanta method informed by the abhidhamma method. > I think you made a good point about the difficulty of mixing suttanta > method and abhidhamma method. I'm not sure, at this point, how to > resolve that. It certainly makes for endless debate. I feel the same way, and I don't much like debate even when not endless. I hope that discussing these differences can help to resolve them and to understand both better. Thanks for the thoughtful response. mike 21045 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Selamat, Apa kabar? I teach Abhidhamma in Malaysia. My wife is Indonesian and we were married in Jakarta. I would be very interested in getting electronic copies of the texts that you have translated into Bahasa for her. if you have them available, please email them to me at rob.moult@j... . Terima kasih. Perhaps this analogy might help address the question for your discussion group. From a distance, a beach looks like a continuous band of white colour. When you change your perspective and move closer, you can see that the beach is made up of countless individual grains of sand. As you change your perspective again and move even closer, you can see that each grain of sand is itself unique. Even though you intellectually "know" that there are countless unique grains of sand, from a distance, the beach always appears continuous. "From a distance", our mind appears as continuous. When we learn the Abhidhamma, we "know" intellectually that there are countless cittas arising in progression. I have heard, from multiple teachers, that meditation can allow one to "change one's perspective" and "experience" individual cittas. I suspect that some on this list may also say that one can "change one's perspective" outside of a meditative experience. Hope this analogy helps. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "cbn" wrote: > Dear Nina, > anumodana you wrote letter to Mrs Sasmita. > > I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. > > Dear all, > Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in > our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could > differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after > some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were > always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this > phenomena. Greatly appreciate if you or all in this list could suggest me > how to give some reasonable answers. > Anumodana. > selamat 21046 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 6:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute (p.s.) p.s. I sent a draft of this missing a change or two: ----- Original Message ----- From: m. nease > > Although somewhat outside the focus of this issue, we should also say in > > the sutta both sound and lute are not self, not worth desiring. > > Agreed, in both methods, I think--although I THINK 'not worth desiring' is > also outside the focus of the sutta. I don't think this was correct--sorry. 'Not worth desiring' clearly is within the focus of the sutta. mike 21047 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 7:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Mike, Thanks for your well considered comments. I don't have any more to add at this point except maybe to ask you to spell out how differentiating between concept and reality leads to dispassion. Aren't you left with a bias toward "reality" (especially rupa)? Larry 21048 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 8:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Larry, ----- Original Message ----- From: > Thanks for your well considered comments. I don't have any more to add > at this point except maybe to ask you to spell out how differentiating > between concept and reality leads to dispassion. Good and fair question. I think that it's the nature of understanding to arise with dispassion. If this difference is as important as I think it is (that one can be the basis of vipassaana and the other can't), then it's an important piece of understanding. Conceptually, for me at least, it leads to dispassion because I see less profit in concept, the rarity of the arising of insight into paramattha dhamma and the impossibility of creating the latter by an act of will (as in Bhumijasutta). > Aren't you left with a > bias toward "reality" (especially rupa)? I'm not (if you meant me, personally). I'm habituated now to the idea that naama is just as real as ruupa. Clearly a preference for naama/ruupa vs. concept would be a matter of attachment, which is always a problem. However, I think vipassanaa can also arise with regard to attachment (since it's 'real'). Thanks again for the interesting discussion. Really great talking with you, Larry. mike 21049 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Thanks Mike, a good discussion. Larry 21050 From: Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Interesting metaphor my good friend Rob, comparing the sand granules to mind moments. I should probably point out that I am not an orthodox Theravadan, I am a contemplative in a somewhat Theravadan context. But, when I speak on some subject it is usually more informed by my personal experience than on scholarly research. So, while I am aware of the Theravadan tripitaka and its concept of mind moments, in which 'consciousness' seems to oscillate, I have to say I have not had that experience, but we may be again at that naughty question of an agreement on what is consciousness. To me when I use the word consciousness it is not sense dependent, as it often is in the translations of Pali texts that I have read. I think of consciousness as my awareness domain, which has deepened into alternate realities through many years of meditation practice. I would be more than happy to change my use of the term 'consciousness' to some other word, but I do think 'mind' is an unsuccessful translation of the word 'chita.' But, let me say, that I can only speak from experience, and as I meditate in the body I become increasingly aware of oscillations in all of the sense gates. Some have told me this is called anicca (another use for the Pali term for 'impermanence') So, yes, in the body these oscillations, I am quite sure, overlay this Theravadan concept of mind-moments quite nicely. And, I think the oscillations are no doubt due to the nature of the nervous system which functions based on the oscillations, computer-like, of the synapses (the individual cells) turning on and off as they function. But, in deep meditation, when the body awareness is left far behind, either in out-of-body experiences or during merger in infinite time-space-consciouseness, etc., there is no oscillation. In that domain consciousness always seems to be an uninterrupted continuity to me. There are no mind moments there, whether I have focused down to the infinitely small subatomic domain, or the infinitely large galactic and beyond level. So, yes, in my experience we can change the domain of our consciousness, but it never seems granular, unless as I have said, when the neurology is the domain of my awareness. I hope this helps, Jeff In a message dated 4/7/03 7:51:58 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi Selamat, Apa kabar? I teach Abhidhamma in Malaysia. My wife is Indonesian and we were married in Jakarta. I would be very interested in getting electronic copies of the texts that you have translated into Bahasa for her. if you have them available, please email them to me at rob.moult@j... . Terima kasih. Perhaps this analogy might help address the question for your discussion group. From a distance, a beach looks like a continuous band of white colour. When you change your perspective and move closer, you can see that the beach is made up of countless individual grains of sand. As you change your perspective again and move even closer, you can see that each grain of sand is itself unique. Even though you intellectually "know" that there are countless unique grains of sand, from a distance, the beach always appears continuous. "From a distance", our mind appears as continuous. When we learn the Abhidhamma, we "know" intellectually that there are countless cittas arising in progression. I have heard, from multiple teachers, that meditation can allow one to "change one's perspective" and "experience" individual cittas. I suspect that some on this list may also say that one can "change one's perspective" outside of a meditative experience. Hope this analogy helps. >> 21051 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hi Jeff (& Rob M in a p.s), Many thanks for introducing yourself and for telling us a little about your background. You may bump into James in AZ one day;-) Thank you also for the information about the resource guide and newsletter. You’ve certainly come to the right place for dialogue on Theravada Buddhism and you’ll find plenty of it on the ‘practice of vipassana’. Just watch out for the cults;-) ;-) Just joking - we’re all good friends here and different understandings in friendship make a healthy discussion group, I think. I’ll look forward to listening to some of your other thread discussions with Rob M and others. Metta, Sarah p.s We ask everyone on DSG to make it clear who they are addressing in the salutation as well as signing off as you do. (Rob M - I’ve been thinking of you and all your Asian travel at this time - hope you’re managing OK. We’ve now had to cancel the Bkk trip too, so perhaps we’ll all make it later:-)) ====================================== 21052 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 10:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > (Rob M - I've been thinking of you and all your Asian travel at this time > - hope you're managing OK. We've now had to cancel the Bkk trip too, so > perhaps we'll all make it later:-)) I'm grounded and it suits me fine! It means more time for family, less time for airplanes, hotels and DSG! Metta, Rob M :-) 21053 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 7, 2003 11:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > So, while I am aware of the Theravadan tripitaka and its > concept of mind moments, in which 'consciousness' seems to oscillate, I have > to say I have not had that experience, but we may be again at that naughty > question of an agreement on what is consciousness. ===== I have not personally experienced this either. The analogy of the beach came from a dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahm. A few months ago, I attended a course by Dr. Mehm Tin Mon (author of "Abhidhamma Ultimate Science" - now on the internet at: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhaultsci.pdf ). Dr. Mon spoke of many people experiending the granular nature of the mind during meditation. I agree with you that the term "consciousness" is dangerous. It carries with it many connotations (unconscious, subconscious, etc.). The Pali term citta has less baggage associated with it. My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure awareness": - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object) Do you agree with this definition? ===== > > To me when I use the word consciousness it is not sense dependent, as it > often is in the translations of Pali texts that I have read. ===== I'm not sure what you mean by "sense dependent"; in the Abhidhamma list of 121 different types of cittas, only 10 have a sense base (two seeing consciousness, two hearing consciousness, etc.). The remaining cittas have a mind-base. ===== > I think of > consciousness as my awareness domain, which has deepened into alternate > realities through many years of meditation practice. I would be more than > happy to change my use of the term 'consciousness' to some other word, but I > do think 'mind' is an unsuccessful translation of the word 'chita.' ===== According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for changing mind states. Does this make sense? ===== > > But, let me say, that I can only speak from experience, and as I meditate in > the body I become increasingly aware of oscillations in all of the sense > gates. Some have told me this is called anicca (another use for the Pali > term for 'impermanence') So, yes, in the body these oscillations, I am quite > sure, overlay this Theravadan concept of mind-moments quite nicely. And, I > think the oscillations are no doubt due to the nature of the nervous system > which functions based on the oscillations, computer-like, of the synapses > (the individual cells) turning on and off as they function. ===== I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== > > But, in deep meditation, when the body awareness is left far behind, either > in out-of-body experiences or during merger in infinite > time-space-consciouseness, etc., there is no oscillation. In that domain > consciousness always seems to be an uninterrupted continuity to me. There > are no mind moments there, whether I have focused down to the infinitely > small subatomic domain, or the infinitely large galactic and beyond level. ===== You speak of putting your focus on the subatomic and the galactic. Very interesting. Have you ever turned your focus onto the workings of the mind itself? The commentaries list the following for each "reality": - Characteristic: Main quality, essential property, specific or generic attribute - Function: Performance of a task, achievement of goal - Manifestation: How it presents itself in an experience, the effect it has - Proximate Cause: Conditions upon which it depends When defining "citta", the commentary states: - Characteristic: Knowing of an object - Function: Be the forerunner of mental factors (cetasikas); preside over and be accompanied by the mental factors; citta is the "leader" - Manifestation: Continuity of process (Jeff, perhaps this is what you are describing) - Proximate Cause: Mind and matter (namarupa); citta requires mind (cetasika) and matter (rupa) to exist ===== > So, yes, in my experience we can change the domain of our consciousness, but > it never seems granular, unless as I have said, when the neurology is the > domain of my awareness. > > I hope this helps, ===== Metta, Rob M :-) 21054 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] from babyhood to corpse, fearfully Dear Azita, --- azita gill wrote: > dear Sarah, > such good reminders, Sarah, and so relevant > for me at this moment. I am feeling very distressed > about my daughter, Zoe, who seems to be very unhappy > and also non-communicate about anything. > I am finding it quite difficult living with her. > When I read Rahula's letter on worry and fear, I > thought, yep, that's me, the only difference being I > know what's worrying me. I remember K. Sujin's words > about real life being the best test, and how true that > is. ..... Thx Azita. Just before you wrote I had commented to Jon that you’d gone quiet, so we were very glad to hear from you. I’m sorry to hear about your anxieties and about Zoe. (Perhaps she’s missing Abby, your other daughter or concerned about her in the M.East??) I was chatting a little while ago with Mike about whether any lobha (attachment), even attachment for dhamma or family, can ever be considered good. The conclusion was that attachment always brings suffering and of course, you know this. We’re bound to feel distressed when those we’re close to are affected, suffering or unhappy, but really the problem, I think, is attachment to ourselves. Last week when the SARS virus really seemed at its most out of control here, I was very aware of this. I was nervous and panicky like everyone else, but it was all out of attachment to MY stories, MY world, MY fears and worries about the future and MY lack of control. Understanding the problem to be the thinking about various stories, knowing that vipaka is just this moment of seeing or hearing as usual and seeing the problems are all self-created is immediately a condition for calm and even a smile for me. It doesn’t mean any less concern or help for those around one. On the contrary it means much more when one continues with one’s life showing a little equanimity and metta, smiling as usual and perhaps occasionally giving useful reminders to others. Worrying about others sick or dying in hospital or about people losing jobs and so on isn't going to help anyone. It’s funny, after I wrote and said I knew K.Sujin would just say “anything can happen’, I called her briefly to cancel our trip and that was exactly what she said. I laughed and told her. I think as Christine said, a lot of people have been feeling a lot of background anxiety with regard to the War and now these health and economic concerns. Chris mentioned that we might not know the cause, but I think that often we think the cause is the War or the SARS or some other ‘situation’ when in truth the cause is the accumulated attachment to having life run as we’d like it to. ..... > There are many good reminders here in this group > and how I appreciate them at this time especially. > Mostly, I keep my personal life to myself, but this > situation is causing me some anxiety and like Rahula, > I look to this group for support - in a Dhamma sense. ..... I feel the same. Last week when I was nervy, it helped me to read and write some dhamma a lot and sometimes by sharing our difficulties it can help others who are also experiencing troubles. I appreciated Rahula’s sincere post and the very kind and helpful answers from RobK, Mike, Chris and others too. Like Mike explained, I think, the trouble doesn’t last - one moment happiness, one moment unhappiness. ..... > There are many other 'conventional' helpers out in the > community, but what I look for here are the reminders > about the only Truth - the Dhamma. I wish I could > teach the Buddha's truth to Zoe but she is totally > uninterested, seemingly in most things. ..... Not the right time perhaps. Like Mike said and quoted from AN, it should be the right time and right way for the person. Perhaps old friends at Maleny might help her? Perhaps you can encourage her to email to Abby more. ..... > When our loved ones are unhappy we generally are > affected. At moments of interaction with her, there > is no sense of 'no-one', or of anything kusala!!!! ..... I think this is very natural and there shouldn’t be any expectation to feeling any otherway. Still, knowing what the problem is and understanding the difference between kusala and akusala can help a lot. Don’t be too tough (in terms of expectations) on yourself. We are all beginners on the path;-) Metta and best wishes, Sarah p.s Is there any chance of helping Zoe to express her thoughts and feelings and doubts about Buddhism and life on the list, like the Starkids? She must have a lot of background knowledge, having been brought up by a group of Buddhists. 21055 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 0:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > > I'm grounded and it suits me fine! It means more time for family, > less time for airplanes, hotels and DSG! > ..... I think that's the best way to be right now (i.e. grounded) in this region. (Btw, if you do fly, I think the back seats in the section are the safest in terms of not catching the virus). I hope this was meant to mean MORE time for DSG, otherwise we'll all be urging you to fly again;-) Seriously, I'm glad you're having some catch-up time with your family and we'll keep you posted when we plan another trip to Bkk. Metta, Sarah ======= 21056 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > The Buddha repeated this phrase very often in that sutta: "And as he > remains thus heedful, ardent, & resolute, any memories & resolves > related to the household life are abandoned, and with their abandoning > his mind gathers & settles inwardly, grows unified & centered.". > > To my understanding, this sutta describes the development of right > mindfulness culminating in right concentration. ..... The sutta and these phrases are very similar to those in the Satipatthana Sutta. The commentary discussed in detail about the meaning of aataapi (ardent), sampajaano(clearly comprehending) and satima (mindful). It also discussed in a similar section that it referred to the abandoning of covetousness and grief in the 5 khandhas. “Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world”. I understand the eightfold path factors to develop together. Just as in the Satipatthana Sutta, when sati is mentioned, it also implies right understand, effort, concentration and so on, so too here, all factors are developed. ..... > At the end of the sutta, the Buddha said: "Monks, for one in whom > mindfulness immersed in the body is cultivated, developed, pursued, > handed the reins and taken as a basis, given a grounding, steadied, > consolidated, & well-undertaken, ten benefits can be expected. Which > ten?". ..... So we have to know what mindfulness of the body (kaayagataasati) means. Whether here or in other suttas such as the one addressing Rahula, the Greater Elephant’s Footprint, Sariputta’s Lion’s Roar in AN or others, I understand it to refer to the awareness of rupas and the understanding that what is taken for body are merely a conglomeration of elements. It mentions in this sutta in MN that you quoted (119) about the benefits of conquering ‘discontent and delight’ and ‘fear and dread’ which relate to my post to Azita. Instead of being fearful to develop more understanding and be aware that ‘computer’ and ‘Nina’ or ‘Zoe’ are elements experienced as visbile object, sound, hardness and so on, it is actually the tonic to remove fear and susceptibility to discontent and delight. ..... > "[10] Through the ending of the mental effluents, he remains in the > effluent-free awareness-release & discernment-release, having known > and made them manifest for himself right in the here & now." > > Relating to the ending of the mental effluents, the Buddha said in > Anguttara Nikaya IV.41: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-041.html > > "And what is the development of concentration that, when developed & > pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents? There is the case where > a monk remains focused on arising & falling away with reference to the > five clinging-aggregates: 'Such is form, such its origination, such > its passing away. Such is feeling, such its origination, such its > passing away. Such is perception, such its origination, such its > passing away. Such are fabrications, such their origination, such > their passing away. Such is consciousness, such its origination, such > its disappearance.' This is the development of concentration that, > when developed & pursued, leads to the ending of the effluents. > > When right concentration cultivated through right mindfulness is used > to investigate the arising and falling away of the five > clinging-aggregates, it leads to the ending of the mental effluents. ..... I think that when we understand that the fivefold or eightfold factors have to arise together and that right understanding is the ‘forerunner’, we know that when concentration is being referred to as it is here, it implies all the other factors too. Focussing here means ‘clearly comprehending’ or understanding and being aware. When there is a moment of understanding, there is right concentration and calm at that moment, regardless of any conventional concentration or not. We see that all 5 khandhas are referrred to and have to be understood. ..... > I don't understand what you mean. I don't select, as far as I know. ..... Like RobertK mentioned in his post to Selamat, the subtle clinging creeps in all the time, wishing to have kusala, to focus on an object, to know the rupas or elements or to concentrate on a particular object. ..... > > Isn't it motivated by desire that makes one wish to discern particular > > mind states in this way? What about just understanding what is > conditioned > > now for just a moment without any wishing to know any particular > state or > > wishing to be able to discern in this way. > > I don't think I made any wishes at all. I am aware of the my own mind > states most of the time. ..... When there is a concentration on movements or volitions in order to understand impermanence or anatta I believe it is motivated by wishing. Conventionally speaking, we may say we are mostly aware of our mind states (though I probably wouldn’t;-)), but in terms of satipatthana and these particular dhammas,the cetasikas (mental factors), there is very little awareness. ..... Sarah:>> Where does the Buddha suggest > just > > focussing on cetana (volition)? > SB> I don't think I said anything to that effect. If I did, then I > apologize to you. No, all the five aggregates have to be comprehended. > I do discern the arising and falling away of the rest of the > aggregates. But I think focusing on volition makes a stronger impact > for me. Some people may like to focus on feelings for stronger impact. > For example, Christine. Some people may like to focus on form for > stronger impact. For example, the Buddha's son, Rahula. ..... We agree about ‘all the five aggregates....’. I believe there are different kinds or levels of discerning the arising and falling away of the aggregates. For example, there is thinking about them now or the kind of knowledge that anyone has about the change of feelings and so on. The understanding of impermanence that we read about in the texts (as in the one you quoted above) depends on a very clear understanding and awareness first of different namas and rupas without any selection or preference or idea of focussing or concentrating on them by ‘me’ or anything else, I believe. It’s one thing for the Buddha to give helpful reminders at a given time about particular realities to someone like Rahula who can appreciate them and it’s another thing for us to have the idea that by concentrating on rupas or feelings that this is the way for insight to develop. ..... > Some people say the crux of the crux of the Buddha's Teachings is to > differentiate the distinction between concept and reality. Is there > any sutta that supports this? ..... The quote was from Sukin’s post (not to be confused with Sujin;-)). I think RobertK has answered this part of your post. Remember all the suttas in SN on this subject such as in Salyatana -Vagga,ch1V, par84, Transitory: ‘ “The World! the World” is the saying, lord. Pray how far, lord, does this saying go?” “What is transitory by nature, Ananda, is called “the world” in the ariyan sense. And wht, Ananda , is transitory by nature? the eye, Ananda, is transitory by nature...objects...tongue...mind is transitory by nature, mind-states, mind-consciousness, mind-contact, whatsoever pleasant feeling, unpleasant feeling or indifferent feeling which arises owing to mind-contact, that also is transitory by nature. What is thus transitory, Ananda, is called “the world” in the ariyan sense.’ ***** On a similar reference to ‘this world’ in the Satipatthana Sutta, Nina translated from the commentary and added a note: Nina: “Way 25: <"In this world." In just this body. Here the body [kaya] is the world[loka], in the sense of a thing crumbling.As covetousness and grief are abandoned in feeling, consciousness, and mental objects, too, the Vibhanga says: "Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world."> N:It crumbles away: lujjanapalujjana,t.thena, in the sense of crumbling away. Remember Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, §82: The world. It crumbles away. What crumbles away: the eye... objects... eye-consciousness... Very meaningful: when the whole is taken apart by pa~n~naa, dissolved into elements, realities can be seen as they are. Lujjati and loko are associated in meaning. We can begin now: whatever appears can be object of awareness. That is satipatthana.” ***** I hope that what I’ve written isn’t too disturbing, Swee Boon. It’s not my intention. As James says, we just can do our best according to our present understanding and appreciate the opportunities for testing out of equanimity regardless of the praise or blame we all hear;-) Actually, we can see why they are called ‘worldly’ conditions. What is taken for the world or wordly in this case are merely sounds and visible objects on account of which there are stories about kind or harsh words, heavenly or horrible views;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 21057 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/7/03 6:43:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I hadn't considered what is *really* delighted in. Could you expand your > reply. The sutta says the sound is delighted in. Are you saying the > melody is a noncompounded concept? What is your view on what is negated, > what doesn't exist? Also, do you see any difference between sound and > lute (are they both real or not)? What is the lute? > > Larry > ------------------ > Howard wrote: The "sound" that is a complex is actually not a sound; it > is rupa-based, but is not rupa. The so-called lute-sound that is > delighted in is actually not a sound, and while certainly conditioned is > not a complex. What it is actually is a lute-melody, which is something > constructed by the mind from the detection of a pattern among a > multitude of sequential lute-sounds, and it is that rupa-based but > mind-only lute-melody which is what is found delightful. > > > ============================== I'm glad you questioned this. The second sentence that I wrote is incorrect and misleading. What I should have said was the following: "The so-called lute-sound that is delighted in is actually not a sound, and each actual lute sound, while certainly conditioned, is not a complex." What I missed writing was "each actual lute sound". To clarify my entire statement: As a lute is played (warning: conventional expresion! ;-), there is produced a multitude of lute sounds, each heard by the listener and not delighted in. Each momentary sound heard is a paramattha dhamma, conditioned but not, itself, a complex. (Of course, when we "hear" such a sound, when we perceive it, sa~n~na is already operative, separating out (and wordlessly identifying) that specific sound element from the entire content of hearing at that moment (which might include speech sounds, wind sounds, car sounds etc, etc.) The "lute sound" that is delighted in, however, is a mental construct, actually the lute melody or lute music, a mind-made complex that *is* compounded from the the heard sequence of actual lute sounds, reflecting a discerned pattern among those sounds. It is this mental construct, the lute melody/music, a well grounded pa~n~natti (is that the singular?) like the tree I now see in the garden, that we delight in. We can imagine ourselves back in ancient India, sitting on the balcony of the king's palace on a full-moon night. There is a stillness all about, and then we hear this lovely sound, this enchanting sound, and we ask what it is, we are told it is the sound of the Royal Musician's lute. What was it we found so delightful? Not a moment of hearing. By the time that we discerned "this lovely sound, this enchanting sound," a multitude of sounds had passed, and our mind had constructed from them what we took to be a single thing. As far as what the lute is, that is another pa~n~natti, either a specific one built of specific sight percepts and touch percepts and possibly sound percepts as well, and an instance of the general concept of 'the musical instrument called a lute', or an inferred one. (Of course, in these modern times, there might be no lute at all, but only a compact disc that recorded synthesized lute music! ;-)) 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) 21058 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] equanimity Chris Welcome to the list from me. I meant to reply to your post sooner, but have not been able to do so until now. --- christhedis wrote: > Is it a good idea to train oneself to be equanimous in all > situations > (vipassana meditation)? Doesn't this take the 'spice' out of life? > If a person transcends all worldly attachments, then what is > beyond? You define vipassana meditation as 'training oneself to be equanimous in all situations'. I think by this you mean, not reacting with attachment or aversion, but being unmoved by what goes on around. In other words, having wholesome mental states instead of unwholesome ones. I hope I have understood you correctly. Wholesome mental states are of course always to be encouraged. To my understanding, however, vipassana means something a little different than this. It means insight into the true nature of the presently appearing dhammas (basic phenomena). For this purpose it is not important whether the present mind-state is wholesome or unwholesome, since either can be the object of insight/understanding. What matters is that a presently arising dhamma is directly experienced by a moment of consciousness accompanied by insight/wisdom. Even moments of attachment accompanied by strong pleasant feeling can be the object of insight. You may wonder what this insight into the true nature of things has to do with overcoming unwholesomeness, which as we all know is one of the outcomes of enlightenment. The connection is that it is ignorance that the Buddha identified as being the root of all unwholesomeness, and only by developing insight can this root cause be permanently eradicated. Chris, I hope this makes sense. I know no-one likes hearing anything that questions their understanding. But look at it on the bright side: at least this way there's no danger of all the spice suddenly going out of your life ;-)) Jon 21059 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor In my previous post I agreed that it would be correct as a matter of everyday speech to say that a computer is impermanent. Does it follow that, as a matter of everyday speech, it would also be correct to say that computer was therefore dukkha/unsatisfactory? I'm not sure. This does not seem to be an everyday use of 'unsatisfactory'. However, as before, I'm sure many 'thinking' people would agree with the underlying sentiment, namely that something that is impermanent cannot be a refuge in any meaningful sense of the word. So perhaps I can give a qualified 'yes' to your question above. But again, the important question, to my mind, is what the Buddha meant when he talked about impermanence. I would be surprised if you could find in the suttas many (or any) instances of the Buddha asking whether what is impermanent is dukkha/unsatisfactory or easeful, where the subject-matter is conventional objects (such as the then equivalent of computer). Most (or all) of these references are found in the context of conditioned phenomena, I believe (I regard references to the eye etc as being references to the rupa that is eyebase etc.). Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > If you do see that computer is fabricated, impermanent, does not > last forever, breaks down, disintegrates eventually, > > then let me ask this: > Is what is impermanent dukkha/unsatisfactory or easeful? > > Regards, > Victor 21060 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha KKT --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: Could you tell me > what is the meaning > you give to this phrase > << Each of the 5 aggregates has > the characteristic of 'no-self' >> Anicca/dukkha/anatta are the 3 characteristics (Pali: lakkhana) that are common to all conditioned phenomena. This I understand to mean that they are attributes of conditioned phenomena. That is to say, they are not qualities to be contemplated in the abstract, nor are they something that we are supposed to 'see' in everything -- both of these are I would consider to be a kind of 'thinking about' anicca/dukkha/anatta, not the direct experience of anicca/dukkha/anatta as an aspect of conditioned phenomena. As I see it, the knowledge or understanding of the 3 characteristics can only be developed by developing insight into different conditioned phenomena. As insight is developed and conditioned phenomena are seen more truly as they really are, the 3 characteristics become more and more apparent as attributes of those conditioned phenomena. Does this answer your question? I haven't said anything about the 5 aggregates, but I don't think that was the focus of your question (let me know if otherwise). Jon 21061 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Sarah, > Conventionally speaking, we may say we are mostly aware of our mind > states (though I probably wouldn't;-)), but in terms of satipatthana > and these particular dhammas,the cetasikas (mental factors), there > is very little awareness. The above statement says it all. You lack the concentration needed to be aware of these dhammas. Sporadic mindfulness is one thing. Concentrated mindfulness is another thing. "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is . When his mindfulness is , then mindfulness ***as a factor for Awakening*** becomes aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its development. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn54-013.html Regarding concepts and ultimate realities, this sutta appears to blur the distinction between them in that both concepts and ultimate realities can be "insighted", to borrow a word from Robert. "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I am.' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21062 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 8:51am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hello Victor, > The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. > > Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a > personality view. This matter has not been comprehended by you. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21063 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Swee Boon and Victor - In a message dated 4/8/03 11:56:49 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hello Victor, > > >The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. > > > >Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a > >personality view. > > This matter has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > ========================== Now you guys are starting to sound like each other! ;-)) Sorry, I just couldn't resist! ;-)) With good-humored 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) 21064 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 10:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > KKT: Could you tell me > what is the meaning > you give to this phrase > << Each of the 5 aggregates has > the characteristic of 'no-self' >> Anicca/dukkha/anatta are the 3 characteristics (Pali: lakkhana) that are common to all conditioned phenomena. This I understand to mean that they are attributes of conditioned phenomena. That is to say, they are not qualities to be contemplated in the abstract, nor are they something that we are supposed to 'see' in everything -- both of these are I would consider to be a kind of 'thinking about' anicca/dukkha/anatta, not the direct experience of anicca/dukkha/anatta as an aspect of conditioned phenomena. As I see it, the knowledge or understanding of the 3 characteristics can only be developed by developing insight into different conditioned phenomena. As insight is developed and conditioned phenomena are seen more truly as they really are, the 3 characteristics become more and more apparent as attributes of those conditioned phenomena. Does this answer your question? I haven't said anything about the 5 aggregates, but I don't think that was the focus of your question (let me know if otherwise). Jon KKT: It's my fault for not being very clear with my question. I try another approach. Take the famous phrase: Sabbe dhamma anatta (All dhammas are no-self) Atta is usually understood as self/soul. Therefore if we say: a human being/person is anatta (no self/soul) then this phrase is understandable. But if we say: a table is anatta. Does it make sense? How do you understand this phrase? Metta, KKT 21065 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 10:42am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, What matter are you referring to? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hello Victor, > > > The statement "self is not self" is a contradiction. > > > > Seeing self as an ultimate reality that arises and falls away is a > > personality view. > > This matter has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21066 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 10:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, Perhaps a new personality cult is forming in DSG??? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon and Victor - > [snip] > > Now you guys are starting to sound like each other! ;-)) Sorry, I just > couldn't resist! ;-)) > > With good-humored metta, > Howard 21067 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/8/03 1:51:29 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Perhaps a new personality cult is forming in DSG??? > > Regards, > Victor > > ========================= LOL!! ;-)) 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) 21068 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 3:52pm Subject: Way 73, Clear Comprehension 7, cont. Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 7. Clear comprehension of walking and so forth...cont. The non-occurrence of processes which make action or are made of action is sleep; the occurrence, waking. [Tika] Action is doing, function of body and so forth (i.e., bodily expression or verbal expression, kayaviññatti va vaciviññatti). The processes which make action produce the function of bodily expression or the function of verbal expression. Or action is the double function of adverting. The things made of or produced from that action or double function are processes made of action. For by way of adverting, when there is the stoppage of the life-continum, courses of cognition arise [karanam kriya kayadikiccam. Tam nibbattentiti kriyamayani. Athava avajjanadvayakiccam kriya; taya pakatani, nibbattani va kriyamayani. Avajjanavasenahi bhavangupaccede sati vithicittani uppajjanti]. [T] Processes are things which go on, move changing, by arising gradually in different ways. Somewhere there is the reading "of mental states", "of action-making mental states, kriyamaya cittanam." It should be understood that this is not a reading of the Ancients as it is against the commentary and explanation to the Abhidhamma and other books [aparaparuppattiya nanappakarato vattanti parivattantiti pavattani. Katthaci pana cittananti patho. So Abhidhammatthakathadihi tattikahi ca viruddhatta na Parana pathoti veditabbo]. [T] Impulsion of either course of cognition (mind-door or five-door course of cognition) is a process made of action. Therefore it is said in the explanation to the Abhiddhamma, "On account of the condition of processes making action of body and so forth and by reason of the condition of originating action of adverting, impulsion of either course of cognition, or lust of every process of the six doors gets known as a process which makes or is made of action." [javanam sabbampi va chaddvarika vithi cittam kriyamaya pavattani. Tenaha Abhidhammatikayam kayadi kriyamayatta avajjamakriya samutthitatta ca javanam sabbampi va chaddvarapavattam kriyamayapavattam namati].[25] [T] Non-occurrence: Non-arising (of the processes which make action or are made of action) at the time of falling asleep is called sleep. Thus the thing should be understood. Otherwise sleep could be called the proceeding of even all states of door-free consciousness (namely, every instance of the supervention of the life-continum), before and after the six-door states of consciousness; so, it should be understood that the supervention of the life-continum at a time other than that of falling asleep is included in waking [appavattanti niddokkamana kale anuppajjanam suttam namati attho gahetabbo. Itaratha chaddvarika cittanam pure caranucaravasena uppajjantanam sabbesampi dvaravimutta cittanam pavattam suttam nama siya, evañca katva niddokkamana kalato aññasmim kale uppajjantanam dvaravimutta cittanampi pavattam jagarito sangayhatiti veditabbam]. He who whilst speaking thinks: "This sound arises dependent on the lips, teeth, tongue, palate, and the act of the mind that accords to that sound," speaks, mindful and clearly comprehending. He who for a long time has studied or expounded the Teaching or recited the words of the subject of meditation, or cleared a question, and later, on becoming silent, thinks: "The bodily and mental things which arose during the time of speaking ended just then," is called a doer of clear comprehension in speaking. He who, after remaining silent long considering the Teaching or his subject of meditation, thinks that the bodily and mental things that existed in the time of silence ended just then, that the occurrence of derived material qualities is speech, and that the non-occurrence of these is silence, is called a doer of clear comprehension in keeping silence. This dominance of non-delusion stated by the Elder Maha Siva is intended here in this Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness. But in the Discourse on the Fruit of the Homeless Life (Samañña phala Sutta) even the entire fourfold clear comprehension is found. Therefore in a special way, here, only by way of clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood the state of doing clear comprehension. [T] The occurrence of the sound-base is speech; its non-occurrence is silence [saddayatanassa pavattanam bhasanam appavattanam tunhi]. [T] Since, indeed, in the exposition of the Elder Maha Siva the state of clear comprehension is considered by way of the vision of the ending then and there of material and mental qualities occurring in posture after posture, without a break, the state of clear comprehension should be known by way of the insight portion of the clear comprehension of non-delusion come down in the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness; not by way of the detailing of the fourfold clear comprehension. Therefore, only, in the Discourse on the Fruit of the Homeless Life (Samaññaphala Sutta) is that fourfold clear comprehension intended. [T] The dominance of non-delusion refers to the statement to which non-delusion is the dominant or principal thing. This statement of the Elder Maha Siva contains the reason that is found only in the Satipatthana Sutta in this connection, namely, clear comprehension of non-delusion, by way of the insight portion or turn; and not the detailing of fourfold clear comprehension as given in the Samaññaphala Sutta. 25. "Waking -- the state of being awake; there, when there is non-occurrence of the process which makes or is made of action, what is called waking does not exist; the bhikkhu laying hold (of the matter), thinking, 'waking comes to be when a trace of the process which makes or is made of action occurs' is called a doer of clear comprehension [jagarite ti jagarane. Tattha kriyamayapavattassa appavattiya sati jagaritam nama na hoti. Kriyamayapavattavalañje pavattante jagaritam nama hotiti parigganhanto bhikkhu jagarite sampajanakari nama hoti]. Sammoha Vinodani, Jhana Vibhanga, p. 364 P.T.S. Ed. 21069 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 4:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, Are you saying the object of the root cittas (like, dislike, bewilderment) is always only a concept? I wonder about your saying sound is not a compound. Does that go for all paramatta dhammas? Do you consider all compounds to be concepts? I guess this would jive with the linear pointilism of citta process, not sure. In your view is concept the only possible object of satipatthana? Larry 21070 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/8/03 7:29:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Are you saying the object of the root cittas (like, dislike, > bewilderment) is always only a concept? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I was saying that the individual sounds, as ear-door objects, are not found to be pleasant, and certainly not delightful (i.e., very pleasant), but that music/melody, which is apprehended through the mind-door, may be. ------------------------------------------------- > > I wonder about your saying sound is not a compound. Does that go for all > paramatta dhammas? Do you consider all compounds to be concepts? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The word I used was 'complex' rather than 'compound', because sometimes the English word 'compounded' is given as the translation of 'sankhata', meaning "conditioned," and I wanted to avoid that. Yes, every complex is concept-only: A complex is a collection, and it is the mind that does the collecting; so, yes, every complex is (an instance of) a concept. The keyboard key with the letter 't' that I tapped a moment ago is pa~n~natti, it is a mental construct and no more, though a well grounded one based on a multitude of phenomena that were directly apprehended and not conceptually constructed. Think about the chariot described in the Milindapanha: it has no core, no self-identity, no own-being, because it is concept-only, and that is shown by showing that it is a complex. The chariot, per se, is nowhere to be found. -------------------------------------------------------- I guess> > this would jive with the linear pointilism of citta process, not sure. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not sure either. I think it is compatible with it, but I'm not at all sure it requires it. -------------------------------------------------------- > > In your view is concept the only possible object of satipatthana? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Just the opposite! At the early stages of insight practice one attend to conventional objects, but when true insight practice is underway, when the process is really "on a roll", it is paramattha dhammas that are examined with increasing mindfulness and growth of wisdom. That's my understanding. ------------------------------------------------------ > > 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) 21071 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 7:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, I'm getting confused when you shift from "sound" to "music". By music I thought you meant a group of sounds (a concept according to you). But you don't want to say the object of delight could only be a concept (group). If the object of delight cannot be a single sound rupa, what is it? If the object of delight can only be a group, the object of wisdom (panna) can only be a group because delight and wisdom are both root cittas. Larry -------------------- Howard wrote: I was saying that the individual sounds, as ear-door objects, are not found to be pleasant, and certainly not delightful (i.e., very pleasant), but that music/melody, which is apprehended through the mind-door, may be. 21072 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] equanimity My good friends, Jon's response is quite excellent, but I thought I would just add one small point with respect to the question of whether one would lose "the spice of life" upon arriving at equanimity. When one strips away the layers of the self, through excellent and deep meditation, to reveal the underlying equanimity, then one would have also arrived at the 5th jhana as well. The jhanas, as you may know, are ecstatic absorption states. The consequence then of either causing equanimity to arise (in the common language), or stripping the layers of the self away (or as in the tripitaka purification) to expose the underlying natural state of equanimity, then one arrives at jhana. Therefore instead of losing the "spice of life" you gain ecstasy. Best regards, Jeff In a message dated 4/8/03 7:18:31 AM, jonoabb@y... writes: << Chris Welcome to the list from me. I meant to reply to your post sooner, but have not been able to do so until now. --- christhedis wrote: > Is it a good idea to train oneself to be equanimous in all > situations > (vipassana meditation)? Doesn't this take the 'spice' out of life? > If a person transcends all worldly attachments, then what is > beyond? You define vipassana meditation as 'training oneself to be equanimous in all situations'. I think by this you mean, not reacting with attachment or aversion, but being unmoved by what goes on around. In other words, having wholesome mental states instead of unwholesome ones. I hope I have understood you correctly. Wholesome mental states are of course always to be encouraged. To my understanding, however, vipassana means something a little different than this. It means insight into the true nature of the presently appearing dhammas (basic phenomena). For this purpose it is not important whether the present mind-state is wholesome or unwholesome, since either can be the object of insight/understanding. What matters is that a presently arising dhamma is directly experienced by a moment of consciousness accompanied by insight/wisdom. Even moments of attachment accompanied by strong pleasant feeling can be the object of insight. You may wonder what this insight into the true nature of things has to do with overcoming unwholesomeness, which as we all know is one of the outcomes of enlightenment. The connection is that it is ignorance that the Buddha identified as being the root of all unwholesomeness, and only by developing insight can this root cause be permanently eradicated. Chris, I hope this makes sense. I know no-one likes hearing anything that questions their understanding. But look at it on the bright side: at least this way there's no danger of all the spice suddenly going out of your life ;-)) Jon >> 21073 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group My good friend Rob, my answers to your comments are as follows In a message dated 4/7/03 11:30:03 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: ===== I have not personally experienced this either. The analogy of the beach came from a dhamma talk by Ajahn Brahm. A few months ago, I attended a course by Dr. Mehm Tin Mon (author of "Abhidhamma Ultimate Science" - now on the internet at: http://www.buddhanet.net/pdf_file/abhidhaultsci.pdf ). Dr. Mon spoke of many people experiending the granular nature of the mind during meditation. I agree with you that the term "consciousness" is dangerous. It carries with it many connotations (unconscious, subconscious, etc.). The Pali term citta has less baggage associated with it. My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure awareness": - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object) Do you agree with this definition? ===== Well, I guess I would have to correct my typo from my earlier message to say I don't really like the use of the word 'mind' to translate 'Citta.' Just as you used the word 'aware' in each of your definitions of 'Citta,' I think 'consciousness,' which is perhaps our domain of awareness, is better than 'mind,' which to my use of the word as I said before, links it more to the cognitive processes of the brain. Consequently, when consciousness is in the body, its experience of the sense domain can definitely be granular, because the nerve synapses oscillate, but once out of the body, there is no nervous system as an intermediary between domain and consciousness. ===== I'm not sure what you mean by "sense dependent"; in the Abhidhamma list of 121 different types of cittas, only 10 have a sense base (two seeing consciousness, two hearing consciousness, etc.). The remaining cittas have a mind-base. ===== Very good, and you are quite right, and you no doubt are far more familiar with the Abhidhamma than I am. But, remember the idea in the tripitaka of eye consciousness, ear consciousness, etc. My point is, is English really that stupid that it can't articulate the domain of awareness, or are we depending on someone's unskillful translation? I personally don't buy that English is incapable of articulating the world of gnosis. And, I think if we are going to give rise to a truly Western Buddhism, we better figure out how to articulate it in English. I am sure Pali, like every language, has its faults and its debates of interpretation as well. ===== According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for changing mind states. Does this make sense? ===== No, I disagree. Unless you are coming up with another definition for awareness than what most of us native speakers of English use. I believe the whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on the idea of psychophysiological states (I believe poorly translated by Nanamoli as 'Mental Materiality') overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Our job, as yogis, is to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and relinquish are grasp on them. Re (in brief), the 4 noble truth "Suffering exists...the cause of suffering is grasping and aversion" I would agree with you in part regarding, "Citta does not deepen, its characteristic is always the same." If we look at consciousness as a continuity in the same sense that the meaning of 'citta' is intended to be. Meaning that the domain of the unconscious is still consciousness, it is just below ones awareness domain. Consequently we could fairly effectively use 'consciousness' as a translation for 'citta.' But I used 'deepen' in the sense of extending one's awareness domain into subconscious domains, in the same sense as we say the sun rises, when we know the Earth rotates and gives us the illusion that the sun rises ever 24 hours. I will accept that consciousness is a continuity. ===== I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== Why not? Is Buddhism such a unique phenomena that it, and only it, can describe gnosis? Or, is gnosis something that has been around as long has human beings have been on the planet? Or, has Buddhism just come up with a pretty good description of it? Is the Western Vehicle going to be a clone of Theravadan Buddhism? Or, are we going to figure out how to articulate the path of purification in our own native language, and use our Western science in part to articulate it? Are Buddhists someday going to be at odds with Western science as orthodox Christianity is today? I believe if Buddhism is going to succeed effectively in the West, and become a truly Western Vehicle, then we are going to have to articulate Western Buddhism in English and include science in our exegesis. ===== You speak of putting your focus on the subatomic and the galactic. Very interesting. Have you ever turned your focus onto the workings of the mind itself? The commentaries list the following for each "reality": - Characteristic: Main quality, essential property, specific or generic attribute - Function: Performance of a task, achievement of goal - Manifestation: How it presents itself in an experience, the effect it has - Proximate Cause: Conditions upon which it depends When defining "citta", the commentary states: - Characteristic: Knowing of an object - Function: Be the forerunner of mental factors (cetasikas); preside over and be accompanied by the mental factors; citta is the "leader" - Manifestation: Continuity of process (Jeff, perhaps this is what you are describing) - Proximate Cause: Mind and matter (namarupa); citta requires mind (cetasika) and matter (rupa) to exist ===== Well, my good friend I could ask you whether you take your nose out of the tripitaka and warm a pillow. But I assume you do so, just as I believe you should assume that my description comes from someone who has applied the method of self discovery on every level possible, and I have found that my experience doesn't always match up to the tripitaka, unless I question the use of words chosen by the translators. Are you willing to ask who decided what words from our language were chosen? Was, whoever decide that 'mind' = 'citta:' a native speaker of Pali; a native speaker of English; and Enlightened? That would be a pretty hard combination to accomplish, don't you think? Thank-you for the thought provoking discussion. I have learned a great deal. Jeff 21074 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Interesting ideas Mike, but don't name (nama) and form (rupa) go together as intimately as the hand in the glove? And, isn't name and form (nama rupa) the basis of the illusion (marra/maya) of duality (ducca), and therefore the foundation of a sense of self? If one grasps at the appearance of things (rupa), is not one also forming concepts (nama) of things? And, how can insight (vipassana) be revealed in a mind that is grasping at the appearance of things (rupa), and forming labels (nama) for its subjective reality? I believe it is self evident that insight emerges when there is no grasping at either name or form (nama rupa), the perception of sensory experience. It has been my experience that equanimity, neither grasping nor averting at sensory experience, is the necessary preexisting condition for insight to be revealed. What a lively and thought provoking group this sangha is. Jeff Brooks president, UofA Meditation Club editor, Southwest Insight E'letter In a message dated 4/7/03 8:15:44 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << > Thanks for your well considered comments. I don't have any more to add > at this point except maybe to ask you to spell out how differentiating > between concept and reality leads to dispassion. Good and fair question. I think that it's the nature of understanding to arise with dispassion. If this difference is as important as I think it is (that one can be the basis of vipassaana and the other can't), then it's an important piece of understanding. Conceptually, for me at least, it leads to dispassion because I see less profit in concept, the rarity of the arising of insight into paramattha dhamma and the impossibility of creating the latter by an act of will (as in Bhumijasutta). > Aren't you left with a > bias toward "reality" (especially rupa)? I'm not (if you meant me, personally). I'm habituated now to the idea that naama is just as real as ruupa. Clearly a preference for naama/ruupa vs. concept would be a matter of attachment, which is always a problem. However, I think vipassanaa can also arise with regard to attachment (since it's 'real'). Thanks again for the interesting discussion. Really great talking with you, Larry. mike >> 21075 From: Date: Tue Apr 8, 2003 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup Thank-you for your warm welcome, and I do indeed look forward to lively discussion of dharma. And, I am very happy to see that more than one cult;-) ;-) is represented. It makes for a healthy dialog. Best, to all, and I hope to meet "James in AZ" soon. What city? Ever come to Tucson? Come and sit with us sometime noon-1 M-F 9-10 AM Sat. & Sun. Jeff In a message dated 4/7/03 10:03:02 PM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << Hi Jeff (& Rob M in a p.s), Many thanks for introducing yourself and for telling us a little about your background. You may bump into James in AZ one day;-) Thank you also for the information about the resource guide and newsletter. You’ve certainly come to the right place for dialogue on Theravada Buddhism and you’ll find plenty of it on the ‘practice of vipassana’. Just watch out for the cults;-) ;-) Just joking - we’re all good friends here and different understandings in friendship make a healthy discussion group, I think. I’ll look forward to listening to some of your other thread discussions with Rob M and others. Metta, Sarah p.s We ask everyone on DSG to make it clear who they are addressing in the salutation as well as signing off as you do. (Rob M - I’ve been thinking of you and all your Asian travel at this time - hope you’re managing OK. We’ve now had to cancel the Bkk trip too, so perhaps we’ll all make it later:-)) >> 21076 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor,Howard & Swee Boon, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Perhaps a new personality cult is forming in DSG??? ..... > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Swee Boon and Victor - > > > [snip] > > > > Now you guys are starting to sound like each other! ;-)) > Sorry, I just > > couldn't resist! ;-)) ..... I also had a good laugh - glad to see there's more than one cult too;-) Btw, Victor's comment that started off the laugh, i.e ' "self is not self" is a contradiction' was one of his few comments I understood and agreed with;-). Maybe the matter hasn't been comprehended by me either, Swee Boon;-). (Pls don't ask me what I mean by matter, Victor;-)) Metta, Sarah p.s On the (growing??) cult topic - Howard, I thought your post to Lodevick on the magic show with the nice quotes and your recent Lute posts to Larry (esp.21057) were beautifully written and I fully agreed with the content. Many thanks. When I read your description I found myself delighting in the lute sound without even hearing it - we can see the power of the imagination and the delighting in pannatti just as you explained. ====== 21077 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Christine & Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I think the quote from the discourse > > Digha Nikaya 21 > Sakka-pañha Sutta > Sakka's Questions > > is relevant to your questions. ..... I thought it sounded very relevant too. Christine's question below sounded like the kind of Christine question which she's probably considered more carefully than any of us;-)). This being likely, would you kindly share your reflections, Chris? I'm sure many of us would be interested to hear. Thanks in advance. Metta, Sarah ======= > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow > the > > Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the > same > > time. I wonder what others think? > > I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, > > one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - > just > > in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different > > spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it > > simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the > needs > > and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a > person's > > beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to > whatever > > that is? 21078 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 0:33am Subject: What is a Buddhist? Dear Christine, Howard & All, You may find it of some interest to read this article which I was asked to write for ‘Buddhist Quarterly, 1980. (I hadn’t looked at it since then, but note as I retype it now, that the ideas haven’t changed, even if the style may have;-)) Metta, Sarah ================================================== What is a Buddhist? ******************** I was recently invited by Ven. Dr Saddhatissa to give a talk at the London Buddhist Vihara on the topic of ‘Experiences in Buddhist Countries by an English Buddhist’. What is a Buddhist, I wondered? Many people call themselves buddhists and many people have different ideas of what a Buddhist is. It is only by understanding more of the Buddhist teachings that we will have a clearer knowldege of what this really means. The more we follow the Teachings, the more we will see what beginners we are in the practice and how few are the moments of kusala cittas or wholesome states of mind. Many people think that to be Buddhist they need to change their ways of life. For example, some think that they should not have big houses or grand clothes or that they should become monks or at least give away all their possessions. But, who can judge who are good Buddhists or what the others’ states of mind are at any moment from just the outward appearances? In the Buddha’s time, many followed his Teachings and developed enough wisdom to become enlightened. Among these were people from very different backgrounds, rich and poor, monks and laypeople. We may think that Buddhism is impractical and that it means leading inactive lives. This is not so; what it does mean is beginning to understand our lives with more sincerity and courage whatever our lifestyles are. We may think we do not mind about possessions or where we live, for example, but we need to be very honest with ourselves. We all have diferent tendencies and follow different interests. When I was in India last year with friends from Thailand on a pilgrimage, we visited the spot where Angulimala, the robber, was supposedly buried. Angulimala received his name from his attempt to attack a thousand travellers, kill them and take a finger from each to make into a garland. However, there were conditions for Angulimala to hear the Buddha and understand the meaning of his Teachings even though the people were yelling at the king’s palace for the robber’s life. Some people think that Buddhism is specific to Buddhist countries and that it cannot be practised in the West. After my talk, one gentleman from Sri Lanka pointed out how people from Sri Lanka are brought up with Buddhism and knowledge of the Teachings. People have also commented on how fortunate I have been to spend time in Buddhist countries. This is true; however, Buddhism is the teaching of realities that exist from moment to moment for all, whether in the East or West, this culture or that culture. It is very valuable to hear, read and consider the Teachings, but it has to be with right understanding. The Buddha pointed out that there are three different listeners: there is the ‘topsy-turvy-brained’ who pays no heed, there is the ‘scatter-brained’ who pays heed at the time, but when he has risen, he forgets what he has heard. The third is the listener with the ‘comprehensive mind who listens, pays heed, and considers’. We may have read a lot, but one line of the Tipitaka read with right understanding is more valuable than the whole Tipitaka read with no understanding. My friend and teacher in Thailand, Ajarn Sujin, points out that even when one is rushing and tired, there can be awareness. It is not a matter of stopping or going to a different room or moving to the country if one lives in the city. Whatever happens in one’s life happens because of different causes and conditions. Who knows what will happen next? Who can direct it? I was asked what had led me originally to the East and to my interest in Buddhism, and how it compared with my previous studies of Western psychology. On my visits to Sri lanka, I have always been asked why someone brought up in a Christian background becomes so interested in Buddhism. I point out that Buddhism is very logical. The first time I visited Sri lanka, I lived for several months in a temple. I thought this would be useful for following the buddhist path. However, the more I understood that it is impossible to control life because it is conditioned from moment to moment, the less inclined I was to follow a particular practice in order to try and have quick results in a special quiet environment. There is no sudden enlightenment without the gradual development of understanding and awarenes, however much our wishful thinking would like to think otherwise. I understand more clearly, from my reading and considering with friends, that Buddhism cannot be separated from our daily life. It is only some who are naturally inclined to living in a temple. Sometimes we wonder how to help children or friends. If there is no example of beginning to understand more or our lives at this moment with patience and courage, can we help others? If we do not begin to realise the difference between attachment and kindness towards these people, will we follow what is useful? We may think that in order to lead ‘better’ lives, we should be in another place following other occupations. For example, I used to feel guilty every time I heard about the refugees in Cambodia, because I thought I should be helping in some way. However, it was pointed out to me that the greatest gift or help is developing wisdom and giving up the idea of a self who can control life at this moment. We need to be reminded that there is ‘fire on our heads’ and that death can come at any time. The Buddha encouraged us to remember this many times a day in order that we might see the urgency to develop awareness. We need to be aware of the realities appearing through the eyes, ears, nose, tongue, body and mind at this moment. There is no other moment. This is the meaning of insight meditation or vipassana. The more awareness of that which experiences or is experienced at this moment, the more we can see that it is a world of concepts and dreams we live in and think exists. There is no moment when there is not a truth to be known. Greed, hatred, kindness, generosity, hearing and sound are not just words or labels, but they represent phenomena which can be understood with awareness when they occur. We can question what he aim of our life is and what is the happiness which we consider so important. We considered how it is important to remember that the absolute meaning of dukkha or suffering refers to the impermanence of all conditioned realities. If our aims and happiness depend on our home and marriage and career, for example, we can see how these can collapse at any moment and bring so much unhappiness. What we cling to cannot last. If we are really concerned to follow and understand the Buddha’s teachings, we will begin to live a more contented and skilful lie and discover the real meaning of freedom and what it means to be a Buddhist. "Come, behold this world, how it resembles an ornamented royal chariot in which fools flounder. For the wise, however, there is no attachment to it." Dhammapada, v171 ============================================================== 21079 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, Thanks for continuing this useful discussion. I really enjoy looking at the suttas you quote from or give links to and am always impressed by your familiarity with them all. --- nidive wrote: > Hi Sarah, > S:> > Conventionally speaking, we may say we are mostly aware of our mind > > states (though I probably wouldn't;-)), but in terms of satipatthana > > and these particular dhammas,the cetasikas (mental factors), there > > is very little awareness. > SB:> The above statement says it all. You lack the concentration needed to > be aware of these dhammas. Sporadic mindfulness is one thing. > Concentrated mindfulness is another thing. ..... What is ‘concentrated mindfulness? For example, when I do some intensive yoga or Tai chi, there is plenty of concentration on various movements by everyone in class, plenty of focussing on breathing, plenty of knowledge about intentions to move and what we are used to calling mindfulness or even body scanning. Does any of this have anything to do with the development of sati sampajanna (rt awareness, rt understanding, rt concentration and all other rts) as taught by the Buddha? I don’t think so. Would that such concentration lead so easily to anything of real value. Would anyone experiencing restlessnes, high fever or pneumonia in intensive care have less chance of developing satipatthana. Again, I don’t think so at all. ..... > "[1] On whatever occasion the monk remains focused on the body in & of > itself -- ardent, alert, & mindful -- putting aside greed & distress > with reference to the world, on that occasion his mindfulness is > . When his mindfulness is lapse>, then mindfulness ***as a factor for Awakening*** becomes > aroused. He develops it, and for him it goes to the culmination of its > development. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn54-013.html ..... This is the same as the passage in the Anapanasati Sutta too which Nina discussed in detail. Note that this passage comes under the section of the ‘Fulfilment of the Seven Enlightenment Factors’. In the Bodhi translation it is referred to as ‘unremitting mindfulness’. I understand ‘unremitting mindfulness’ to be the culmination and not the starting point in the development of satipatthana. In fact it mentions ‘clumination’ above I see. ‘Without lapse’ could be misconstrued. For example, we know that sati arises with each wholesome state, but only ever in the javana series of cittas. In other words, there are many bhavanga, vipaka and ahetuka cittas even for ariyans when there cannot be any mindfulness of any level. If we think that there is or should be mindfulness all the time, there is bound to be disappointment I think. Better to be realistic than to continue with any illusion of this. I note that the passage you quote is followed by one stressing wisdom: Nanamoli/Bodhi transl from SN p1783: “Dwelling thus mindfully, he discriminates that Dhamma with wisdom, examines it, makes an investigation of it. Whenever, Ananda, a bhikkhu dwelling thus mindfully discriminates that Dhamma with wisdom, examines it, makes an investigation of it, on that occasion the enlightenment factor of discrimination of states is aroused by the bhikkhu.....” ...... In the sutta you quoted in your last post and in the recent extracts from Way, the development of awareness at any time, during any activity has been stressed. There can be the development of satipatthana whilst washing hair, whilst doing yoga or whilst watching TV. I don’t accept however that it can be equated with the degree of concentration during these activities. On the contrary it is the wisdom, the investigation of dhammas and the understanding of namas and rupas that can be known that is of greatest importance. In other words, the development of right view and eradication of wrong view. Without this, wrong concentration will always be taken for right concentration. ..... > Regarding concepts and ultimate realities, this sutta appears to blur > the distinction between them in that both concepts and ultimate > realities can be "insighted", to borrow a word from Robert. > > "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is me, this is my self, > this is what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes about > consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at the > intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about craving > that 'This is me, this is my self, this is what I am.' > > "One assumes about the intellect that 'This is not me, this is not my > self, this is not what I am.' One assumes about ... One assumes > about consciousness at the intellect... One assumes about contact at > the intellect... One assumes about feeling... One assumes about > craving that 'This is not me, this is not my self, this is not what I > am.' > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid ..... Excellent question and I can understand very well why you come to this conclusion. I agree with comments Mike made with regard to some points in the CMA translation with regard to phrases that can be quite misleading and are not always helpful. Sometimes we have to read between the lines and check elsewhere. Usually one becomes used to different translators and their styles. As we keep discussing, it helps a lot to study the Abhidhamma and texts like the Visuddhimagga. These phrases with and in ATI are usually used in the context of the internal and external ayatanas (sense fields )as here in the Chachakka Sutta. In the above context, I understand < intellect> to refer to manayatana which includes all cittas apart from the 5 sense door experiencing cittas. refers to dhammayatana which consists of all rupas other than those experienced through the sense doors, all cetasikas and nibbana. I’d be very happy to discuss this sutta in more detail. I used to find just the same terms confusing until we had quite a long discussing about ayatanas on DSG and still need to check or pause to remember what I think I know as Rob Ep used to say. You or others may find it useful to read posts under ‘Ayatanas’ and also under ‘Concepts and Realities’ in UP: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts It’s interesting, Swee Boon, so often in the suttas, it seems at first that concepts are being referred to as objects of mindfulness, but on careful study and by experience, just as Howard and RobertK explained in the Lute thread, really only paramattha dhammas can ever be objects of satipatthana. Metta, Sarah ============== 21080 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/8/03 10:34:40 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I'm getting confused when you shift from "sound" to "music". By music I > thought you meant a group of sounds (a concept according to you). > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, that's what I mean - almost. I do distinguish between the general concept of music/sound-group, and specific music/sound-groups (i.e., percepts). I consider the later, the "percepts", to be instances of the former, I view them as a mental constructs just as much as the general concept, and they carry the primary sense of "pa~n~natti" for me. Likewise, I have a general concept of 'tree' (a mental construct), and there is also "the tree I now 'see' in my garden", a percept which is an instance of the former and is also a mental construct. ----------------------------------------------------- But> > you don't want to say the object of delight could only be a concept > (group). If the object of delight cannot be a single sound rupa, what is > it? If the object of delight can only be a group, the object of wisdom > (panna) can only be a group because delight and wisdom are both root > cittas. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I could be wrong in this, but it seems to me that a single moment of sound would carry a neutral affective tone (vedana), and that some "concocting" would be required, some mental construction, before what we apprehend as a "pleasant sound" would be "heard". ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 21081 From: m. nease Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 9:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 9:00 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute > Interesting ideas Mike, Not sure which ideas you mean... > but don't name (nama) and form (rupa) go together as > intimately as the hand in the glove? In some contexts, 'naama' can refer to 'name' and 'ruupa' can refer to 'form'. In abhidhamma, I take 'naama' to refer to 'mentality' or 'that which experiences' and 'ruupa' to refer to 'physicality' or 'that which doesn't experience anything'. It's the latter pair of definitions that interests me. I suppose your 'hand in the glove' simile may be relevant in some way to the 'name and form' definition but I think not to the latter. The conditioning of one by the other (as explained in pa.ticcasamuppaada, e.g.) is a subject recently discussed by some of our smarter members--I'm afraid it's still a bit(?) over my head. > And, isn't name and form (nama rupa) > the basis of the illusion (marra/maya) of duality (ducca), and therefore the > foundation of a sense of self? An interestingly compound question. Its implicit assumptions are outside the perview of Buddhadhamma in my very limited understanding of it. > If one grasps As I understand it, 'grasping' is the mental factor 'upaadaana' with its own unique set of characteristics--a fascinating subject of its own. Of course, no 'one' who grasps--just the factor arising with a citta. > at the appearance of things (rupa), I'm unaware of any context (in the Pali tipitaka) in which 'ruupa' can be translated as 'the appearance of things'. > is not one also forming concepts (nama) of things? Concepts are formed continually and supercede each other endlessly. Concepts are not naama--naama is paramattha dhamma and can be the basis of insight. Concepts are not paramattha dhamma and can't be the basis of insight, as I understand it. > And, how can > insight (vipassana) be revealed in a mind that is grasping at the appearance > of things (rupa), and forming labels (nama) for its subjective reality? Leaving aside these usages of 'nama' and 'rupa', I think it's true that insight does not arise at the same time as grasping. > I believe it is self evident that insight emerges when there is no grasping > at either name or form (nama rupa), the perception of sensory experience. As I wrote above, I would agree that insight does not arise at the same moment as grasping. Perception (sa~n~naa) is yet another mental factor (cetasika)--one of the 'universals' that arise with every moment of vi~n~naa.na, which is what I take you to mean when you say 'sensory experience'. Vi~n~naa.na, consciousness, is of six kinds--visual, auditory, tactile, gustatory, olfactory and mental, as I understand it. > It > has been my experience that equanimity, neither grasping nor averting at > sensory experience, is the necessary preexisting condition for insight to be > revealed. Equanimity, upekkhaa, is another mental factor. There are many conditions necessary for the arising of insight (or of any other factor). I don't think that insight is ever 'revealed'--it arises and subsides instantaneously according to conditions, as I understand it. Gotta run-- mike 21082 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 11:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, You see that a computer is fabricated, impermanent, does not last forever, breaks down, disintegrates eventually. You also see that what is impermanent dukkha/unsatisfactory in the sense that something that is impermanent cannot be a refuge in any meaningful sense of the word. In short, you see that a computer is impermanent and dukkha as it actually is. When the Buddha stated the Noble Truth of Dukkha, he stated that: "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging- aggregates are dukkha." The Buddha started with stating a few specific instances of conditioned phenomena being dukkha and ended with a general statement: "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." Birth belongs to one of the aggregates, and so does aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair, association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved, or not getting what is wanted. The five aggregates include all the conditioned; they includes the whole range of conditioned things/qualities/phenomena/situations. A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of consciousness. Saying that form (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) is dukkha is in effect saying that whatever form (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness), be it past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near, is dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > In my previous post I agreed that it would be correct as a matter of > everyday speech to say that a computer is impermanent. Does it > follow that, as a matter of everyday speech, it would also be correct > to say that computer was therefore dukkha/unsatisfactory? I'm not > sure. This does not seem to be an everyday use of 'unsatisfactory'. > > However, as before, I'm sure many 'thinking' people would agree with > the underlying sentiment, namely that something that is impermanent > cannot be a refuge in any meaningful sense of the word. So perhaps I > can give a qualified 'yes' to your question above. > > But again, the important question, to my mind, is what the Buddha > meant when he talked about impermanence. I would be surprised if you > could find in the suttas many (or any) instances of the Buddha asking > whether what is impermanent is dukkha/unsatisfactory or easeful, > where the subject-matter is conventional objects (such as the then > equivalent of computer). Most (or all) of these references are found > in the context of conditioned phenomena, I believe (I regard > references to the eye etc as being references to the rupa that is > eyebase etc.). > > Jon 21083 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 1:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Is a table fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Jon, [snip] > > KKT: It's my fault for not being > very clear with my question. > > I try another approach. > > Take the famous phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are no-self) > > Atta is usually understood as self/soul. > > Therefore if we say: > a human being/person is anatta (no self/soul) > then this phrase is understandable. > > But if we say: a table is anatta. > > Does it make sense? > How do you understand this phrase? > > > Metta, > > > KKT 21084 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 2:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Sarah,(Victor) and All, Yes, I have been thinking over whether it is necessary to follow a particular set of teachings, and to have a particular belief, in order to understand truth and reality. I have been wondering whether one needs be a Buddhist, and take 'the whole package', in order to find Liberation. I am a member of a few Lists, some Thera, some all- tradition, but all ostensibly Buddhist. Often, though, it seems the pride of some Lists is to elevate 'tolerance' even above 'truth'. It is considered bad form to indicate that one believes the Buddha found and taught *the* way to the end of suffering - one is allowed to say the Buddha taught *a* way to the end of suffering, and that every religion's way is equally valid. Did the Blessed One come to teach us The way to liberation, or A way? He doesn't teach that we have an unchanging immortal soul, or that there is a Creator God who will be the final Judge of beings. I was a devotedly practicing Christian for most of my life - Christians in general understand the terms "eternal soul" and "God' to mean just what they state - an eternal self, and an omniscient, omnipotent God. They are not synonyms for anything Buddhist. The Buddha did teach tolerance of others beliefs - but I don't believe that he taught that *any* belief would do - or that we should 'relax, don't worry, be happy - we'll all 'get there' in the end'. I don't believe he taught us to combine bits of all belief- systems into a fuzzy touchy-feely rainbow casserole of what 'feels true' to us; a melange of what fits in and feels good to our 21st century cultural/value systems - that appeals to our ideal of 'fairness' and 'wouldn't it be nice ...'. I don't understand all religious roads to lead to the same destination - anymore than they do in a modern city. There are long delays, dead ends and dangerous places. Spending a long, long time wandering about in a city doesn't mean you are incrementally coming closer to your destination - it means you are spending a long long time wandering about. The Buddha taught that human birth is rare, and to be born during a Buddhasasana (Dispensation of a Buddha) is even rarer. If we have a precious chance to hear the Dhamma, shouldn't we listen and reflect on his words, 'as if our hair were on fire'. I understand the meaning of the word Samsara to be "The Wandering On - the perpetual wandering through the rounds of rebirth." So - is there 'Truth', or is there 'a truth'? And is 'Truth' only what the individual thinks is 'Truth', and if it is different to what the Buddha taught is that O.K.? i.e. no consequences, go with the flow - A+ for sincerity. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine & Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > > I think the quote from the discourse > > > > Digha Nikaya 21 > > Sakka-pañha Sutta > > Sakka's Questions > > > > is relevant to your questions. > ..... > I thought it sounded very relevant too. Christine's question below sounded > like the kind of Christine question which she's probably considered more > carefully than any of us;-)). This being likely, would you kindly share > your reflections, Chris? I'm sure many of us would be interested to hear. > > Thanks in advance. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= 21085 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi Howard, I'm not sure of the below either, but I think I read something similar in a recent "Way" commentary. What is more interesting, however, is the implication. If a single sound rupa is not the object of desire, then is that the case for all paramatta dhamma? Is a single mind moment of pleasant bodily feeling (vedana) a possible object of desire? Is the object of all desire a concept (group)? And further, does wisdom (panna) behave in the same way as desire (tanha) simply because they share similar characteristics as root cittas? In other words, is the object of wisdom always a group simply because the object of desire is always a group and wisdom and desire are in the same class of citta (root citta)? Are paramatta dhammas dukkha if they are not desired? If all dukkha is based on concept, why wouldn't all insight be concerned with that concept? What relevance do paramatta dhammas have except to show, by contrast, the emptiness of concepts (groups)? Is the problem of dukkha really one of misinterpreting togetherness, rather than failing to see impermanence? Larry -------------------- Howard wrote: I could be wrong in this, but it seems to me that a single moment of sound would carry a neutral affective tone (vedana), and that some "concocting" would be required, some mental construction, before what we apprehend as a "pleasant sound" would be "heard". 21086 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 5:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, Is a table fit to be seen thus: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? You are welcome to reply to this message with your answer although it is not necessary. Regards, Victor KKT: If I look at the table and I say to myself: "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? How could it be possible? This << mine, I, my self >> is the << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> KKT feels inside himself. How could this vivid feeling inside KKT = table ? Regards, KKT 21087 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 4:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/9/03 7:48:33 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I'm not sure of the below either, but I think I read something similar > in a recent "Way" commentary. What is more interesting, however, is the > implication. If a single sound rupa is not the object of desire, then is > that the case for all paramatta dhamma? Is a single mind moment of > pleasant bodily feeling (vedana) a possible object of desire? Is the > object of all desire a concept (group)? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: What triggers a reaction (of craving or aversion) is pleasant or unpleasant vedana. As I understand it, and what also makes sense to me on the basis of my experience, is that while bodily sensations may be felt as pleasant or unpleasant, and hence may elicit reactions of craving or aversion, contacts through the other physical senses carry neutral vedana. Mere sound, for example, would be neutral in feeling. An extraordinarily loud sound might cause physical pain or other extreme bodily response which would be unpleasant, but the sound itself would be neutral. Also, for example, the loud sound might interfere with something we're listening to or thinking about, we would mentally note that our listening or our train of thought was interrupted, and that mental note, that mind-door object, could be unpleasant and then lead to angry reaction. ----------------------------------------------- And further, does wisdom (panna)> > behave in the same way as desire (tanha) simply because they share > similar characteristics as root cittas? In other words, is the object of > wisdom always a group simply because the object of desire is always a > group and wisdom and desire are in the same class of citta (root citta)? > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: No. ---------------------------------------------- > Are paramatta dhammas dukkha if they are not desired? If all dukkha is > based on concept, why wouldn't all insight be concerned with that > concept? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: All dukkha is due to tanha, and tanha is ignorant reaction to pleasant vedana or unpleasant vedana (in the case of aversive tanha). So, wherever non-neutral vedana occurs, dukkha can arise. I believe that includes the body-door and the mind-door, but you know Abhidhamma far better than I, so I leave that to your determination. In any case, insight practice begins with attention paid to conventional objects. With the growth of enlightenment factors, most especially concentration and mindfulness, we start to see through the conventional objects to the sights, sounds, tastes, etc on which they are based, and the "solidity" and apparent substantiality of the conventional objects goes up in smoke. Then, proceeding further, we come to know first hand the impermanence, insubstantiality, unworthiness, and impersonality of the most elementary elements of experience, and disenchantment sets in. ------------------------------------------------ What relevance do paramatta dhammas have except to show, by> > contrast, the emptiness of concepts (groups)? Is the problem of dukkha > really one of misinterpreting togetherness, rather than failing to see > impermanence? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Concepts aren't groups. Concepts are ideas, and they are apprehended at the mind door. Percepts, in the sense of specific instances of concepts, are also mind-door objects. In both cases, they are created by sankharic (fabricating) operations involving the mental collecting of several (or many) experiences, and associating a mental tag with that collective. (I see this as going beyond the operation of sa~n~na, analogous to emotions being sankharic magnifictions of vedana.) The difference between so-called paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti, is that the latter are mind-constructed (by sankharic function), and the latter are not. Paramatta dhammas may be kamma vipaka, but they are not *constructs* in the sense that pa~n~natti are. The main point, as I see it, is that 99% of "the world we live in" is conceptual. By seeing through that, by truly and directly seeing that pa~n~natti are not actual things "out there", but only mental constructs, that world is dissolved. It is seen to be mere foam. Moreover, in the seeing of this we also see that the so-called paramattha dhammas, themselves, are fleeting wisps of impersonal, dependently arisen phenomena, not lasting, not existing on their own, insubstantial, and unworthy of being clung to. The whole house of cards comes crashing down. ---------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 21088 From: m. nease Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 8:31pm Subject: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali 'dukkha'? If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. Thanks for your patience. mike > ----- Original Message ----- > From: > Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute > > And, isn't name and form (nama rupa) > > the basis of the illusion (marra/maya) of duality (ducca), and therefore > the > > foundation of a sense of self? 21089 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 9:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Thanks Howard, Let's leave it at that for now. Larry 21090 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 9:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > Thank-you for your warm welcome, and I do indeed look forward to lively > discussion of dharma. And, I am very happy to see that more than one cult;-) > ;-) is represented. It makes for a healthy dialog. > > Best, to all, and I hope to meet "James in AZ" soon. What city? Ever come > to Tucson? Come and sit with us sometime noon-1 M-F 9-10 AM Sat. & Sun. > > Jeff Hi Jeff, Actually, I find discussion with cult members anything but healthy, but, hey, that's me. Thank you for the invitation. I don't get to Tucson too often and probably won't be there at all before I leave for Egypt. Good luck in your practice. Stay cool! ;-). Metta, James 21091 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 5:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute In a message dated 4/9/03 9:07:25 AM, mlnease@z... writes: << Concepts are formed continually and supercede each other endlessly. Concepts are not naama--naama is paramattha dhamma and can be the basis of insight. Concepts are not paramattha dhamma and can't be the basis of insight, as I understand it.>> Well, then we are in agreement here with respect to, concepts cannot be the basis of insight. But, I would disagree with you that concepts are endless. But, then I think you would agree with me that at least on this small point also, that concepts come to an end when there is no grasping or aversion. As for your strictly Pali interpretation of Nama Rupa, I wish to point out that the concept is an ancient one that the historic Buddha borrowed from the vedic tradtion, and I believe my interpretation would hold up within that context, so we may be back to semantics again. Who gets to decide what the interpratation is of a particular word or concept? Personaly, I think we are a whole lot better off if we stick to English, than switching to another language or tradtion to understand the path of enlightenment. <> Well, we are at one of those naughty little semantic problems again. If equanimity is the condition of no grasping and no averting, then you may find if you get there, that this is the necessary and essential preexisting condition for insight, because I have experienced it and I don't care what book you read that says otherwise. And I can certainly quote you some really nice authoritative sources for that point of view, but I believe in speaking from personal experience, not endlessly quoting from books, no matter how old and cool they seem to be. My point is, reading is good for gaining direction, then put the book down and apply the method. One way of finding out whether you maybe doing too much reading and not enough practice is comparing how much time you put in on the pillow, verses how much time you put in with the lamp oil. If you find you are reading twice as much as you are meditating, then it is time to reverse those numbers. Secondly, the issue of whether insight arises, or is revealed, is one of those things like, "Does the sun rise, or is it the Earth that rotates?" You and I probably both believe what our junior high school science teachers taught us about the Earth's relative motion with respect to the sun, even though I'm guessing you haven't been an astronaut, nor have I. Even though we believe the science of the day with respect the relative motion of the Earth, we still say the sun rises. I am sure if you were sharing a sunrise with a lovely young woman (unless you are a monk) you certainly wouldn't make a fool of yourself arguing with her about the uselessness of the term in our space age. And, I certainly wouldn't argue such a tiny little point. I am cool whether you say arising or revealing. But, since you have chosen to challenge me here on so many points based on your reading alone, and not apparently on any realization, and I don't find the wherewithal to tackle every one of your points. But, I will simply point out, that if you recall the Buddha nature is our true nature and it really doesn't arise, it is said to be 'revealed.' And, I think you will find that equanimity is part of our true nature (Buddha nature) and not a 'mental factor.' That is, if we are talking about no grasping and no aversion means equanimity. Try warming the pillow my young friend instead of wearing your eyes out on a book. Then you can argue from your personal experience not from a 2200 year old book that was originally redacted in Pali, then translated into Sanskrit, then the Pali was lost, then the Sanskrit was translated in Ceylonese, then the Sanskrit was lost then the Pali was regained from the Ceylonese, then translated back into Sanskrit, and after a millennia and a half translated into English by a bunch of scholars who spent all of their time reading and not realizing. As I have said, I am not an orthodox devotee of Theravadan Buddhism. I am a practitioner in a Theravadan context. may you be free from suffering, Jeff 21092 From: Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 5:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads In a message dated 4/9/03 12:23:57 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > I believe Christine, the answer is within your very excellent question. I believe we should first not forget that Buddhism is basically a Protestant rebellion within the Hindu/Vedic model of yoga and enlightenment, and as such we Buddhists inherited many concepts from the definitely theistic Hindu progenitor of Buddhism. In that theistic model, the concept of dharma existed long before Siddharta Guatama. To them 'dharma' meant 'truth' and the 'way', or 'path' to enlightenment, in a not too different model of the Taoist concept of 'the way.' Also, while I would agree with the atheistic, non-dualistic, post enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan tradition inherited, one should not forget that when Buddhism went through its many transformations to suit the Chinese and Tibetan people's, Buddhism most definitely took a theistic appearance. Almost the whole of Vajrayana is arguable a theistic model with the Buddha as the worshipful deity. Clear Land is another example of an overtly theistic religion in a Buddhism context. Even many of the concepts of Buddhism could be incorporated in to a purely Abrahamic tradition as well. Certainly some of the early manifestations of Sufism were an excellent example of Buddhism in an Islamic context. There are aspects of Kabbalah that could also be arguably Buddhistic in a Jewish context, and the Quaker movement could easily be viewed as Buddhism in an 18th century Protestant context. Therefore dharma can most definitely be acknowledged in a theistic tradition, thus there is no reason to argue that dharma can't be placed into a theistic context. One would just have to not be too attached to the name and form (nama rupa) of Buddhism, to make the necessary transition. Thus, I fully agree with your following excellent quote. "Reality (just) wears different costumes to appeal to the needs and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's beliefs doesn't matter so much." Best regards to all, Jeff 21093 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 11:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Mike, Greatly appreciating all your posts and fine comments to others. I meant to say a little more on some discussion we were having: S:> > You quoted an interesting passage from CMA from the commentary or > Guide > > section that B.Bodhi helpfully adds to clarify the main text: > M:> "Helpfully"? I wonder. > ..... ;-) I read your comments on this thread and Nina's response with interest. I'd like to find a 'middle path' and agree with both;-) I think I was trying to be tactful in the above sentence and was talking generally about the helpful comments given in CMA. Like you, I have reservations about some turns of phrase used in partsof the Guide sections and I also read many of these to be largely interpretations based on the commentary notes. (Next time you plan to ordain, we'll get you the new commentary to Abhidhamattha Sangaha too, or maybe we won't wait and will order it to bring to Seattle;-)) K.Sujin always reminds me that when understanding is developed or when there is a good foundation (even at a mostly intellectual level, but for this I think it has to be based on direct sati), then whenever one reads or comes across something which seems somewhat suspect, as in the example you gave and Swee Boon's sutta quote about and , one knows the text must be referring to paramattha dhammas, conditioned realities and anatta, no control over them, even if one doesn't have acces to an alternative or the Pali. I can't say the various translations and interpretations don't bother me at all, but not as they used to. For example, before I found it difficult to open the Dhammasangani translation or the Path of Discrimination, but I appreciate Nina's reminders not to feel daunted or put-off. When it comes to CMA, for the most part I find it a really wonderful work and more comprehensive and user-friendly than the earlier translations of AS that we used to rely on for so long. Like others, I also feel immense gratitude for B.Bodhi's work on the sutta and commentary translations, even though quite often there are notes of his which I might not agree with. You may not have been around on DSG last fall when we spent some time with him in Hong Kong. We’ve known him for a long time and always had very agreeable disagreements on certain aspects of the Teachings. I think it’s bound to be like that. Even amongst Pali scholars and translators, the understanding and interpretation will depend on the views held. Hence the value of discussion. Metta, Sarah ==== 21094 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 9, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > Just as > you used the word 'aware' in each of your definitions of 'Citta,' I think > 'consciousness,' which is perhaps our domain of awareness, is better than > 'mind,' which to my use of the word as I said before, links it more to the > cognitive processes of the brain. > > Consequently, when consciousness is in the body, its experience of the sense > domain can definitely be granular, because the nerve synapses oscillate, but > once out of the body, there is no nervous system as an intermediary between > domain and consciousness. ===== It appears as though my "definition" is from a textbook while yours is from direct experience. I'm not sure that it makes much sense to pursue this (at least until I have spent more time on a cushion). ===== > My point is, is English really > that stupid that it can't articulate the domain of awareness, or are we > depending on someone's unskillful translation? I personally don't buy that > English is incapable of articulating the world of gnosis. And, I think if we > are going to give rise to a truly Western Buddhism, we better figure out how > to articulate it in English. I am sure Pali, like every language, has its > faults and its debates of interpretation as well. ===== I have heard that the Innuit (Eskimo) language has 27 words for "snow". Snow is of critical importance to the Innuit, but only of passing importance to English speakers. I don't think that Pali has a significantly richer vocabularly when it comes to describing mental states when compared to English. The benefit of Pali is that we can "start with a clean piece of paper" and not be burdened with the baggage associated with English terms. For example, the term "citta" as an activity, as an agent and as an instrument is not properly rendered by "consciousness" (and especially not properly rendered by "mind"). Because of the inherent weaknesses of language, there is a lot of emphasis in the commentary on defining terms. Many modern books stress the etymological roots of Pali terms. It is an important issue. ===== > According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness > (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the > analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can > detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the > saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its > characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) > arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for > changing mind states. Does this make sense? > > ===== > > No, I disagree. Unless you are coming up with another definition for > awareness than what most of us native speakers of English use. ===== Help me to understand what you disagree with. ===== > I believe the > whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on the idea of > psychophysiological states (I believe poorly translated by Nanamoli as > 'Mental Materiality') overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Our job, as yogis, is > to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and > relinquish are grasp on them. > > Re (in brief), the 4 noble truth > > "Suffering exists...the cause of suffering is grasping and aversion" ===== It looks as though we have a very different perspective on dependent origination. My understanding on the purpose of dependent origination is to answer the questions: - Why are we here? (because of past ignorance / craving) - Where are we going? (rebirth, because of present ignorance / craving) - How do we stop? (uproot ignorance / craving) I would venture that the role of the yogi is to "see things as they truly are"; see paramattha dhammas as paramattha dhammas, see concepts as concepts. It starts with study (pariyatti), followed by practice (patipatti), leading to wisdom (pativedha). ===== > > I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology > onto mental experiences. > > ===== > > Why not? > ===== The Buddha made it clear that he only taught a small percentage of what he knew (Simsapa Sutta, Samyutta Nikaya LVI.31) and that he only passed on things that "are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self- awakening, to Unbinding". When the Buddha was asked about things outside this scope, the Buddha remained silent. In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (Majjhima Nikaya 63), the Buddha used the following analogy: "It's just as if a man were wounded with an arrow thickly smeared with poison. His friends & companions, kinsmen & relatives would provide him with a surgeon, and the man would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the man who wounded me was a noble warrior, a priest, a merchant, or a worker.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know the given name & clan name of the man who wounded me... until I know whether he was tall, medium, or short... until I know whether he was dark, ruddy-brown, or golden-colored... until I know his home village, town, or city... until I know whether the bow with which I was wounded was a long bow or a crossbow... until I know whether the bowstring with which I was wounded was fiber, bamboo threads, sinew, hemp, or bark... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was wild or cultivated... until I know whether the feathers of the shaft with which I was wounded were those of a vulture, a stork, a hawk, a peacock, or another bird... until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was bound with the sinew of an ox, a water buffalo, a langur, or a monkey.' He would say, 'I won't have this arrow removed until I know whether the shaft with which I was wounded was that of a common arrow, a curved arrow, a barbed, a calf- toothed, or an oleander arrow.' The man would die and those things would still remain unknown to him." In short, the Buddha did not see the rationale behind putting the quest for scientific knowledge ahead of the quest for sprirtual knowledge (the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta also lists the same subjects as the Simsapa Sutta as being worthy of study). The Buddha did not pretend to be a scientist; the Buddha never proposed a model for reality. An interesting point is that the Tipitaka refers to "that material thing based on which mind-element and mind-consciousness element function (yam rupam nissaya manodhatu ca mano-vinnana-dhatu ca vittanti, tam rupam)." Later commentators took this to be the "heart-base". In ancient India, they believed that sensory data was carried by the blood (it was the only thing they could see that moved in the body) and the heart was the engine behind this movement. So the Buddha never said that consciousness was based on the heart; this was added later (and still persists in common language - emotions come from the heart). The Buddha never talked about the heart-base, but neither did the Buddha talk about the brain or the nervous system. Why is this? Certainly the scientists of today admit that there are many questions that we don't have answers to in the area of consciousness and physiology. I am sure that a few hundred years from now, our decendents will look back on our "scientific" model of the mind and snicker. For example, where is the consciousness in a zygote (the brain and nervous system doesn't form for another five weeks)? When we have "out of body experiences", does the consciousness still rest in the brain and nervous system? Hopefully this explains why I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== > Is Buddhism such a unique phenomena that it, and only it, can > describe gnosis? Or, is gnosis something that has been around as long has > human beings have been on the planet? Or, has Buddhism just come up with a > pretty good description of it? ===== If we define "gnosis" as meaning "insight that brings escape from Samsara", then I believe that the Buddha did say that His was the "only way". The DSG recently had a long discussion on this issue over the term "only way" in the Satipatthana Sutta. If we limit the definition of "gnosis" to mean the "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos, then Buddhism certainly has no monopoly. ===== > Is the Western Vehicle going to be a clone of > Theravadan Buddhism? Or, are we going to figure out how to articulate the > path of purification in our own native language, and use our Western science > in part to articulate it? Are Buddhists someday going to be at odds with > Western science as orthodox Christianity is today? I believe if Buddhism is > going to succeed effectively in the West, and become a truly Western Vehicle, > then we are going to have to articulate Western Buddhism in English and > include science in our exegesis. ===== I am not sure what you mean by "Western Vehicle". I see science and Buddhism as independent subjects because they deal with different things. Buddhism focuses on ethical laws and escaping samsara. Science focuses on developing a model for how things work. Along the way, Buddhists have "tacked some science" onto the core of Buddhism and if modern science contradicts what has been tacked on, then Buddhists should have no problem changing because it doesn't touch the core. For example, I don't think that anybody would have a major problem if we replaced the term "heart-base" with "brain-base" in the commentaries (however, I don't think that the scientists have their house totally in order in this area yet). I believe that the Dali Lama has made similar comments; that Buddhists should not be afraid to update their understandings based on science. ===== > Well, my good friend I could ask you whether you take your nose out of the > tripitaka and warm a pillow. ===== I don't meditate enough. Thank you for your compassionate reminder. I hope that one day, my practical "knowledge" can be increased to the level that I can compare my experience with the Tipitaka. ===== > But I assume you do so, just as I believe you > should assume that my description comes from someone who has applied the > method of self discovery on every level possible, and I have found that my > experience doesn't always match up to the tripitaka, unless I question the > use of words chosen by the translators. ===== I believe that you have far more experience than I in meditation. The fact that your personal experience does not always match up to the Tipitaka is not surprising. Each person has their own accumulations. ===== > Are you willing to ask who decided > what words from our language were chosen? Was, whoever decide that 'mind' = > 'citta:' a native speaker of Pali; a native speaker of English; and > Enlightened? That would be a pretty hard combination to accomplish, don't > you think? ===== I agree that "mind" is not a good translation for citta; "consciousness" is better, but still sub-optimal. For this reason, I prefer to leave "citta" as "citta". There is an excellent cartoon on this subject at: http://www.dharmathecat.com/episod49.htm Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it. Metta, Rob M :-) 21095 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute I like the way you put this, Howard. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > The main point, as I see it, is that 99% of "the world we live in" is > conceptual. By seeing through that, by truly and directly seeing that > pa~n~natti are not actual things "out there", but only mental constructs, > that world is dissolved. It is seen to be mere foam. Moreover, in the seeing > of this we also see that the so-called paramattha dhammas, themselves, are > fleeting wisps of impersonal, dependently arisen phenomena, not lasting, not > existing on their own, insubstantial, and unworthy of being clung to. The > whole house of cards comes crashing down. > 21096 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Mike, You asked in another post if there is "an explicit reference in the Abhidhamma to the difference between (or especially the equal validity of) 'conventional' and 'precise' language." I quoted this one before, but this time have added in parts I skipped. I hope it satisfies your request;-) In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there is a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from the Commentary (On the Person, p 41)is relevant to your comments, I think: ***** QUOTE “ “Without self” means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ‘person’. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. “Did the Exalted One speak of a butter-jar?” and the following are adduced to show that meaning is not always according to the form of what is said. A jar made of gold is called a golden jar, but one made of butter is not in the same way called a butter jar. What is meant her is this : a butter-jar is only that wherein butter is put. In regard to an oil-jar, and so on, this is the sense. A (‘permanent’) meal or a congey is not eternal and permanent as is nirvana. ‘A meal provided in perpetuity, a constant supply of congey’ implies the sense that we ar to give in charity every day without any limit of time. Even in such expressions as ‘there is the person who works for his own good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, thre is no such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, convention, expression, is meant: “there is the person.” This is the sense here. Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: “These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in the world.” (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term ‘person’ is used to denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to impermanence,ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are discourses on highest meaning. Therein, in the popular discourse, when there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. He who, on hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, him (the Exalted One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. Thus, he does not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can understand him in highest-meaning discourse. One the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards. Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to begin with; therefore the buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. ‘they teach consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.’ Thus it is said: The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e known). Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as such, characteristic of things (as they are). There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular taching consisting of ‘butter-jar,’ and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression “there is the person who,” must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. The controversy on ‘person’ is ended.” ***** Sarah: More relevant quotes on the two kinds of truth can be found in these posts: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m6685.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5838.html The following is a quote from the second one with a helpful translation of Nina's included: ***** Sarah: Nina recently sent this post to Jon, in which we can note the reference to khandhas included: Nina: I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about paramatthadesana, I shall translate: Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa caa ti. There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti evaruupa sammutidesanaa. There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m deseti. Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. ******************** Sarah: I don't think we have any disagreement about the use of conventional speech in the Suttas, but I'd like to just add these references which are useful reminders for us all. The Buddha says: ‘....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending them,’ (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe trans.) The footnote (224) to M.Walshe’s translation adds: ‘...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: “Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. Terms agreed by usage of the world; Words of ultimate significance are true In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he Who’s skilled in this world’s speech , can use it, and not lie.” " End earlier post ****** Metta, Sarah ====== 21097 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Well, it was fun, but these two posts of yours disturb me. Not for > my sake but for yours. I am just going to let you have the last > word...or this would go on forever. ..... No problem either way;-) ..... If you CAN notice, every > response of yours to my text is basically the same. No matter what > I say, you have the same response. You call this 'sounding like a > broke record', ..... ....actually ‘a STUCK record’ was what I suggested (not BROKE to my mind);-) ..... >but I think it is far more serious and dangerous...it > is a clear sign of the brainwashing of a cult. And I don't mean > this in a discourteous way, I just can't think of a more euphemistic > way to state it. ..... James, don’t mind about the words. I just appreciated your kind concern and please just ignore any later frivolous cultish comments by members..... ..... >I would hope that if I started showing signs of > the indoctrination of a cult, someone would come right out and tell > me also. It is not possible for everyone else to be wrong and just > the "Followers of A. Sujin" to be right. Think about that. ..... In my case, I think I had pretty much changed my tune and completley given up a formal meditation practice well before meeting A.Sujin. It’s true, however, that she has been extremely influential in my life and I am very, very grateful for all her kindness and sharing of the dhamma over these many years. Like everyone here, I read, I listen, I consider and reflect and check against present truths or realities. Also like most everyone here, I’ve always been a ‘rebel’ rather than a ‘follower’ so it’s interesting that this is how you see it. With regard to numbers or votes and ‘It is not possible for everyone else to be wrong’, this doesn’t and never has influenced my reflections or understanding. A day will come when there is no understanding at any level of the Buddha’s teaching regardless of proclaimed views to the contrary. (see an earlier post of RobertK's below with the sutta, 'The Peg'.) James, I know you wrote your comments as a good friend and please know I appreciate your friendship and concern very much, even if I think the comments are misguided. Metta, Sarah ===== From RobertK http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m2678.html Dear group, Sometimes one hears of people saying that study of the Abhidhamma is a waste of time: one is just caught up in intellectual conceptualising and papanca. That may be true for some people but I would beware of making a generalisation. Here is a sutta worth considering. (the only problem being that those who do not see any value in study probably will not read it because it must be just intellectual waffle) So for the converted (most of this list I guess): Samyutta Nikaya IX (20)7 p708 of Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation The Peg --------------------------------------------- Staying at Savatthi. "Monks, there once was a time when the Dasarahas had a large drum called 'Summoner.' Whenever Summoner was split, the Dasarahas inserted another peg in it, until the time came when Summoner's original wooden body had disappeared and only a conglomeration of pegs remained. [1] "In the same way, in the course of the future there will be monks who won't listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- are being recited. They won't lend ear, won't set their hearts on knowing them, won't regard these teachings as worth grasping or mastering. But they will listen when discourses that are literary works -- the works of poets, elegant in sound, elegant in rhetoric, the work of outsiders, words of disciples -- are recited. They will lend ear and set their hearts on knowing them. They will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering. "In this way the disappearance of the discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- will come about. "Thus you should train yourselves: 'We will listen when discourses that are words of the Tathagata -- deep, deep in their meaning, transcendent, connected with emptiness -- are being recited. We will lend ear, will set our hearts on knowing them, will regard these teachings as worth grasping & mastering.' That's how you should train yourselves." The commentary notes that this means deep teachings such as those dealing with emptiness(sunnatapatisamyutta), explaining mere phenomena devoid of a being (sattasunnata-dhammamattam eva pakasaka) [like the whole of the Abhidhamma? -robert] ********** 21098 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Jeff, This is really very interesting: "Buddhism is basically a Protestant rebellion within the Hindu/Vedic model of yoga and enlightenment." Thanks for connecting up the various Buddhist traditions with other forms of belief. I've never thought about things in quite that way before. I wonder though about the statement - "the atheistic, non-dualistic, post enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan tradition inherited." Is Theravada Buddhism non-dualistic? I don't think the Theravada tradition sees itself as non-dualistic - I think this is represented by Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. My understanding is that the doctrine of Anatta would rule out any belief in a permanent individual self or an absolute universal self, and any such belief would be regarded as a delusion - an instance of personality view. Bhikkhu Bodhi ('Dhamma and non-duality') states: "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit withing the Buddha's discourses." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 4/9/03 12:23:57 AM, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > Dear Group, > > Elsewhere there has been a discussion of whether one can follow the > Dhamma and be a practising member of a theistic religion at the same > time. I wonder what others think? > > I understand that often when first coming to investigate Buddhism, > one still keeps one hand on the rail of the previous religion - just > in case. But is it possible to be committed to two different > spiritual paths - do all roads lead to Rome (so to speak)? Is it > simply that Reality wears different costumes to appeal to the needs > and inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's > beliefs doesn't matter so much, only that they are true to whatever > that is?>> > > I believe Christine, the answer is within your very excellent question. I > believe we should first not forget that Buddhism is basically a Protestant > rebellion within the Hindu/Vedic model of yoga and enlightenment, and as such > we Buddhists inherited many concepts from the definitely theistic Hindu > progenitor of Buddhism. In that theistic model, the concept of dharma > existed long before Siddharta Guatama. To them 'dharma' meant 'truth' and > the 'way', or 'path' to enlightenment, in a not too different model of the > Taoist concept of 'the way.' > > Also, while I would agree with the atheistic, non-dualistic, post > enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan > tradition inherited, one should not forget that when Buddhism went through > its many transformations to suit the Chinese and Tibetan people's, Buddhism > most definitely took a theistic appearance. Almost the whole of Vajrayana is > arguable a theistic model with the Buddha as the worshipful deity. Clear > Land is another example of an overtly theistic religion in a Buddhism context. > > Even many of the concepts of Buddhism could be incorporated in to a purely > Abrahamic tradition as well. Certainly some of the early manifestations of > Sufism were an excellent example of Buddhism in an Islamic context. There > are aspects of Kabbalah that could also be arguably Buddhistic in a Jewish > context, and the Quaker movement could easily be viewed as Buddhism in an > 18th century Protestant context. > > Therefore dharma can most definitely be acknowledged in a theistic tradition, > thus there is no reason to argue that dharma can't be placed into a theistic > context. One would just have to not be too attached to the name and form > (nama rupa) of Buddhism, to make the necessary transition. > > Thus, I fully agree with your following excellent quote. > > "Reality (just) wears different costumes to appeal to the needs and > inclinations of different beings, and that the form of a person's beliefs > doesn't matter so much." > > Best regards to all, > > Jeff 21099 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi Howard (& James), As I mentioned, I particularly appreciated a couple of your lute posts to Larry and I’m disappointed to see he’s taking a break from them;-( Back to this thread any your discussion with James in brief: --- upasaka@a... wrote: ============================= > With regard to the "everyday analogue," the following, taken from > ATI, > is the part of the Samma~n~naphala Sutta, the 2nd sutta of the Digha > Nikaya, > dealing with guarding the senses. It does not pertain to meditating: > > (Sense Restraint) "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On > > seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by > > which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the > eye -- > evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. > On > hearing a sound with the ear... >Endowed with this noble restraint over the > sense > faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. > This > is how a monk guards the doors of his senses. ..... You wrote: .... > > This doesn't involve the "replacement" technique - that's true. > But it > does involve a kind of avoidance - it involves a quick turning away of > the > mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion. The details > that > might lead to these reactions are glimpsed and immediately let go of, so > that > reaction will not set in. It is a kind of nipping in the bud. .... We all agree (!) no “replacement” is involved and that the sutta is referring to everday experiencing through the sense doors. When you suggest that “it involves a quick turning away of the mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion”, and the following part leading to the “nipping in the bud”, it sounds rather like a more subtle version of the “replacement” to me. In other words, it still suggests a kind of ‘doing’ or ‘avoiding’ rather than an understanding of what is conditioned already with detachment. I believe it is the awareness and detachment towards the visible objects, sounds and other phenomena appearing that is the guarding of the sense doors and the condition for restraint and a lack of proliferation on account of them. In other words “he only apprehends what is really there” (Vis 1,54, which discusses a similar passage in detail..... ”he enters upon the way of closing that eye faculty by the door-panel of mindfulness”.The Vis clarifies that by ‘eye’ in the above passage is meant seeing consciousness and that the ‘virtuous states’ including mindfulness arise in the javana (impulsion) process that follows the seeing consciousness. It gives a lot of detail here about the processes. A little later we read (Vis 1,58): “Just as, when the city gates are secured, although inside the city the houses etc, are not secured, yet all property inside the city is well guarded, well protected, since when the city gates are shut there is no ingress for robbers, so too, when virtue, etc, have arisen in impulsion, the door too is guarded and so also are the life-continuum and the consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with adverting. Thus although it actually arises at the moment of impulsion, it is nevertheless called ‘restraint in the eye faculty”. The passage you quoted is a very useful one to discuss further - there is a lot of hidden depth to it and I’ll be glad to hear any further comments. Many thanks. Metta, Sarah ======= 21100 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:22am Subject: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) HI Rob M & Mike, --- robmoult wrote:> > My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure > awareness": > - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) > - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) > - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental > factors are aware of an object) > > Do you agree with this definition? ..... I know you were asking Jeff, but if you define citta in terms of awareness, don’t you think it becomes confused with sati and suggests something ‘wholesome’ regardless of the nature of the citta? I’d be particularly concerned about the “pure awareness” use which tends to carry a lot of baggage with it. The activity, agent, instrument definitions are interesting. Is this from a textual source? How does it sound to you, Mike? Mike, I dragged you into this post because Rob M gave a lot of helpful and detailed info in a post (no 19723) in which he detailed the conditions by which ignorance can condition kusala and akusala kamma. (When I came across it again it reminded me of our discussion about lobha as a condition for kusala and the wishful thinking.) By two conditions, as Rob lists, ignorance conditions kusala kamma (cetana cetasika), i.e by object and natural decisive support conditions. He then adds the many, many conditions by which it conditions akusala kamma (cetana). Understanding more about conditions and khandhas helps break down the illusion of self: Way 65, Tika: “To be sure, here, eye and visible object are materiality-aggregate; seeing is consciousness aggregate; feeling that is associated with seeing is feeling-aggregate; perceiving is perception-aggregate, and those beginning with sense-impression are formation-aggregate. Thus looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these five aggregates. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front?” OR as you put so very well, Mike in your post to Rahula: “With all these moments arising and completely subsiding in VERY rapid succession, where is ‘Rahula’? Dying and being reborn every instant, with each new mental moment and factor? At least these moments can be seen as being impermanent and not-self (or where did “Rahula’ go when they went away?)” Metta, Sarah ==== 21101 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:05am Subject: Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > HI Rob M & Mike, > > --- robmoult wrote:> > > My understanding of the definition of citta is that it is "pure > > awareness": > > - Citta is an activity (process of being aware of an object) > > - Citta is an agent (that which is aware of an object) > > - Citta is an instrument (the means by which the accompanying mental > > factors are aware of an object) > > > > Do you agree with this definition? > ..... > I know you were asking Jeff, but if you define citta in terms of > awareness, don't you think it becomes confused with sati and suggests > something `wholesome' regardless of the nature of the citta? I'd be > particularly concerned about the "pure awareness" use which tends to carry > a lot of baggage with it. The activity, agent, instrument definitions are > interesting. Is this from a textual source? How does it sound to you, > Mike? ===== I extracted this definition from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma (I, 3). "... The commentators define citta in three ways: as agent, as instrument and as activity..." I see sati as "mirror-thought", "non-judgmental observation", "impartial watchfulness", "non-conceptual awareness", "present-time awareness", "non-egoistic alertness", "goalless awareness", "awareness of change" and "participatory observation". (extracted from "Mindfulness in Plain English" by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana) http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm Though some these definitions of sati use the word "awareness", there is the implicit (kusala) feeling of "seeing things as they truly are". This type of "seeing things as they truly are" is not part of my understanding of citta. Citta is simply aware. Metta, Rob M :-) 21102 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi again, Larry - In a message dated 4/9/03 11:16:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > The difference between so-called > paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti, is that the latter are mind-constructed > (by sankharic function), and the latter are not. ======================= This sentence should read as follows: "The difference between so-called paramattha dhammas and pa~n~natti is that the latter are mind-constructed (by sankharic function) and the former are not." 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) 21103 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/10/03 12:04:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Thanks Howard, > > Let's leave it at that for now. > > Larry > > ============================ LOL! I guess I have a way yet to go with my communication skills! ;-)) I'm really sorry I couldn't make my position clearer. 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) 21104 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> yours? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> what you are? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> your self? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > [snip] > > KKT: If I look at the table > and I say to myself: > "This is mine. This I am. This is my self."? > > How could it be possible? > > This << mine, I, my self >> > is the << vivid >> feeling > of << I, me, mine, myself >> > KKT feels inside himself. > > How could this vivid feeling inside KKT = table ? > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21105 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Part II: Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi, Sarah (and James) - I think you are largely correct about this. Guarding the senses amounts to watching extremely carefully to see that reaction (of grasping) does not occur, to see that one doesn't mentally embellish what was merely seen or heard or smelled or tasted. I stand corrected. What I think led me in the wrong direction on this is the vague recollection of instructions to monks for averting the eyes. Perhaps that was a last-ditch effort! ;-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/10/03 5:02:46 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Hi Howard (& James), > > As I mentioned, I particularly appreciated a couple of your lute posts to > Larry and I’m disappointed to see he’s taking a break from them;-( > > Back to this thread any your discussion with James in brief: > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: ============================= > > With regard to the "everyday analogue," the following, taken from > >ATI, > >is the part of the Samma~n~naphala Sutta, the 2nd sutta of the Digha > >Nikaya, > >dealing with guarding the senses. It does not pertain to meditating: > > > >(Sense Restraint) "And how does a monk guard the doors of his senses? On > > > >seeing a form with the eye, he does not grasp at any theme or details by > > > >which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the > >eye -- > >evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. > >On > >hearing a sound with the ear... > > >Endowed with this noble restraint over the > >sense > >faculties, he is inwardly sensitive to the pleasure of being blameless. > >This > >is how a monk guards the doors of his senses. > ..... > You wrote: > .... > > > > This doesn't involve the "replacement" technique - that's true. > >But it > >does involve a kind of avoidance - it involves a quick turning away of > >the > >mind in order to avoid the arising of craving or aversion. The details > >that > >might lead to these reactions are glimpsed and immediately let go of, so > >that > >reaction will not set in. It is a kind of nipping in the bud. > .... > We all agree (!) no “replacementâ€? is involved and that the sutta is > referring to everday experiencing through the sense doors. When you > suggest that “it involves a quick turning away of the mind in order to > avoid the arising of craving or aversionâ€?, and the following part leading > to the “nipping in the budâ€?, it sounds rather like a more subtle version > of the “replacementâ€? to me. In other words, it still suggests a kind of > ‘doing’ or ‘avoiding’ rather than an understanding of what is conditioned > already with detachment. I believe it is the awareness and detachment > towards the visible objects, sounds and other phenomena appearing that is > the guarding of the sense doors and the condition for restraint and a lack > of proliferation on account of them. In other words “he only apprehends > what is really thereâ€? (Vis 1,54, which discusses a similar passage in > detail..... > > â€?he enters upon the way of closing that eye faculty by the door-panel of > mindfulnessâ€?.The Vis clarifies that by ‘eye’ in the above passage is meant > seeing consciousness and that the ‘virtuous states’ including mindfulness > arise in the javana (impulsion) process that follows the seeing > consciousness. It gives a lot of detail here about the processes. A little > later we read (Vis 1,58): > > “Just as, when the city gates are secured, although inside the city the > houses etc, are not secured, yet all property inside the city is well > guarded, well protected, since when the city gates are shut there is no > ingress for robbers, so too, when virtue, etc, have arisen in impulsion, > the door too is guarded and so also are the life-continuum and the > consciousness of the cognitive series beginning with adverting. Thus > although it actually arises at the moment of impulsion, it is nevertheless > called ‘restraint in the eye facultyâ€?. > > The passage you quoted is a very useful one to discuss further - there is > a lot of hidden depth to it and I’ll be glad to hear any further comments. > Many thanks. > > Metta, > > Sarah > /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) 21106 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:07am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 14 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 14 Sick people generally depend on medicine. Evenso, paññå is like a medicin, it is intent on what is beneficial and it can cure us from lust that has arisen. We read: Then the recluse Hårita pointed out the power of defilements to the king and spoke the fourth stanza: ³Four defilements in the world, great King, are coarse and have great strength, They are: lust, hate, ignorance and intoxication. When they overmaster beings, paññå cannot develop, It is as if they fall into a great river.² The king on hearing this spoke the fifth stanza: ³You deserve praise Hårita, you are a saint, Perfect in síla, of pure conduct, You are wise, with true paññå.² Then Hårita spoke the sixth stanza: ³Evil thoughts, great king, cause clinging to an image, Taking it for beautiful, and they are accompanied by excitement. They are bound to harm even a person with paññå, who is inclined to the excellence of recluseship.² These words can remind us of the danger of defilements. Someone may believe that he is out of danger because he has developed a certain degree of paññå, but he should not be neglectful. Akusala can even harm a person with paññå, who has a keen interest in the Dhamma and enjoys its benefit. 21107 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Sarah, You're right, of course, about the value of BB's translation--I'm glad of his efforts, too. I was just a bit shocked on realizing I'd been taking his opinions as literal translations (rather than 'interpretations') of ancient texts. Enough to take these portions with a grain of salt. I must be careful not to slander the CMA (or BB by association) on this account! My apologies for my careless speech. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2003 11:52 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. > Hi Mike, > > Greatly appreciating all your posts and fine comments to others. > I meant to say a little more on some discussion we were having: > > S:> > You quoted an interesting passage from CMA from the commentary or > > Guide > > > section that B.Bodhi helpfully adds to clarify the main text: > > > M:> "Helpfully"? I wonder. > > > ..... > ;-) I read your comments on this thread and Nina's response with interest. > I'd like to find a 'middle path' and agree with both;-) > > I think I was trying to be tactful in the above sentence and was talking > generally about the helpful comments given in CMA. Like you, I have > reservations about some turns of phrase used in partsof the Guide sections > and I also read many of these to be largely interpretations based on the > commentary notes. (Next time you plan to ordain, we'll get you the new > commentary to Abhidhamattha Sangaha too, or maybe we won't wait and will > order it to bring to Seattle;-)) > > K.Sujin always reminds me that when understanding is developed or when > there is a good foundation (even at a mostly intellectual level, but for > this I think it has to be based on direct sati), then whenever one reads > or comes across something which seems somewhat suspect, as in the example > you gave and Swee Boon's sutta quote about and , one > knows the text must be referring to paramattha dhammas, conditioned > realities and anatta, no control over them, even if one doesn't have acces > to an alternative or the Pali. > > I can't say the various translations and interpretations don't bother me > at all, but not as they used to. For example, before I found it difficult > to open the Dhammasangani translation or the Path of Discrimination, but I > appreciate Nina's reminders not to feel daunted or put-off. When it comes > to CMA, for the most part I find it a really wonderful work and more > comprehensive and user-friendly than the earlier translations of AS that > we used to rely on for so long. Like others, I also feel immense gratitude > for B.Bodhi's work on the sutta and commentary translations, even though > quite often there are notes of his which I might not agree with. You may > not have been around on DSG last fall when we spent some time with him in > Hong Kong. We've known him for a long time and always had very agreeable > disagreements on certain aspects of the Teachings. I think it's bound to > be like that. Even amongst Pali scholars and translators, the > understanding and interpretation will depend on the views held. Hence the > value of discussion. > > Metta, > > Sarah 21108 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Thanks, Sarah, This is a great little collection. When I have time I'll try to arrange it a little into a 'two methods' file for future reference. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 12:24 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. > Hi Mike, > > You asked in another post if there is "an explicit reference in the > Abhidhamma to the difference between (or especially the equal validity of) > 'conventional' and 'precise' language." > > I quoted this one before, but this time have added in parts I skipped. I > hope it satisfies your request;-) > > In the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the > Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary) there is > a lot of discussion about commonly used terms. The following quote from > the Commentary (On the Person, p 41)is relevant to your comments, I think: > ***** > QUOTE > " "Without self" means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense > is: even in one and the same quality, there is no 'person'. Thus the > meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. > In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered. > > "Did the Exalted One speak of a butter-jar?" and the following are adduced > to show that meaning is not always according to the form of what is said. > A jar made of gold is called a golden jar, but one made of butter is not > in the same way called a butter jar. What is meant her is this : a > butter-jar is only that wherein butter is put. In regard to an oil-jar, > and so on, this is the sense. A ('permanent') meal or a congey is not > eternal and permanent as is nirvana. 'A meal provided in perpetuity, a > constant supply of congey' implies the sense that we ar to give in charity > every day without any limit of time. > > Even in such expressions as 'there is the person who works for his own > good'(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95) and so on, thre is no > such person as bodily and mental aggregates, known in their specific and > general senses. Given bodily and mental aggregates, it is customary to > say such and such a name, a family. Thus, by this popular turn of speech, > convention, expression, is meant: "there is the person." This is the sense > here. Hereon it was also said by the Exalted One: "These, Citta, are > merely names, expressions, terms of speech, designations in common use in > the world." (Dialogues, i 263). What is meant here is: even without > reference to bodily and mental aggregates the term 'person' is used to > denote a popular convention in both its specific and its general sense. > The Buddhas have two kinds of discourse, the popular and the > philosophical. Those relating to a being, a person, a deva, a brahma and > so forth, are popular discourses, while those relating to > impermanence,ill, soul-less, the aggregates, the elements, the senses, the > application of mindfulness, the intent contemplation, and so forth, are > discourses on highest meaning. Therein, in the popular discourse, when > there is speech of a being, a person, a deva or a brahma, he who is able > to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get out (of this world), or > attain the victory of an arahan, HIM the Exalted One teaches, at the very > outset, about a being, a person, a man, a deva or a brahma. He who, on > hearing differently in discourse on highest meaning about impermanence, or > ill, or the like, is able to understand, comprehend its meaning, or get > out (of this world), or attain the victory of an arahan, him (the Exalted > One) teaches differently about impermanence, and so forth. Thus, he does > not teach at first the highest-meaning discourse to anyone, even to one > who understands him in popular discourse. Taking his stand on popular > discourse he, on the other hand, teaches the highest-meaning discourse > afterwards. He does not teach at first popular discourse to one who can > understand him in highest-meaning discourse. One the other hand, having > enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular > discourse afterwards. Highest-aim discourse is, as a rule, too severe to > begin with; therefore the buddhas teach at first by popular discourse, > and then the highest-meaning discourse. But popular discourse they teach > consistently and in conformity with truth according to the method > selected. And highest-meaning discourse, too. 'they teach consistently > and in conformity with truth according to the method selected.' > > Thus it is said: > The Enlightened One, best of speakers, spoke two kinds of truth, namely, > the popular and that of highest meaning, a third is not got at (i.e > known). > > Therein, discourse meeting with agreement is true and is by way of world > convention. Highest meaning discourse expression is also true and, as > such, characteristic of things (as they are). > > There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of > two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and > so forth, and the popular taching consisting of 'butter-jar,' and so > forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on > the mere expression "there is the person who," must not command adherence. > The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without > transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in > explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept. > > The remaining meanings are clear everywhere. > > The controversy on 'person' is ended." > ***** > Sarah: More relevant quotes on the two kinds of truth can be found in > these posts: > > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m6685.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5838.html > > The following is a quote from the second one with a helpful translation of > Nina's included: > ***** > Sarah: > Nina recently sent this post to Jon, in which we can note the reference to > khandhas included: > > Nina: > I have here the Co in Pali to M.N.5, No Blemishes, about > paramatthadesana, I shall translate: > Buddhassa Bhagavato duvidhaa desanaa: sammuttidesanaa, paramatthadesanaa > caa ti. > > There is a twofold teaching of the Buddha, the Blessed One: the teaching > in the conventional way and the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > > Tattha puggalo, satto, itthii, puriso, khattiyo, braama.no, devo, Maaro ti > evaruupa sammutidesanaa. > > There is a human, a being, a woman, a man, a man of the warrior caste, a > brahman, a god, and Mara. Such is the teaching in the conventional way. > > Anicca.m, dukkha.m, anattaa, khandhaa, dhaatuu, aayatanaani, > satipa.t.thaanaa ti evaruupaa paramattha desanaa. > > Impermanence, dukkha, anattaa, the aggregates, elements, sensefields, > satipa.t.thaana. Such is the teaching by way of ultimate realities. > > Tattha Bhagavaa, ye sammutivasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa > moha.m pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m sammuti desana.m > deseti. > > Here the Blessed One taught to those in the conventional way who by means > of it, after having heard the teaching , penetrated the meaning and > abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain distinction. > > Ye pana paramatthavasena desana.m sutvaa attha.m pa.tivijjhitvaa moha.m > pahaaya visesam adhigantu.m samatthaa, tesa.m paramatthadesana.m deseti. > > But who by means of ultimate realities after having heard the teaching , > penetrated the meaning and abandoned ignorance, and were skilled to attain > distinction, to those he taught by way of ultimate realities. > ******************** > Sarah: > I don't think we have any disagreement about the use of conventional > speech in the Suttas, but I'd like to just add these references which are > useful reminders for us all. The Buddha says: > > '....these are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in > common use in the world, which the Tathagata uses without misapprehending > them,' (DN 9, Potthapada Sutta: States of consciousness, 53, Walshe > trans.) > > The footnote (224) to M.Walshe's translation adds: > > '...In MA (ad MN 5: Anagana Sutta). the following verse is quoted...: > "Two truths the Buddha, best of all who speak, declared: > Conventional and ultimate - no third can be. > Terms agreed by usage of the world; > Words of ultimate significance are true > In terms of dhammas. Thus the Lord, a Teacher, he > Who's skilled in this world's speech , can use it, and not lie." > " > End earlier post > ****** > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 21109 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] methods of Sutta and of Abhidhamma. Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Thanks, Sarah, > > This is a great little collection. When I have time I'll try to arrange > it > a little into a 'two methods' file for future reference. .... That would be helpful because the question recurs regularly. I think there are also other relevant quotes and references, some of which will be in posts under 'concepts and realities' in U.P. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Look f/w to it. Metta, Sarah ======== 21110 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> yours? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> what you are? Is this << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> your self? Regards, Victor KKT: As long as this vivid feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> persists, it is not incorrect to say that: This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self. This is the feeling of exclusive self-interest, self-centeredness. All the activities are centered around this << center >> To feel otherwise should this center (or << vivid >> feeling) be absent. Regards, KKT 21111 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > KKT: As long as this vivid feeling > of << I, me, mine, myself >> persists, > it is not incorrect to say that: > > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self. > > This is the feeling of exclusive > self-interest, self-centeredness. > All the activities are centered > around this << center >> > > To feel otherwise should this center > (or << vivid >> feeling) be absent. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21112 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Dear Sarah and Rob, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah > I know you were asking Jeff, but if you define citta in terms of > awareness, don't you think it becomes confused with sati and suggests > something 'wholesome' regardless of the nature of the citta? I'd be > particularly concerned about the "pure awareness" use which tends to carry > a lot of baggage with it. The activity, agent, instrument definitions are > interesting. Is this from a textual source? How does it sound to you, > Mike? For 'pure awareness', I think it might be useful to consider both words 'citta' and 'vi~n~naana'. Personally, I think it's important to make the distinction carefully between the suttanta and abhidhamma uses of the term 'citta' because it's such an important concept in each sense. I would agree that the 'activity, agent, instrument' part is interesting and, since subjective verification is so open to interpretation, should be compared carefully with the texts. > Mike, I dragged you into this post because Rob M gave a lot of helpful and > detailed info in a post (no 19723) in which he detailed the conditions by > which ignorance can condition kusala and akusala kamma. (When I came > across it again it reminded me of our discussion about lobha as a > condition for kusala and the wishful thinking.) By two conditions, as Rob > lists, ignorance conditions kusala kamma (cetana cetasika), i.e by object > and natural decisive support conditions. He then adds the many, many > conditions by which it conditions akusala kamma (cetana). Yes, thanks for dragging me in. RobM's posts are always interesting and appreciated. I admire his thoughtful and careful efforts to create an accessible approach to abhidhamma. > Understanding more about conditions and khandhas helps break down the > illusion of self: > > Way 65, Tika: > "To be sure, here, eye and visible object are materiality-aggregate; > seeing is consciousness aggregate; feeling that is associated with seeing > is feeling-aggregate; perceiving is perception-aggregate, and those > beginning with sense-impression are formation-aggregate. Thus > looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the > combination of these five aggregates. There, who, singly, looks straight > on? Who looks away from the front?" Great quote! Thanks as always, Sarah. mike 21113 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > << Concepts are formed continually and supercede each other endlessly. > > Concepts are not naama--naama is paramattha dhamma and can be the basis of > > insight. Concepts are not paramattha dhamma and can't be the basis of > > insight, as I understand it.>> > > Well, then we are in agreement here with respect to, concepts cannot be the > basis of insight. But, I would disagree with you that concepts are endless. You're right, of course, this was an exaggeration on my part and was not meant literally. > But, then I think you would agree with me that at least on this small point > also, that concepts come to an end when there is no grasping or aversion. Thinking, grasping and aversion all arise and subside instantaneously, according to conditions. > As for your strictly Pali interpretation of Nama Rupa, I wish to point out > that the concept is an ancient one that the historic Buddha borrowed from the > vedic tradtion, and I believe my interpretation would hold up within that > context, so we may be back to semantics again. Who gets to decide what the > interpratation is of a particular word or concept? A careful study of the texts compared with personal experience is a good place to start, in my opinion. > Personaly, I think we are > a whole lot better off if we stick to English, than switching to another > language You're entitled to your opinion, of course. I find a little knowledge and use of Pali to be an invaluable aid in understanding and discussing Buddhadhamma. > or tradtion to understand the path of enlightenment. "Switching to another...tradition"? To what other tradition did you think I was switching? I'm interested in the teaching of the Buddha as preserved in the Pali tipitaka. Rest assured that I, too, compare it carefully to my own subjective experiences. > < > necessary for the arising of insight (or of any other factor). I don't > > think that insight is ever 'revealed'--it arises and subsides > > instantaneously according to conditions, as I understand it.>> > > Well, we are at one of those naughty little semantic problems again. Not at all. It is quite a different thing to say that 'insight is revealed' rather that 'insight arises and subsides'. > If > equanimity is the condition of no grasping and no averting, then you may find > if you get there, that this is the necessary and essential preexisting > condition for insight, because I have experienced it and I don't care what > book you read that says otherwise. Significant, I think, that you regard your subjective interpretations of your experiences as superior to the best preserved teachings of the Buddha. > And I can certainly quote you some really > nice authoritative sources for that point of view, but I believe in speaking > from personal experience, not endlessly quoting from books, no matter how old > and cool they seem to be. Well, yes, I guess the books of the tipitaka do seem pretty 'cool' to me. I'll try to restrain myself from 'quoting endlessly' from them--no promises!. I also 'believe in speaking from personal experience'. > My point is, reading is good for gaining direction, then put the book down > and apply the method. Thank you for your thoughtful advice. > One way of finding out whether you maybe doing too > much reading and not enough practice is comparing how much time you put in on > the pillow, verses how much time you put in with the lamp oil. If you find > you are reading twice as much as you are meditating, then it is time to > reverse those numbers. Thank you again for your thoughtful advice. > Secondly, the issue of whether insight arises, or is revealed, is one of > those things like, "Does the sun rise, or is it the Earth that rotates?" You > and I probably both believe what our junior high school science teachers > taught us about the Earth's relative motion with respect to the sun, even > though I'm guessing you haven't been an astronaut, nor have I. > > Even though we believe the science of the day with respect the relative > motion of the Earth, we still say the sun rises. I am sure if you were > sharing a sunrise with a lovely young woman (unless you are a monk) you > certainly wouldn't make a fool of yourself arguing with her about the > uselessness of the term in our space age. I don't see any of these points a relevant to our discussion. > And, I certainly wouldn't argue such a tiny little point. The point of 'is revealed' vs. 'arises and subsides' is far from a tiny one. > I am cool whether > you say arising or revealing. But, since you have chosen to challenge me > here on so many points My intention was not to challenge you at all, but to try to clarify the underlying assumptions implicit in your questions. > based on your reading alone, Just to set your mind at ease, I've been studying 'practicing' and trying to understand various schools of Buddhism and Buddhadhamma for over thirty years and have done many thousands of hours of 'meditation' in various traditions. > and not apparently on any > realization, Unlike yourself, I make no claim to any 'realization'. > and I don't find the wherewithal to tackle every one of your > points. I've noticed that. > But, I will simply point out, that if you recall the Buddha nature > is our true nature You will not find this assertion in the Pali tipitaka. > and it really doesn't arise, it is said to be 'revealed.' Not by the Buddha. > And, I think you will find that equanimity is part of our true nature (Buddha > nature) and not a 'mental factor.' The Buddha referred to it as a mental factor, among other things. He did not refer to it as 'part of our true nature'. > That is, if we are talking about no > grasping and no aversion means equanimity. > > Try warming the pillow my young friend Spare me the condescension--it is misplaced. > instead of wearing your eyes out on a > book. Then you can argue from your personal experience not from a 2200 year > old book that was originally redacted in Pali, then translated into Sanskrit, > then the Pali was lost, then the Sanskrit was translated in Ceylonese, then > the Sanskrit was lost then the Pali was regained from the Ceylonese, then > translated back into Sanskrit, and after a millennia and a half translated > into English by a bunch of scholars who spent all of their time reading and > not realizing. If, by this, you mean that you place your own opinions above the best preserved remainders of the Buddhadhamma, then we must disagree. > As I have said, I am not an orthodox devotee of Theravadan Buddhism. I am a > practitioner in a Theravadan context. Indeed? > may you be free from suffering, Jeff Thanks again. mike p.s. Mods, my apologies if I've overstepped the boundaries of the 'well-spoken' here. 21114 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:08am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." Regards, Victor KKT: Again we're back to square one (hope that this is not a 'broken record' :-)) I have given clearly what I feel, what I mean with those words << mine, I, my self >> in the phrase "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." which you repeat endlessly. But you never give your own meaning of those words. I think you have some interesting and perhaps subtle ideas to share with everybody. But I find you << unintelligible >> Try to make yourself more clearly, Victor. Regards, KKT 21115 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:56am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor (& Sarah), > What matter are you referring to? Self is a fabricated thing. It is a fabrication of the mind. What is fabricated is subject to dissolution. What is subject to dissolution is not-self. Would it be right then to say with regard to that which is subject to dissolution to be the self? It is this matter that has not been comprehended by you. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21116 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I think what you find unintelligible is the statement: This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." It goes against your self-identity view: "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." Regarding the words "I", "mine", "self", please check a standard dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com for their meanings. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, > [snip] > > KKT: Again we're back to square one > (hope that this is not a 'broken record' :-)) > > I have given clearly what I feel, > what I mean with those words > << mine, I, my self >> in the phrase > "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." > which you repeat endlessly. > > But you never give your own > meaning of those words. > > I think you have some interesting > and perhaps subtle ideas to share > with everybody. > > But I find you << unintelligible >> > > Try to make yourself more clearly, Victor. > > > Regards, > > > KKT 21117 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 4/10/03 10:57:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Victor (& Sarah), > > >What matter are you referring to? > > Self is a fabricated thing. It is a fabrication of the mind. What is > fabricated is subject to dissolution. What is subject to dissolution > is not-self. Would it be right then to say with regard to that which > is subject to dissolution to be the self? > > It is this matter that has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > =============================== I agree with what you say here. But I think one small aspect of how you are saying it may be producing a misunderstanding. If you were to change the sentence "Self is a fabricated thing" to "Our sense of self is a fabricated thing," it would express what you mean and remove any misunderstanding. The problem is that the intended, but actually nonexistent, thing referred to by 'self', is, by definition, not fabricated. It is contradictory to literally speak of self as fabricated or impermanent or impersonal. (The traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal.)] Incidentally, off the main point, the features I listed above for a "self" make nibbana sound like a candidate. I believe that nibbana fails candidacy for two reasons: 1) While nibbana is not impermanent (it neither arises nor ceases), it is also not permanent, because permanence is a condition, and nibbana is beyond all conditions, and 2) Nibbana is impersonal. 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) 21118 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:42am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, The statement "self is a fabricated thing" and your reasoning lead to, again, the contradiction that self is not self. And at the end you seem to question the statement "self is a fabricated thing." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor (& Sarah), > > > What matter are you referring to? > > Self is a fabricated thing. It is a fabrication of the mind. What is > fabricated is subject to dissolution. What is subject to dissolution > is not-self. Would it be right then to say with regard to that which > is subject to dissolution to be the self? > > It is this matter that has not been comprehended by you. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21119 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > The statement "self is a fabricated thing" and your reasoning lead > to, again, the contradiction that self is not self. And at the end > you seem to question the statement "self is a fabricated thing." Which is why I say that this matter has not been comprehended by you and I didn't care to explain it to you in the previous post. There's just no point, because you are stuck in an intellectual merry-go-round. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21120 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Sarah, Doing yoga or tai chi would not help in strenghtening right concentration. It is wrong concentration. I do not know your history and what's gone wrong with you. I still stress concentration. I know you dislike the word, but I can replace it by other terms, as in: "And what is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, , & verbal fabrications in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html I think I have said enough. In short, right concentration is not a dirty term. Mindfulness immersed in the body leads to right concentration. Regarding , unless you are for sure that it refers to only ultimate realities after checking the pali, I would include concepts into it. Yes, I see concepts as not-self. If nibbana is not-self, why can't concepts be not-self? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21121 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:19am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, How do you know that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon - [snip] > I agree with what you say here. But I think one small aspect of how > you are saying it may be producing a misunderstanding. If you were to change > the sentence "Self is a fabricated thing" to "Our sense of self is a > fabricated thing," it would express what you mean and remove any > misunderstanding. > The problem is that the intended, but actually nonexistent, thing > referred to by 'self', is, by definition, not fabricated. It is contradictory > to literally speak of self as fabricated or impermanent or impersonal. (The > traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > unfabricated, permanent, and personal.)] > Incidentally, off the main point, the features I listed above for a > "self" make nibbana sound like a candidate. I believe that nibbana fails > candidacy for two reasons: 1) While nibbana is not impermanent (it neither > arises nor ceases), it is also not permanent, because permanence is a > condition, and nibbana is beyond all conditions, and 2) Nibbana is > impersonal. > > 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) > > > > > 21122 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 10:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, How do you know that the Buddha understood the word 'self' as something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal in the Indian philosophical context? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > How do you know that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by > the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something > that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Swee Boon - > [snip] > > I agree with what you say here. But I think one small aspect > of how > > you are saying it may be producing a misunderstanding. If you were > to change > > the sentence "Self is a fabricated thing" to "Our sense of self is > a > > fabricated thing," it would express what you mean and remove any > > misunderstanding. > > The problem is that the intended, but actually nonexistent, > thing > > referred to by 'self', is, by definition, not fabricated. It is > contradictory > > to literally speak of self as fabricated or impermanent or > impersonal. (The > > traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the > Indian > > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > > unfabricated, permanent, and personal.)] > > Incidentally, off the main point, the features I listed > above for a > > "self" make nibbana sound like a candidate. I believe that nibbana > fails > > candidacy for two reasons: 1) While nibbana is not impermanent (it > neither > > arises nor ceases), it is also not permanent, because permanence > is a > > condition, and nibbana is beyond all conditions, and 2) Nibbana is > > impersonal. > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > 21123 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group 2 Dear Selamat and friends, I am very happy that you write more on your group discussions, anumodana. See below. op 07-04-2003 13:15 schreef cbn op nana_palo@c...: > I'll try to write more often about our discussion next time. > > Last saturday, we discussed concerning Ahetuka Citta and their functions in > our daily experiences. Many of the members wondered that they could > differentiate from new kusala or akusala citta (javana) which arise after > some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). Actually we were > always late to comprehend them. They ask some questions how to handle this > phenomena. Nina: As Rob K said, we cannot and should not try to catch different cittas. They are so fast and arise and fall away because of their own conditions. The Abhidhamma gives us a good foundation knowledge of dhammas and their conditions. We learn that there is a certain order in the processes: as you mention, some ahetuka vipaka citta (cakkhu vinnana or others, sampaticchana, > santirana) and then kiriya ahetuka citta (votthapana). After seeing there are a few more vipakacittas, conditioned by kamma, we cannot control them, then determining-consciousness, votthapana-citta, just one moment, and this is followed by kusala cittas or akusala cittas. When we study the processes of cittas we can be reminded that we cannot choose whether kusala citta or akusala citta arises after the votthapanacitta, determining-consciousness, and in the mind-door process after the mind-door adverting-consciousness. These are extremely short moments, there is no person who decides what will follow: kusala or akusala. Cittas are so fast. It depends on the accumulated kusala and akusala what types of citta will follow afterwards. We all have accumulated different types of kusala and akusala, from one citta to the next citta, from life to life. Nobody can tell which type of citta will arise next, it arises because of its own conditions. In the Suttas we read about kusala and akusala following upon seeing, etc. and in the Abhidhamma we learn in detail about the processes: such as the kiriyacitta which is determining-consciousness or mind-door adverting-consciousness arising in between the vipakacittas and the javana-cittas which are kusala citta or akusala citta. Nobody can change the order of the different cittas arising in processes and this teaches us about the conditionality of cittas. Thus the Abhidhamma helps us to have more understanding of the different types of conditions, it helps us to see that there is no one behind seeing, thinking, kusala or akusala. If we believe that we have to be "in time" to catch particular cittas, we are misled as to the truth. As Rob said, When akusala citta with forgetfulness, unawareness, or with clinging arises, that can be object of awareness. We do not have to do anything special, cittas arise already. Nina. 21124 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:21am Subject: Daybreak Dhamma with Lodewijk. Dear friends, Lodewijk and I were hiking early morning, having a Dhamma chat, very relaxed, interrupted with many Ah's and Oh's. (so cliche: sunrise, walking on grass with morning frost) Lodewijk: When I smell the smoke from chimneys, and walk in the cold morning air, the sun shining, I have strong associations with our hikes in Nepal. Nina: This is like Proust (author of Remembrance of Things Past) who had strong associations with the past when he thought of tasting a cooky (madeleine cooky) his aunt had given him when he was small. This is sa~n~naa cetasika or remembrance (perception). L: You cannot erase it, even if you want to. It shows that it is beyond control, it helps you to see that it is not self. N: As Mike said, there is no one behind the remembering. We all have memories we like to erase, but it is not possible. L: Just as I have dreams and nightmares about my former work. I cannot erase them. N: The arahat does not dream anymore. He has remembrance (sa~n~naa cetasika accompanying every citta), but he does not hold on to it. We should remember that A. Sujin said that nightmares are akusala cittas. Do you find that Abhidhamma makes people conceited? L: Those who think that it makes people conceited have a point. When you learn all the details of the Abhidhamma and believe that you know a lot, it could make you conceited. N: That's it. A. Sujin always says: "The Abhidhamma is not in the book". If you do not apply it in satipatthana you believe that you know a lot. We can begin to know our akusala. We read in the suttas about the six doors, and in the Abhidhamma we learn about processes of cittas experiencing objects through the six doors. We learn that there are countless akusala cittas in different processes. When we do not perform generous deeds, observe sila or apply ourselves to mental development we think, act and speak with akusala cittas. I just read in my "Perfections" (Ch 6, Perfection of Energy): Next day, at home, Breakfast Dhamma: Lodewijk said that he dreamt of his former work, but in his dream he had remembrance of a former similar situation in Jakarta, and he realized in his dream that this was sa~n~naa. Thus we see that talking about Dhamma can condition more understanding, we do not have to do anything special. That is what we learn from the suttas: listening and considering the Dhamma are important conditions for more understanding. Understanding can grow. Nina. 21125 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:03pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, If the matter is the contradiction that you've presented in your messages twice, then the matter is not for anyone to comprehend. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > The statement "self is a fabricated thing" and your reasoning lead > > to, again, the contradiction that self is not self. And at the end > > you seem to question the statement "self is a fabricated thing." > > Which is why I say that this matter has not been comprehended by you > and I didn't care to explain it to you in the previous post. > > There's just no point, because you are stuck in an intellectual > merry-go-round. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21126 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Christine, Thanks for posting this message. It makes me appreciate dsg as a tiny island of sanity. You and I are so lucky to have found it. Like that blind turtle with the hundred-year lung capacity, we have surfaced just at the right time and place. The difference between this island of sanity and the world as a whole, is that here, there is respect for the original Dhamma as preserved in the ancient Theravadan texts. Of course, we mustn't see ourselves as different; on those frequent occasions when we desire to become an enlightened being, we are effectively diving back into the "fuzzy, touchy-feely rainbow casserole." On the other hand, when we remember that there is no being, just nama and rupa, we return to our island of sanity. Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Sarah,(Victor) and All, > > Yes, I have been thinking over whether it is necessary to follow a > particular set of teachings, and to have a particular belief, in > order to understand truth and reality. I have been wondering whether 21127 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 1:21:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > How do you know that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by > the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something > that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== That's what I've read, Victor. 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) 21128 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 1:53:32 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > How do you know that the Buddha understood the word 'self' as > something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and > personal in the Indian philosophical context? > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== He was raised an upper class member of Indian society circa 2500 B.C.E.? 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) 21129 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, What have you read that give you the idea that the traditional meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > That's what I've read, Victor. > > With metta, > Howard 21130 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Howard, How does the Buddha being raised an upper class member of Indian society circa 2500 B.C.E. lead you to the idea that he understood the word 'self' as something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, permanent, and personal in the Indian philosophical context? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > He was raised an upper class member of Indian society circa 2500 > B.C.E.? > > With metta, > Howard 21131 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Dear Victor, Much as I enjoy your posts and they give me lots to consider and reflect upon - do you think you could possibly change your style to actually explaining your understanding of the Buddha's teaching on anatta. Just a few paragraphs without 'boomerang' questions and unexplained quotes. Specifically, as I recall asking you on numerour occasions, do you believe there is *something* separate from the aggregates like a self or soul? I think you would be doing those of us who, on occasion, find difficulty with the teaching of anatta, a great favour in clearly explaining this. I am, as always, presuming you are seriously communicating on a difficult subject. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > What have you read that give you the idea that the traditional > meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor - > > > [snip] > > That's what I've read, Victor. > > > > With metta, > > Howard 21132 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 4:26pm Subject: Way 74, Clear Comprehension 7 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 7. Clear comprehension of walking and so forth...cont. In all statements the meaning of the term "clear comprehension" should be understood by way of only clear comprehension that is endowed with mindfulness. Indeed in the Book of Classifications (Vibhangappakarana) these are put just in this way: "One goes forward, mindful and clearly comprehending; one goes backwards, mindful and clearly comprehending."[26] [Tika] By the words only clear comprehension that is endowed with mindfulness, both the importance of clear comprehension by way of function and that of mindfulness are taken. Indeed it is not the pointing out of merely the condition of mindfulness with clear comprehension for it is said, "nowhere does knowledge exist without mindfulness." [T] Now in order to reinforce that thing by the Classificatory Method too [vibhanga nayenapi tadattham samatthetum], the words "Indeed, in the Book of Classifications" and so forth were spoken by the commentator. [T] By this indeed, one makes clear the importance even of mindfulness here as of clear comprehension [imina pi hi sampajaññassa viya satiya pettha patthanam (padhanam) yeva vibhaveti]. [T] There, "these" refers to the synoptical statement beginning with "In going forwards and in going backwards, he is a doer of clear comprehension." [tattha etani padaniti abhikkante patikkante sampajana kari hoti adini uddesa padani]. [T] The reciters of the Middle Collection [Majjhimabhanaka] however and the scholars of the Abhidhamma [Abhidhammika] say thus: "A certain bhikkhu goes thinking the while of something else, considering something else (that is, not thinking of or considering his action of going, or his subject of meditation.) [T] Another goes without causing the abandoning of the subject of meditation. In the same manner, a certain bhikkhu thinking the while of something else, considering something else, is standing, sitting, or sleeping (lying down); another sleeps (lies down) without causing the abandoning of the subject of meditation." [eko bhikkhu gacchanto aññam cintento aññam vitakkento gacchati. Eko kammatthanam avissajjetva va gacchati. Tatha eko titthanto nisidanto sayanto aññam cintento aññnam vitakkento sayati. Eko kammatthanam avissajjetva va sayati]. [T] Indeed the earnest bhikkhu comprehends thus: The material and mental qualities which existed at the east end of the ambulatory passed away just there without reaching the west end of the ambulatory. The material and mental qualities which existed at the west end of the ambulatory, too, passed away just there without reaching the east end of the ambulatory. The material and mental qualities which existed at the very center of the ambulatory passed away just there without reaching either end of the ambulatory. The material and mental qualities which existed in walking, passed away without reaching the position of standing. The material and mental qualities which existed in the position of standing passed away just there without reaching the position of sitting; of sitting, without reaching the position of sleeping. Comprehending in this way again and again, the mind enters the life-continum, the unconscious. When arising, he at once takes up the subject of meditation. This bhikkhu is a doer of clear comprehension in walking (going about) and so forth. In this way, however, the subject becomes unclear in sleep; the subject of meditation should not be made unclear. Therefore the bhikkhu, having exercised to the full extent of his ability on the ambulatory, stood, and sat, lies down comprehending thus: "The body is unconscious; the bed is unconscious. The body does not know, 'I am lying down on the bed.' The bed also does not know, 'On me the body is lying down.' He, whilst just comprehending again and again thus, "The unconscious body is lying down on the unconscious bed," the mind enters the life-continum, the unconscious. On awakening, he at once takes up the subject of meditation. This bhikkhu is called a doer of clear comprehension in sleeping.[27] Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." Thus the bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in the body by way of the laying hold of the fourfold comprehension either in his own body or in another's body, or at one time in his own body, and in another's at another time. And, here too, "in contemplating origination" and so forth, the origin and the dissolution of only the materiality aggregate should, in the exposition, be taken out. The remainder is to be understood just by the method already stated by the commentator. Here, the Truth of Suffering is the mindfulness which lays hold of the fourfold clear comprehension; the Truth of Origination is the pre-craving which originates that mindfulness; the non-occurrence of either is the Truth of Cessation; the Real Path already stated is the Way-truth. Thus, the bhikkhu having striven by way of the Four Noble Truths reaches peace. This is indeed the means of deliverance up to arahantship of one who lays hold of the fourfold clear comprehension. 27. Cf. Jhana Vibhanga, Sammoha Vinodani, pp. 363-4 P.T.S. Ed. 21133 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 0:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 4:48:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > What have you read that give you the idea that the traditional > meaning of 'self' understood by the Buddha from the Indian > philosophical context is that of something that is unconditioned, > unfabricated, permanent, and personal? > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== It's been a long, long time, Victor, so I can't give you precise references. I've read collections of works from the Upanishads, books on Advaita Vedanta, and at least on work by Shankara (though he came later historically, so that may not be relevant). 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) 21134 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 1:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/10/03 4:51:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > How does the Buddha being raised an upper class member of Indian > society circa 2500 B.C.E. lead you to the idea that he understood > the word 'self' as something that is unconditioned, unfabricated, > permanent, and personal in the Indian philosophical context? > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Victor - > > > [snip] > > He was raised an upper class member of Indian society circa > 2500 > >B.C.E.? > > > >With metta, > >Howard > ================================= My point was that this was the philosophical notion of 'self' at that place and time, and the Buddha would have been familiar with the Hindu philosophy and religion of his time, being from a privileged class. 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) 21135 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, I think what you find unintelligible is the statement: This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." It goes against your self-identity view: "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." Regarding the words "I", "mine", "self", please check a standard dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com for their meanings. Regards, Victor KKT: I don't think when the Buddha taught the Anattalakkhana Sutta to the 5 bhikkhus, He told them looking for the meaning of the words << I, mine, self >> in a dictionary. Besides, there was not a Webster dictionary at that time (just joking :-)) The problem is very simple, Victor. The Buddha taught the Dhamma to the common worldlings. He should use words in the common sense in order to whoever heard Him even for the first time could understand Him immediately. He did not complicate things. Therefore the fact that in His second sermon (ie. Anattalakkhana Sutta) He did not give the definition of << I, me, mine, self >> means that those words convey the meaning of which everybody had already the << same >> understanding. Otherwise there would be someone like Christine who raised her hand asking for the definition :-)) (Hello Christine, just kidding :-)) So what is the meaning of those words? Very simple, people at the time of the Buddha believed in a << speculative & unfounded >> existence of an entity/soul/self called Atman or Jiva. (I call it the << metaphysical self >>) This belief << crystalizes >> into a << factual >> feeling/sensation/thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> inside oneself. (I call it the << empirical self >> or ego) Whoever does not experience this self, please raise his/her hand :-)) Therefore the << mine, I, my self >> in this famous phrase of this sermon: << This is mine. This I am. This is my self >> (etam mama esohamasmi eso me attati) (please don't ask me about the Pali words :-)) should be this << empirical self >> This self is experienced either as a << whole >> or as each one of the 5 khandhas (aggregates) Therefore the Buddha made an analysis to point out its << illusory, unreal >> existence and for each khandha He said: << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> (netam mama nesohamasmi na meso attati) So there is no mystery about this word :-)) What is worth to discuss is that how could one eradicate this feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> ? For examples: __Victor thinks that everything << is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." >> My commentary is that I don't know whether Victor could go further than a merely intellectual understanding of this phrase? If this is the case then I don't think this is of great help. (In my opinion, realization should be done with panna (wisdom) and not intellect) __Many people on this list (the Abhidhammikas) think that studying the teachings, contemplating, constantly observing the rising and falling of the dhammas at the six sense doors are kusala conditions for << panna >> to arise. And this is panna that eradicates the feeling of self (correct me if I'm wrong) __Others think that the eradication should be done by << insight >> meditation (ie. Vipassana/Satipatthana) __Others think that by jhanas (but I think jhanas give only a << temporary >> eradication) Peace, KKT 21136 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute In a message dated 4/9/03 8:39:15 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali 'dukkha'? If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. Thanks for your patience. mike >> Well, my good friend, are not the causes of suffering, ignorance, delusion and doubt? Are not ignorance, delusion and doubt a consequence of grasping and aversion? Isn't grasping and aversion a consequence of, a belief in a separate self? Isn't a separate self duality? best regards, Jeff 21137 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group In a message dated 4/9/03 11:55:44 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: <> ===== Yes, my good friend Rob, I agree with you and your excellent analogy of the Inuit vocabulary for snow, which came to mind after I sent my last reply to you. Perhaps you are right with respect to the Pali language having a richer vocabulary for descriptions of gnosis, but I believe the Pali language borrowed much of that vocabulary from Sanskrit, and often my translations of Pali words often comes from translations of the Sanskrit. The Pali facility with the language of gnosis verses an apparent deficiency in the English language might explain my problems with the many errors I seem to have found in the Pali canon with respect to my personal experience. Those apparent errors may be purely due to my dependence on English, and its deficiencies. But, since I am so utterly useless in learning new languages, I am stuck with it. I am sure one of you Pali scholars can find the necessary quote from the tripitaka that the Dhamma should be articulated in the common language of the people. And, since I am common, and thus hindered with English as my only language of articulation, I am therefore left only with expressing my experience in that language, as well as my study being limited to imperfect English translations. And, in articulating my experience I am often confronted, as we have been here, with debates about the use of certain words, but maybe if we native speakers of English work on it, we might be able to construct a language of gnosis out of the shabby language we have inherited in this lifetime. Also, we should not forget that the English language has been engaged in its own articulation of the concepts of gnosis as long as it has been distinguishable from other languages, because gnosis is inherent to all humans (at least), and Buddhism most definitely did not invent the idea, but it certainly has a very rich descriptive history of gnosis. ===== > According to the Abhidhamma, it is impossible to separate awareness > (citta) from mental factors (cetasikas). The commentary uses the > analogy of a soup seasoned with salt and other flavours. One can > detect the "saltiness" in the soup, but one cannot separate the > saltiness from the other flavours. Citta does not "deepen"; its > characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) > arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for > changing mind states. Does this make sense? > > ===== Well, there we go with our flawed language again. When I use the words 'consciousness' and 'awareness,' I never use them with the implication that a sense or a mental state is implied, or that physicality is required, although the culture for whom English is their native toungue may never acknowledge domains of existence that do not involve our sensory apparatus. But, then I would have to dissagree with that assumption, because there is plenty of English literature to prove otherwise. So, when Pali scholars use 'consciousness' and 'awareness' with that implication of sensory apparatus, physicality and mental states I want to crack open my dictionary and reflect on why the University of Arizona is about to give me an English degree. To me 'consciousness' and 'awareness' are that bare attention thing that we often see in the popular literature. And, when I use these words they maybe in the context that I may become aware of sensory imput or a mental state, but I would say so. Where as for me the word 'perception' has that distinct implication that I am engaged in sensory phenomena. > ===== Citta does not "deepen"; its > characterisitic ais always the same. The mental factors (cetasikas) > arise toghether with the consciousness (citta) and this allows for > changing mind states. > ===== Well, we are at another fine point in language. As I understand it, the Pali word 'citta' is often translated as 'mind,' and when it is used in the Theravadan world, I believe it is used in the context of something with continuity that which, like a river flowing from the mountain to the ocean is continuous from the mountain to the ocean, and only has different appearances along the way. (I'm not trying to tell you something here I don't think you know, I am just describing how I believe you would describe it to me.) Therefore, in this context of this idea of continuity, and my above definition of the "bareness" of 'consciousness' and 'awareness,' then I would most certainly agree with you. But, I believe we should also agree that there are domains of the 'self' (for want of a better word) that we remain unconscious of, then I would disagree with you. There is most definitely a deepening or expanding of one's domain of awareness into what here to for was an unconscious domain. I think the difference here is like saying the sun sets. Am I going to make a fool of myself while enjoying a sunset with a young lady and correct her when she says, "What a beautiful sunset?" No, I'll enjoy the 'sunset' and find peace within. ===== > I believe the whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on the idea of psychophysiological states (I believe poorly translated by Nanamoli as 'Mental Materiality') overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Our job, as yogis, is to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and relinquish are grasp on them. > > Re (in brief), the 4 noble truth > > "Suffering exists...the cause of suffering is grasping and aversion" ===== It looks as though we have a very different perspective on dependent origination. My understanding on the purpose of dependent origination is to answer the questions: - Why are we here? (because of past ignorance / craving) - Where are we going? (rebirth, because of present ignorance / craving) - How do we stop? (uproot ignorance / craving) I would venture that the role of the yogi is to "see things as they truly are"; see paramattha dhammas as paramattha dhammas, see concepts as concepts. It starts with study (pariyatti), followed by practice (patipatti), leading to wisdom (pativedha). ===== Yes, actually I would agree with. As I am sure you know Dependent Origination is a very big, all inclusive concept, which I think Siddharta Guatama was trying to hinge his whole thesis on. As you recall the 4 noble truths are really the foundation, but it seems clear to me Dependent Origination is in a sense his dissertation level exegesis of the concept. As you said: - Why are we here? (because of past ignorance / craving) - Where are we going? (rebirth, because of present ignorance / craving) - How do we stop? (uproot ignorance / craving) So, if I may expand my earlier simplified interpretation of Dependent Origination to include your excellent point here. As I said the whole premise of Dependent Origination is based on observing our psychophysiological states which overlay the 'awareness' (citta). Remember I am using the word 'awareness' in the same sense of a continuity as the Asians use (citta/mind). Our job, as yogis, is to in a sense sift through the psychophysiological states, map them and relinquish are grasp on them. This covers the 4 Nobel Truths Now, to cover what Nanamoli translates as past lifetime linking, we have only to extend this metaphor beyond a single lifetime. This then states the reason why we move from one lifetime to the next is simply because of our grasping and aversion of mental states and sensory experience, or as you so excellently put it "ignorance and craving." ===== In short, the Buddha did not see the rationale behind putting the quest for scientific knowledge ahead of the quest for spiritual knowledge (the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta also lists the same subjects as the Simsapa Sutta as being worthy of study)... Hopefully this explains why I am a little wary of trying to overlay too much science / biology onto mental experiences. ===== Well, I would certainly agree that there are areas of discussion that don't further one's practice, but I think we also have to avoid burying our heads in the sand as well. Don't forget the historic Buddha lived 2,500 years ago and there have both been a lot of Buddhas who have come and gone since, and culture has changed dramatically as well. But, I am also sure you have read the portions of the canon that deal with cremation ground meditations. It is clear to me that the Buddha had an excellent knowledge of anatomy, but he hadn't have a clue about neurology. Does that mean we should ignore everything that the historic Buddha didn't talk about? I think if we did, we would be like those born-again Christians who cannot accept Evolutionary Biology. Personally, I think Buddhism is an excellent replacement for the outmoded religions that tend to drag down our culture, but if Buddhism isn't going to accept anything that the Buddha didn't talk about, then we are just replacing one closed minded system with another. Thanks, I'll pass. By the same token I'm not a born-again science geek either. I don't need science to prove to me enlightenment exists. I know because I practice, which gives me a domain of personal experience that supports my belief in enlightenment. ===== If we define "gnosis" as meaning "insight that brings escape from Samsara", then I believe that the Buddha did say that His was the "only way". The DSG recently had a long discussion on this issue over the term "only way" in the Satipatthana Sutta. If we limit the definition of "gnosis" to mean the "knowledge of the heart" or "insight" about the spiritual nature of the cosmos, then Buddhism certainly has no monopoly. ===== Gnosis is defined as: "Intuitive apprehension of spiritual truths, an esoteric form of knowledge sought by the Gnostics." American Heritage Electronic dictionary. Certainly the orthodox will always come up with narrow ways to define their belief to limit the domain of their influence to only those who will blindly accept what they preach. I personally do not subscribe to a belief that any Buddha has ever believed that he was the "only" way. It may also be worth reflecting on that Buddhism arrived in the geographic domain of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan around the 3rd century BC, when Ashoka expanded his domain into those regions. I don't believe it is a coincidence that the earliest archeological evidence and historic references to the Gnostic cults in the domains of the Greek, Egyptian and Northern Sinai were at the same time period. I also believe there is considerable evidence to indicate that Jesus and the birth of Christianity was deeply influenced by the presence of Buddhism on the fringe of the Mediterranean basin. ===== I don't meditate enough. Thank you for your compassionate reminder. I hope that one day, my practical "knowledge" can be increased to the level that I can compare my experience with the Tipitaka. ===== It just takes practice, daily practice. Study is great, but without the context of personal experience study is just more samsara. Just Buddhist samsara. ===== I agree that "mind" is not a good translation for citta; "consciousness" is better, but still sub-optimal. For this reason, I prefer to leave "citta" as "citta". There is an excellent cartoon on this subject at: http://www.dharmathecat.com/episod49.htm Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it. Metta, Rob M :-) ===== I enjoyed the cartoon, it really does sum it all up for us doesn't it? Practice and know. But as you said so well, "But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it." The only way I believe we can get beyond the bridges is to empty ourselves and forget everything we ever read, at least at the moment of practice. Sit until you know. Excellent conversation my good friend, you are a worthy opponent. Best, Jeff 21138 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 2:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup In a message dated 4/9/03 9:46:53 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << Hi Jeff, Actually, I find discussion with cult members anything but healthy, but, hey, that's me. Thank you for the invitation. I don't get to Tucson too often and probably won't be there at all before I leave for Egypt. Good luck in your practice. Stay cool! ;-). Metta, James >> Thanks James, yes, I find discussions with cult members somewhat tedious as well. Thank-you for your warm welcome, perhaps if you don't come to Tucson, I'll see you at Wat Promkunaram or some other venue for enlightenment. Safe journey to Egypt, Jeff 21139 From: nana cbn Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group 2 Dear Nina, anumodana for the explanation. please see below. These are extremely short > moments, there is no person who decides what will follow: kusala or akusala. > Cittas are so fast. It depends on the accumulated kusala and akusala what > types of citta will follow afterwards. We all have accumulated different > types of kusala and akusala, from one citta to the next citta, from life to > life. Nobody can tell which type of citta will arise next, it arises because > of its own conditions. Akusala and kusala citta arise because of the accumulation of our kusala and akusala before, which accummulated too in their cetasikas respectively, isn't it? kind regards, selamat 21140 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 7:37pm Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > In a message dated 4/9/03 8:39:15 PM, mlnease@z... writes: > > << p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali > 'dukkha'? > > If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. > > Thanks for your patience. > > mike >> > > Well, my good friend, are not the causes of suffering, ignorance, delusion > and doubt? No. The origin of dukkha is tanhaa, as I understand it. > Are not ignorance, delusion and doubt a consequence of grasping > and aversion? Ignorance, delusion, doubt, grasping and aversion are all different mental factors, each with its own unique characteristics and all arising and subsiding instantaneously according to conditions. > Isn't grasping and aversion a consequence of, a belief in a > separate self? No. Grasping and aversion can each arise independent of micchaadi.t.thi--the belief in a (separate?!) self. Isn't a separate self duality? No. It is a concept. > best regards, Jeff And to You, mike 21141 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Christine, I would suggest that not to assume the word "self" as "soul" or "Self" or "Atman" or "God" or "Brahma" or "Essence" or "Jiva" or anything metaphysical. This kind of assumption won't help in understanding the Buddha's teaching. And perhaps the hardest part for some people in understanding the teaching on anatta is abandoning assumptions. I would suggest reading the discourse again without any assumption on what self is, on whether it exists or not. It might be uncomfortable or unpleasant to give up those assumptions. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > Much as I enjoy your posts and they give me lots to consider and > reflect upon - do you think you could possibly change your style to > actually explaining your understanding of the Buddha's teaching on > anatta. Just a few paragraphs without 'boomerang' questions and > unexplained quotes. Specifically, as I recall asking you on > numerour occasions, do you believe there is *something* separate from > the aggregates like a self or soul? I think you would be doing those > of us who, on occasion, find difficulty with the teaching of anatta, > a great favour in clearly explaining this. I am, as always, > presuming you are seriously communicating on a difficult subject. > > metta, > Christine 21142 From: connie Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 8:49pm Subject: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Friends ~ I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to any suggestions as to what to say. Thank-you, Connie 21143 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya Dear Howard, op 10-04-2003 14:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > What I think led me in the wrong direction on this is the vague > recollection of instructions to monks for averting the eyes. Perhaps that was > a last-ditch effort! ;-) N: No, it is very appropriate, the monk can look ahead one length of a plough. He should not stare at people, not be curious. The monk.s life is different from the lay life, he conducts himself as an arahat. Nina. 21144 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 We read: The king, when he encouraged the recluse Hårita to make an effort to abandon his defilements, spoke the seventh stanza: ³Lust arises in your body, and destroys your beauty [11] Abandon lustful excitement, And you will prosper, You will be praised by many for your wisdom.² When the Bodhisatta heard this, he could regain his awareness and consider the danger in sense pleasures. Thereupon he spoke the eighth stanza: ³Sense pleasures are blinding, they cause much suffering. They injure gravely. I shall look for the root of sensuousness, I shall cut down lust with its bonds.² The root of sensuous desire is unwise attention, ayoniso manasikåra. We read: The recluse developed samatha and could again attain jhåna. He saw the danger of dwelling in an unsuitable place, that was the royal park. Therefore, he returned to the forest to be free from all taint of womankind. When he had come to the end of his life, he entered the Brahma plane. The Buddha told this story in the Jeta Grove because of a discontented monk. When this monk saw a beautifully attired woman, defilements arose in him and he wanted to leave the monkhood. When he was brought against his will to the Buddha by his teacher and preceptor, and the Buddha asked him whether it was true that he was a backslider, this monk said that it was true. Thereupon the Buddha said: ²Monk, defilements do not lead to happiness, they destroy good qualities, they cause rebirth in hell. Why could your defilements not cause your destruction? Why could a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf? I myself, during the life I was the recluse Hårita, had acquired the five supernatural powers and the eight attainments, and I strived after awakening wisdom. However, inspite of this, I was, because of this kind of defilement, unable to have awareness and I fell away from jhåna.² The Buddha taught this story so that we could see the disadvantage of akusala and the power of accumulated defilements. We should reflect on what we read: ³Why should a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf?² We all have defilements that are not yet eradicated and we are therefore not as steady as Mount Sineru, we are only like withered leaves, which are light and can be blown away by the wind, the wind of lobha, dosa and moha. Footnote: 11. Vanna, appearance or quality. 21145 From: Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 6:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads To my good friend Christine: In a message dated 4/10/03 1:02:04 AM, cforsyth@v... writes: << I wonder though about the statement - "the atheistic, non-dualistic, post enlightenment point of view of the historic Buddha, which the Theravadan tradition inherited." Is Theravada Buddhism non-dualistic? I don't think the Theravada tradition sees itself as non-dualistic - I think this is represented by Mahayana Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta. My understanding is that the doctrine of Anatta would rule out any belief in a permanent individual self or an absolute universal self, and any such belief would be regarded as a delusion - an instance of personality view. Bhikkhu Bodhi ('Dhamma and non-duality') states: "The teaching of the Buddha as found in the Pali Canon does not endorse a philosophy of non-dualism of any variety, nor, I would add, can a non-dualistic perspective be found lying implicit withing the Buddha's discourses." >> Yes, my good friend Christine, I believe it is quite clear that Theravadan Buddhism is most definitely and fundamentally non-dualist, because they deny an individual self and a god. If their is neither a self nor a god, what are we left with? Unity/emptiness. What were the deepest meditations that Siddharta Guatama articulated? Unification of Consciousness, merger with Infinite, time, space and consciousness, etc., even though the highly skilled Bhikkhu Bodhi disagrees. In fact non-dualism, I believe is at the heart of many of the conversation going on in this group. As for your comment about Mahayana, there are 5 basic manifestations of Mahayana. Tantra and Pure Land, are most definitely dualist, because they have deified the Buddha, whereas Zen, Tientai and Three Ways, are fundamentally non-dualist because they focus on emptiness. I don't see how one can have a concept of emptiness in a dualistic context. It is also worth pointing out that scholars tend to say that Advaita Vedanta was constructed as a Hindu response to Buddhism. Or in other words, Buddhism in a Hindu context. Good questions, Jeff 21146 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 10, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > Well, I would certainly agree that there are areas of discussion that don't > further one's practice, but I think we also have to avoid burying our heads > in the sand as well. Don't forget the historic Buddha lived 2,500 years ago > and there have both been a lot of Buddhas who have come and gone since, and > culture has changed dramatically as well. > > But, I am also sure you have read the portions of the canon that deal with > cremation ground meditations. It is clear to me that the Buddha had an > excellent knowledge of anatomy, but he hadn't have a clue about neurology. > Does that mean we should ignore everything that the historic Buddha didn't > talk about? I think if we did, we would be like those born-again Christians > who cannot accept Evolutionary Biology. > > Personally, I think Buddhism is an excellent replacement for the outmoded > religions that tend to drag down our culture, but if Buddhism isn't going to > accept anything that the Buddha didn't talk about, then we are just replacing > one closed minded system with another. Thanks, I'll pass. > > By the same token I'm not a born-again science geek either. I don't need > science to prove to me enlightenment exists. I know because I practice, > which gives me a domain of personal experience that supports my belief in > enlightenment. ===== I'm sorry if I implied "rejecting" anything. I am saying that "science" and "Buddhism" should be seen as separate subjects and we should not try to merge the two. ===== > > It may also be worth reflecting on that Buddhism arrived in the geographic > domain of Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan around the 3rd century BC, when Ashoka > expanded his domain into those regions. I don't believe it is a coincidence > that the earliest archeological evidence and historic references to the > Gnostic cults in the domains of the Greek, Egyptian and Northern Sinai were > at the same time period. I also believe there is considerable evidence to > indicate that Jesus and the birth of Christianity was deeply influenced by > the presence of Buddhism on the fringe of the Mediterranean basin. ===== Last week, I attended a dhamma talk. The speaker referred to a Sutta where the Buddha said that He had recently appeared in other countries (through his supernormal powers), shared the Dhamma with other people and then disappeared. The speaker then referenced the writings of Lao Tze (his writings formed the basis of Taoism), who was a contemporary of the Buddha. Lao Tze talked of "a golden skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy before disappearing". The speaker then went on to list amazing parallels between the writings of Lao Tze and the Suttas (Tao = Nibbana, Five Precepts, etc.). I am trying to find the Sutta reference. Metta, Rob M :-) 21147 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 Dear Nina, I’ve been waiting for your return to reply to some of your posts. I was very moved by the account from the Harita Jataka which I’ve just read in full in Jataka Stories and the comments about it. From ‘Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 13’ Quote:“When she stood up quickly, her robe of fine cloth fell off. As soon as the recluse saw this, his defilements which had been dormant for thousands of aeons, rose up like a poisonous snake lying in a box, and hence his skill in jhåna disappeared. The recluse who was unable to apply mindfulness, went inside, seized the queen by her hand and then they gave themselves over to misconduct.” ***** It’s such a good reminder that we can only ever know our accumulations when they arise and like in this case, the kilesa of various kinds can lie dormant for aeons, but if not eradicated can arise anytime when there are conditions. I also found it very interesting to read in the same extract: Quote:“The recluse thought: ‘If I say that I did not indulge in sin, the king would believe me, but in this world there is no surer foundation than truthful speech. Someone who forsakes the truth cannot attain Buddhahood, even if he sits in the sacred enclosure of the Bodhi Tree. Hence I should only speak the truth. In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, take what is not given to him, commit adultery, drink strong liquor, but he may not tell a lie, speech that violates the truth.’” There has been discussion before about whether it is possible for a Bodhisatta to break the precepts. This seems to answer the question, (though I thought in another post I quoted something contrary to this ??). The example of the King (Ananda in this previous life) is also so compassionate and exemplary. He seems to give the Bodhisatta wise counsel in return as well: Quote:“Keen panna is intent on what is beneficial. It can abandon lust that has arisen within you. For what benefit do you have panna, if you cannot dispel sinful thoughts.” ***** I find it so helpful because panna has to know the accumulations as they are at the present moment --no change of character -- and yet if there is no knowing and ‘turning away’ from the kilesa there is no benefit in ‘having panna’. It can seem like a paradox but I don’t believe it is. This account also reminds me of comments which I referred to before in the Way corner under sappaya sampajanna (clear comprehension of suitability) with regard to the contact amongst bhikkhus and bhikkhunis and also your Dhamma Issues series on ‘Disappearance of the Ariyans’. Throughout the Vinaya we read about rules being laid down when bhikkhus succumbed to various temptations. In the Way66 passage we read that: Quote: “on the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine, while young bhikkhus were rehearsing the doctrine, young bhikkhunis standing at the back of the bhikkhus were listening to the rehearsal. Then a young bhikkhu came into bodily contact with a bhikkhuni while stretching out his hand, and, by just that fact, became a layman."(Tika: ‘By reason of coming into bodily contact with a female, that bhikkhu having become filled with longing for sense-delights turned to the lower life of the world'). ***** The question of why the length of the sasana is halved because of the establishment of the bhikkhuni order is a sensitive topic. I believe it relates to the nature of kilesa which as we have seen may lie dormant for aeons. Only the Buddha would know in the case of those with highly developed panna and endowed with skills in jhana and so on what these might be. Perhaps it is inevitable that the bhikkhunis, in spite of strict rules, would have close contact with bhikkhus that might not apply so much to lay people. Of course, questions about other kinds of attraction arise as well.... ***** In Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15, we read: Quote:"The recluse developed samatha and could again attain jhåna. He saw the danger of dwelling in an unsuitable place, that was the royal park. Therefore, he returned to the forest to be free from all taint of womankind. When he had come to the end of his life, he entered the Brahma plane. "The Buddha told this story in the Jeta Grove because of a discontented monk. When this monk saw a beautifully attired woman, defilements arose in him and he wanted to leave the monkhood. When he was brought against his will to the Buddha by his teacher and preceptor, and the Buddha asked him whether it was true that he was a backslider, this monk said that it was true. Thereupon the Buddha said: ‘Monk, defilements do not lead to happiness, they destroy good qualities, they cause rebirth in hell. Why could your defilements not cause your destruction? Why could a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf? I myself, during the life I was the recluse Hårita, had acquired the five supernatural powers and the eight attainments, and I strived after awakening wisdom. However, inspite of this, I was, because of this kind of defilement, unable to have awareness and I fell away from jhåna.’ "The Buddha taught this story so that we could see the disadvantage of akusala and the power of accumulated defilements. We should reflect on what we read: ‘Why should a strong wind that strikes Mount Sineru not carry off a withered leaf?’ We all have defilements that are not yet eradicated and we are therefore not as steady as Mount Sineru, we are only like withered leaves, which are light and can be blown away by the wind, the wind of lobha, dosa and moha.” ***** I love the metaphor of the ‘withered leaf’. Aren’t we just like withered leaves most the time being blown about by lobha, dosa and moha? If the great Harita could still be blown by his defilements, who are we to think we are beyond such temptations regardless of apparent accumulations to date in this life? I also appreciated the reminders about caga (relinquishment). In Perfections, ch8, Truthfulness, no 5, we read about how “if truthfulness and relinquishment are not firmly established, the four noble truths cannot be realized............Relinquishment, caga, does not only refer to the giving up of possessions, but it also means the giving up of clinging to sense objects, such as visible object and tangible object. Apart from this it also refers to the giving up of what is considered important in the world: gain, honour and praise. Moreover, it refers to the relinquishment of defilements.....” ‘Giving up clinging to sense objects’ reminds me of the discussion about guarding the sense doors. By being aware of what arises through the sense doors, gradually there is the development of relinquishment or the abandoning of clinging just at that moment of being aware. A moment of sanity for ‘mad’ worldling. Perhaps the reason that an arahant would not be able to continue as a layperson would be because it would be like living amongst the mad. From Perfections, ch8, Truthfulness, no 14: Quote:“Someone may believe that he is out of danger because he has developed a certain degree of panna, but he should not be neglectful. Akusala can even harm a person with panna, who has a keen interest in the Dhamma and enjoys its benefit.” ***** So many excellent and inspiring reminders. Many thanks for all your hard work with the translation of the series.Anumodana. Metta, Sarah ====== 21148 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Different Roads Hi Christine, Many thanks for sharing your (colourful) comments which I'm sure we all enjoyed, regardless of agreement or not: --- christine_forsyth wrote: > The Buddha did teach tolerance of others beliefs - but I don't > believe that he taught that *any* belief would do - or that we > should 'relax, don't worry, be happy - we'll all 'get there' in the > end'. I don't believe he taught us to combine bits of all belief- > systems into a fuzzy touchy-feely rainbow casserole of what 'feels > true' to us; a melange of what fits in and feels good to our 21st > century cultural/value systems - that appeals to our ideal > of 'fairness' and 'wouldn't it be nice ...'. ..... ;-) ..... > I don't understand all religious roads to lead to the same > destination - anymore than they do in a modern city. There are long > delays, dead ends and dangerous places. Spending a long, long time > wandering about in a city doesn't mean you are incrementally coming > closer to your destination - it means you are spending a long long > time wandering about. The Buddha taught that human birth is rare, > and to be born during a Buddhasasana (Dispensation of a Buddha) is > even rarer. If we have a precious chance to hear the Dhamma, > shouldn't we listen and reflect on his words, 'as if our hair were on > fire'. I understand the meaning of the word Samsara to be "The > Wandering On - the perpetual wandering through the > rounds of rebirth." So - is there 'Truth', or is there 'a truth'? > And is 'Truth' only what the individual thinks is 'Truth', and if it > is different to what the Buddha taught is that O.K.? i.e. no > consequences, go with the flow - A+ for sincerity. ..... Definitely A+ for style ;-) Look forward to more of your reflections. Metta, Sarah ======= 21149 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Everyman's Ethics, adversities. Dear Nina (& Christine), I also appreciated the reminders about being ‘unshaken in adversties’: --- nina van gorkom wrote: > I read in the last verse: > Who is energetic and not indolent > In misfortune unshaken > Flawless in manner and intelligent > Such a one to honour may attain. > > My PTS translates instead of misfortune: unshaken in adversities. Here I > think of the eight worldly conditions: and the four which are > adversities: > loss, blame, dishonour and bodily misery. ..... > I am not unshaken by adversities, panna is still poor. But even > intellectual > understanding can help us. ..... Yes, a little understanding at any level helps a lot and of course, then there is all the wishing not to be shaken instead of any detachment when affected by adversities;-) Also, when affected by the opposites - gain, praise, honour and happiness, there is usually little concern. ..... > Sarah brought up the issue of cancer, and Lodewijk and I had a heated > discussion about it. It is a delicate, sensitive issue. He said, but one > has > to be treated, you cannot say there is no cancer. I explained that this > is > quite true, but that it can be helpful to also contemplate different > cittas > experiencing objects through the six doors. In between going to the > hospital > or in the waiting room, there can be brief moments of wise attention: > thinking of cancer is one moment, seeing is another moment, and all such > moments do not last. Also rupas we call cancer are arising and falling > away. > We do not stay away from doctor and medicines, chemo's, of course not. ..... Back to daily life. So often when people hear about paramattha dhammas, there is an idea that somehow we will lose all common sense , giving up jobs or homes or concern about medical treatment. Even a monk takes care when sick, but the understanding of realities and the real cause of mental anguish helps a lot. I think it was KKT in a post who gave a quote (which I forget ...about a mountain?) referring to the ordinariness of life and outer appearances when panna develops. ..... > But, > considering in between different realities can help us to less identify > ourselves with this or that calamity, to have a somewhat more detached, > objective attitude. It can to a degree take away the pain and the worry. > Even our aversion: it is conditioned and arises for a moment, but it > does > not stay. Again, even if we have only intellectual understanding, > stemming > from listening, helps us already. ..... Yes. Sometimes there may not even be any physical discomfort or other akusala vipaka for all we know. But we hear or read a story from a doctor or the newspaper and immediately there are conditions for the ‘identifying with the calamity’. I’m very conscious of this at the moment in Hong Kong. There hasn’t been anything unpleasant experienced for me during this SARS pneumonia outbreak. On the contrary, there is no waiting for lifts, queueing anywhere or any crowds out and about or screaming children around. No obviously unpleasant sights, sounds or bodily experiences and yet so much concern and thinking about the future and unknown. ..... In another post you wrote a helpful reminder and quote from A.Sujin: “We experience pleasant objects and unpleasant objects and we are inclined to think about them for a long time with akusala citta. We think of people and we worry about them. Acharn Sujin gave us valuable advice about the way to cope with our problems in daily life. She said: ‘Whatever happens now, one should remember that it is because of conditions. Nobody can do anything, you cannot change a particular thought to another one. You cannot change seeing right now to the experience of another object. When you understand this, you do not go away from the present object. When you understand that it is conditioned in this way you do not think, why does this unpleasant event happen to me. it is useless to cry over it or continue thinking about it.’” **** As you also just wrote to Selamat: “Nobody can change the order of the different cittas arising in the processes and this teaches us about the conditionality of cittas. Thus the Abhidhamma helps us to have more understanding of the different types of conditions, it helps us to see that there is no one behind seeing, thinking, kusala or akusala. If we believe that we have to be “in time” to catch particular cittas, we are misled as to the truth..........Whena kusala citta with forgetfulness, unawareness, or with clinging arises, that can be object of awarenes. We do not have to do anything special, cittas arise already.” Instead of being fatalistic or scary as some people suggest, it’s truly liberating to just begin to appreciate that we don’t have to do anything special and that these phenomena are conditioned at each moment. Many thanks as always for the helpful reminders. Metta, Sarah ===== 21150 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Doing yoga or tai chi would not help in strenghtening right > concentration. It is wrong concentration. ..... If one were following one of these (or swimming, tennis, hiking, Qi Gong, body scanning, focussing on a part of the anatomy....) with the view that it would particularly lead to right concentration or other eightfold path factors, I agree it would be quite wrong. However, at any moment during any activity in daily life, there can be right concentration. There has to be a level of right concentration with each moment of kusala - at each moment of giving or metta as well as with right understanding. ..... > I do not know your history and what's gone wrong with you. ..... Well, Swee Boon, any history or ‘gone wrong’ is all in the past, as are any special experiences or insights others may have had. In other words, none of it is of any significance despite various concerns to the contrary;-). All that is of significance is the present moment and present realities appearing which may or may not be known or ‘insighted’;-) Remember the reminder which Chris gave us recently from Bhadekaratta Sutta, MN: “Let not a person not to revive the past Or on the future build his hopes for the past has been left behind and the future has not been reached Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state.” ..... > I still stress concentration. I know you dislike the word, ..... I’m not aware of any dislike. I’m aware of many different understandings of how it is used in the texts. ..... > but I can replace it by other terms, as in: > > "And what is the right resolve that is without fermentations, > transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, > resolve, , & > verbal fabrications in one developing the noble path whose mind is > noble, whose mind is without fermentations, who is fully possessed of > the noble path. This is the right resolve that is without > fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn117.html ..... I’m not meaning to quibble for the sake of it at all, Swee Boon, but as a ‘btw’, I believe this passage you quote is referring to samma-sankappa (right thought) or vitakka cetasika. Vitakka cetasika is responsible for ‘mental absorption’ etc by fixing and directing the citta onto the object. At the beginning of the passage about samma-sankappa (right thought), we read: “Therein, bhikkhus, right view comes first. And how does right view come first? One understands wrong intention as wrong intention and right intention as right intention: this is one’s right view”. In other words if there is no understanding or right view at this moment of what is ‘right’ thought, concentration or any other quality, how will there be any knowing or developing of what is ‘right’? ..... > > I think I have said enough. In short, right concentration is not a > dirty term. Mindfulness immersed in the body leads to right > concentration. ..... I certainly apologise if I said anything to suggest it is a ‘dirty term’. It was not my intention. If I could rephrase your other sentence to say ‘mindfulness of namas and rupas leads to the development of right concentration’, then I’d be more inclined to agree. ..... > Regarding , unless you are for sure that it refers to only > ultimate realities after checking the pali, I would include concepts > into it. Yes, I see concepts as not-self. If nibbana is not-self, why > can't concepts be not-self? ..... I don’t have the Pali, but the tems used are the same as those used in other suttas such as ‘The All’ Kom discussed here: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m14311.html Someone else may be able to help with the Pali further in MN 148, Chacakka Sutta. Nibbana is a paramattha dhamma that can be directly realised or known. Concepts cannot be directly known. Hence, computer, butter-jar, and self can only ever be conceptualised or imagined but never be the objects of awareness. I believe that this can be tested out at this moment. How does this sound? Metta, Sarah p.s concepts are not-self just in the sense that nothing has a self characteristic. They do not have the characteristics of anicca or dukkha. ================================================= 21151 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:31am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Have a look at the first eight articles on this site: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Friends ~ > > I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at > the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to > any suggestions as to what to say. > > Thank-you, > Connie 21152 From: azita gill Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] from babyhood to corpse, fearfully --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Azita, > > Thx Azita. Just before you wrote I had commented to > Jon that you’d gone > quiet, so we were very glad to hear from you. > > .................... > Don’t be too > tough (in terms of expectations) on yourself. We are > all beginners on the > path;-) > > Metta and best wishes, > > Sarah > dear Sarah, Thank you for the wise words. to continue on, and allow the others to be as they want without trying to change them, the situation, anything for that matter; easy to talk about, difficult to do. However, I feel better, not so 'bogged down'; as I said before, so many good reminders from the dsg-ers. from a more cheerful Azita. > 21153 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 4:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Why not share your thoughts and ideas about what you have in mind with us first??? In addition to the articles Chris suggests, there is a Beginners section on this website that may also be helpful: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ You might even find some of the letters to the StarKids under 'children - letters to' in U.P. of help. I suggest you encourage and allow time for plenty of questions. Look forward to hearing what you discuss and how it goes. Metta, Sarah ===== --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Connie, > > Have a look at the first eight articles on this site: > > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebidx.htm 21154 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Mike, In a message dated 4/10/03 6:45:46 AM, mlnease@z... writes: << Thinking, grasping and aversion all arise and subside instantaneously, according to conditions. >> It sounds like you are quoting from something that you read, that I am sure is a most excellent book, but I can barely remember my own phone number, so I am always forced to speak from personal experience with the odd quote that seems to leek out between the 'seams' of my forgetfulness. In my experience 'thinking' arises directly relative to grasping and aversion events. If there is no grasping there is no thinking. The conditions are all dependent on grasping and aversion, therefore grasping and aversion are the basic cause of all suffering. In my experience equanimity is the cessation of grasping and aversion. I'm sure it's somewhere in the Vissudhimagga on Dependent Origination, you may have to read between the lines. <> While I fully agree with you with respect to study, one must never forget to reflect on that study, then engage in the practice, so that personal experience will inform was practice. I believe experience is far more useful than what you read and what someone tells you. <> I consider my personal experience superior to any book, even a 2,250 your old book that was written several hundred years after the fact, and was translated and lost and regained numerous time. But, then I'm not a born-again Buddhist. <> Great then we are peers in that respect, but my experience apparently differs from yours. <> No, I place my personal experience above all books, and all teachers. I believe everyone should. Besides there have been thousands of Buddhas in the last 2,500 years why get hung up on just one. Don't you think there is a reason why the historic Buddha made no attempt to build temples and write books in his time? Best to you my friend, Jeff 21155 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Buddhism Hi, Connie - In a message dated 4/11/03 12:00:48 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nichicon@h... writes: > Hi, Friends ~ > > I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at > the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to > any suggestions as to what to say. > > Thank-you, > Connie ========================== Perhaps a two-part talk: 1) What Buddhism has in common with other religions: a) morality practice and focussed meditative tecniques, b) Non-annihilation and death - heaven and hell realms etc, c) Existence of angelic beings (devas) and their opposite, and d) focussed contemplative, meditative techniques, and 2) what distinguishes Buddhism: a) Impersonality belief, b) No belief in creator god, but "salvation" through causes and conditions, not divine intercession, c) Worldly direction and creation through kamma, d) Kamma as intention and not fate, e) The three-fold nature of things (tilakkhana), and f) The Four noble Truths - the centrality of dukkha, its precise cause, the possibility and nature of its termination, and the unique 8-point training program leading to its complete and final removal. 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) 21156 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya Hi, Nina - In a message dated 4/11/03 12:10:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, > > op 10-04-2003 14:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >What I think led me in the wrong direction on this is the vague > >recollection of instructions to monks for averting the eyes. Perhaps that > was > >a last-ditch effort! ;-) > N: No, it is very appropriate, the monk can look ahead one length of a > plough. He should not stare at people, not be curious. The monk.s life is > different from the lay life, he conducts himself as an arahat. > Nina. > ============================ Thanks, Nina. Well, okay then. So I wasn't completely off base. There is a bit of avoidance recommended, at least at certain stages of development. It does make sense to me that when one is at a stage at which one still compulsively grasps onto attractive sights, sounds etc and mentally "runs with them", it is good practice at that stage, for purposes of calming the mind, to quickly turn away to other inputs and to other thoughts. At more advanced stages, I could see this as increasingly less needed. For example: There is a Zen story of two monks coming to a stream at which a pretty, young woman is hesitating to cross. One monk unhesitatingly lifts the woman into his arms, carries her across the stream, and gently places her down on the far side - all as the other monk stares opn-mouthed. The two monks then continue walking on their way, in silence. After a long while, the second month can bear the silence no longer and blurts out "How could you take lift up that woman in your arms?!" The first monk replies: "I put her down a long time ago, but you are still carrying her!" The first monk was at a stage at which grasping after sensual experience was not an issue, the second monk was not. Had the first monk been at the level of the second, his action would have done harm to his equanimity and would have been inadvisable (plus prohibited by rule, of course). 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) 21157 From: m. nease Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > In a message dated 4/10/03 6:45:46 AM, mlnease@z... writes: > > << Thinking, grasping and aversion all arise and subside instantaneously, > according to conditions. >> > > It sounds like you are quoting from something that you read No. Paraphrasing my own understanding, based on my own experience compared with my (obviously limited) understanding of the teachings of the historical Buddha. > that I am sure > is a most excellent book The Paali Tipitaka is certainly a most excellent collection of books. You might have a look at them sometime. > but I can barely remember my own phone number, so I > am always forced to speak from personal experience with the odd quote that > seems to leek out between the 'seams' of my forgetfulness. > > In my experience 'thinking' arises directly relative to grasping and aversion > events. Thinking, grasping, aversion and so on have all have their own unique characteristics and are the same when they arise and subside today as they were 2500 years ago. The Buddha and some of the arahants discussed these in great detail and took great pains that these teachings be preserved. To despise these teachings because they are preserved in books seems to me to be remarkably ill-considered. > If there is no grasping there is no thinking. Not true--these are not mutally dependent. > The conditions are > all dependent on grasping and aversion, Not sure what you mean by this, but conditions are not dependent on grasping or on aversion or on both. > therefore grasping and aversion are > the basic cause of all suffering. This is not what the Buddha taught and is also untrue in my opinion. The basic cause of all suffering (the second noble truth) is tanhaa--variously translated as craving; thirst; lust; attachment. > In my experience equanimity is the > cessation of grasping and aversion. If you really mean 'cessation', this does not occur before the stages of enlightenment (I forget which ones--I don't pay much attention to these advanced states because I can't verify them personally. Others on the list can detail this, though). Grasping and aversion can both be absent when the conditions for them are absent. At those moments they continue to 'exist' in latent form. They are eradicated only gradually and only by pa~n~naa, understanding or wisdom--not by equanimity. > I'm sure it's somewhere in the > Vissudhimagga on Dependent Origination, you may have to read between the > lines. I don't think so. > < > use of Pali to be an invaluable aid in understanding and discussing > > Buddhadhamma.>> > > While I fully agree with you with respect to study, one must never forget to > reflect on that study, then engage in the practice, so that personal > experience will inform was practice. I believe experience is far more useful > than what you read and what someone tells you. Experience without having 'heard' and reflecting on the Buddhadhamma--whether by actual hearing, reading or whatever--is absolutely useless. > < > your experiences as superior to the best preserved teachings of the Buddha.>> > > I consider my personal experience superior to any book, Thank you--this is clear. > even a 2,250 your old > book that was written several hundred years after the fact, and was > translated and lost and regained numerous time. But, then I'm not a > born-again Buddhist. I have no idea what you mean by this comment. > < > preserved remainders of the Buddhadhamma, then we must disagree.>> > > No, I place my personal experience above all books, and all teachers. Again, this is quite clear--though I would call it your personal interpretation of your personal experience. > I > believe everyone should. I can see that you do. This is quite contrary to what the Buddha taught. > Besides there have been thousands of Buddhas in the > last 2,500 years why get hung up on just one. What an odd assertion--whatever has given you this idea? > Don't you think there is a > reason why the historic Buddha made no attempt to build temples and write > books in his time? Yes--it wasn't his job. He certainly did encourage others to remember and reflect on his words, however. mike 21158 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Buddhism Hi again, Connie - In a message dated 4/11/03 8:48:58 AM Eastern Daylight Time, upasaka@a... writes: > b) > Non-annihilation and death ======================= This should be "Non-annihilation AT death". 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) 21159 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:05am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, I would suggest the main part of the program include: I. The Buddha II. The Dhamma III. The Sangha The page The Path to Freedom A Self-guided Tour of the Buddha's Teachings http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html provides a well organized introduction with a wealth of references to the Pali Canon. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Friends ~ > > I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at > the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to > any suggestions as to what to say. > > Thank-you, > Connie 21160 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:40am Subject: Noble Conversation Hi all, I found this page Noble Conversation A Study Guide Prepared by Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/conversation.html and thought it might be of value to the group. Regards, Victor 21161 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Sarah, > However, at any moment during any activity in daily life, there can be > right concentration. There has to be a level of right concentration with > each moment of kusala - at each moment of giving or metta as well as with > right understanding. What kind of weird doctrine is this? That concentration do not need to be practised? Is this really a cult group as James said before? > Well, Swee Boon, any history or `gone wrong' is all in the past, as are > any special experiences or insights others may have had. Totally disagree. If history is not important, the Buddha would not be able to give appropriate meditation subjects to his disciples. It is not proper for one to admit accumulations and yet deny accumulations. The quote you have given is totally out of context of this discussion. Did not the Buddha encourage his able disciples to practise the knowledge of one's and others' past lives as he did? If I knew your history, I would understand better your opposition to concentration. > I'm not meaning to quibble for the sake of it at all, Swee Boon, but as a > `btw', I believe this passage you quote is referring to samma-sankappa > (right thought) or vitakka cetasika. Stopping at right view would not lead to right concentration. If stopping at right view would lead to right concentration, then right concentration is a redundant factor of the path. Indeed, all the other seven factors of the path except right view would be made redundant. Right view as the forerunner does not mean that right view is the end. And no, the sutta I quoted is referring to right concentration. Right view is ***merely*** the forerunner. It is not the end. It is the beginning. What then is the end? Read further. It speaks volumes about who has right view and who doesn't in this discussion. "[2] Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? One discerns wrong resolve as wrong resolve, and right resolve as right resolve. And what is wrong resolve? Being resolved on sensuality, on ill will, on harmfulness. This is wrong resolve. "And what is right resolve? Right resolve, I tell you, is of two sorts: There is right resolve with fermentations, siding with merit, resulting in the acquisitions [of becoming]; and there is noble right resolve, without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "And what is the right resolve that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions? Being resolved on renunciation, on freedom from ill will, on harmlessness. This is the right resolve that has fermentations, sides with merit, & results in acquisitions. "And what is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path? The thinking, directed thinking, resolve, mental absorption, mental fixity, focused awareness, & verbal fabrications in one developing the noble path whose mind is noble, whose mind is without fermentations, who is fully possessed of the noble path. This is the right resolve that is without fermentations, transcendent, a factor of the path. "One tries to abandon wrong resolve & to enter into right resolve: This is one's right effort. One is mindful to abandon wrong resolve & to enter & remain in right resolve: This is one's right mindfulness. Thus these three qualities -- right view, right effort, & right mindfulness -- run & circle around right resolve. ... "Of those, right view is the forerunner. And how is right view the forerunner? In one of right view, right resolve comes into being. In one of right resolve, right speech comes into being. In one of right speech, right action... In one of right action, right livelihood... In one of right livelihood, right effort... In one of right effort, right mindfulness... In one of right mindfulness, right concentration... In one of right concentration, right knowledge... In one of right knowledge, right release comes into being. Thus the learner is endowed with eight factors, and the Arahant with ten. > If I could rephrase your other sentence to say `mindfulness of namas > and rupas leads to the development of right concentration', then I'd > be more inclined to agree. What's the difference? Have you experienced a nama or a rupa individually ever? You could do so, provided you have the same kind of intense concentration as the Buddha had. > Concepts cannot be directly known. Hence, computer, butter-jar, and self > can only ever be conceptualised or imagined but never be the objects of awareness. This is certainly some strange doctrine. Do you mean that the object of awareness in the jhana realm of nothingness is not a concept? Do you mean that nothingness is not a concept? I think I have really stumbled onto some Abhidhammic cult that I only realized until now. My understanding of the Abhidhamma is totally different from yours. I am also amazed by your ability to do apologetic linguistic twisting on the suttas that I have quoted. Totally amazed. I shall not bother anymore. Precious time is wasted in writing to you. Let this be the last one. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21162 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group 2, accumulations. Dear Selamat, op 11-04-2003 04:01 schreef nana cbn op nana_palo@c...: > > Akusala and kusala citta arise because of the accumulation of our kusala and > akusala before, which accummulated too in their cetasikas respectively, > isn't it? N: I think it is more complex. Suppose someone in your group listened to Dhamma. Before he was very impatient with his parents but he learnt the difference between kusala and akusala. He found out by experience that the citta with dosa is so hard, so rigid, and the citta with metta is gentle and tender. He listened to the Dhamma and what is learnt is never lost. He started to have more moments of metta so that it became a habit. But sometimes the test of his patience was too severe and the object at such moments were just right for his accumulated dosa. We cannot pinpoint exactly how accumulations work, but we know that inclinations and habits we had in the past can appear at the present time. Each citta is succeeded by a following citta and thus in this stream of cittas going on from life to life, all good and bad inclinations are carried on from the past to the present and to the future. When metta arises now this is accumulated, it is adosa cetasika, non-hate. I am not inclined to say, dosa is accumulated in dosa cetasika. I rather think of this stream of cittas, no matter by which cetasikas they are accompanied. Each moment citta is accompanied by different kinds of cetasikas and a different number of cetasikas. Also seeing is part of the stream, and this is not accompanied by sobhana cetasikas or akusala cetasikas. But still, it is also part of the stream of cittas which contain all accumulations. When we consider accumulations more, we can also understand that panna which is intellectual understanding can grow by listening more to the Dhamma. We can understand that it can develop and reach the level of direct understanding of realities. One short moment of direct awareness and understanding seems so slight, even insignificant. But it is accumulated and it can develop because of its own conditions. We may wonder how. The process of accumulation is very complex, but it works. We can notice it in our life. Nina. 21163 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: the Buddha's Omniscience, 1. Venerable Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo, Your question was a condition for me to look at several suttas and commentaries. I shall proceed below. op 04-04-2003 21:00 schreef Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo op vinmardeb@e...: > > Was the Buddha really omniscient? > > My understanding is that the Buddha was not an agnostic (one who does > not know). In fact, He was a gnostic or 'one who knows' (in Pali- > "janata") and was also called "Sabbannu", the 'All-knower". This means > that to whatever subject Lord Buddha attended to, He knew all the > contents of that subject. It does not mean that He always knew > everything about every subject all at once, for this very claim was one > He emphatically and specifically denied about himself. N: The citta that knows an object falls away immediately, and so it is with the Buddha's citta with omniscience. He directed his omniscience then to this and then to that object, not to more than one object at a time. Each citta can know only one object at a time. I quote from the Commentary to the Abh. Sangaha (Title: Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma, P.T.S., which just came out in one book together with Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma). Ch 3, Miscellaneous Topics, under: impulsion, javana. It states: In the same Commentary we read in the Prologue: Here the Commentary refers to the Middle Length Sayings I, 26, The Ariyan Quest where the Buddha said to Upaka: We find the same text in the Dhammapada, vs. 353. In the Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma, Ch 6, Materiality, it is said with regard to the smile-producing citta, which is an ahetuka kiriyacitta : I would like to add more in a following post from the Visuddhimagga and the Path of Discrimination. With respect, Nina. 21164 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, Remember that you were asking me about the meaning of the words "I", "mine", "self". I would suggest not only checking a dictionary but also examining how the Buddha used these words as recorded in the discourses. I would also suggest not to assume that the word "self" as "entity", "soul", "Atman", "Jiva" etc. The Buddha's teaching has nothing to do with the belief that you mentioned. It is no always easy to give up assumptions/self-identity views, and it is not always comfortable to do so. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor and all, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > > Hi KKT, > > I think what you find unintelligible is the statement: > > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is to be seen > as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. > This is not what I am. This is not my self." > > It goes against your self-identity view: > > "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. > This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." > > Regarding the words "I", "mine", "self", please check a standard > dictionary such as the one in http://www.webster.com for their > meanings. > > Regards, > Victor > > > > > > KKT: I don't think when the Buddha > taught the Anattalakkhana Sutta > to the 5 bhikkhus, He told them > looking for the meaning of the words > << I, mine, self >> in a dictionary. > > Besides, there was not a Webster > dictionary at that time (just joking :-)) > > The problem is very simple, Victor. > > The Buddha taught the Dhamma > to the common worldlings. > He should use words in the common > sense in order to whoever heard > Him even for the first time could > understand Him immediately. > He did not complicate things. > > Therefore the fact that in His second > sermon (ie. Anattalakkhana Sutta) > He did not give the definition of > << I, me, mine, self >> means that > those words convey the meaning > of which everybody had already > the << same >> understanding. > > Otherwise there would be someone > like Christine who raised her hand > asking for the definition :-)) > (Hello Christine, just kidding :-)) > > > So what is the meaning of those words? > > > Very simple, people at the time > of the Buddha believed in a > << speculative & unfounded >> > existence of an entity/soul/self > called Atman or Jiva. > (I call it the << metaphysical self >>) > > This belief << crystalizes >> into > a << factual >> feeling/sensation/thought > of << I, me, mine, myself >> inside oneself. > (I call it the << empirical self >> or ego) > Whoever does not experience this self, > please raise his/her hand :-)) > > Therefore the << mine, I, my self >> > in this famous phrase of this sermon: > > << This is mine. This I am. This is my self >> > (etam mama esohamasmi eso me attati) > (please don't ask me about the Pali words :-)) > > should be this << empirical self >> > > > This self is experienced either > as a << whole >> or as each one > of the 5 khandhas (aggregates) > > Therefore the Buddha made an analysis > to point out its << illusory, unreal >> existence > and for each khandha He said: > > << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> > (netam mama nesohamasmi na meso attati) > > > So there is no mystery about this word :-)) > > > What is worth to discuss is that > how could one eradicate this feeling > of << I, me, mine, myself >> ? > > For examples: > > __Victor thinks that everything > << is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: > "This is not mine. This is not what I am. This is not my self." >> > > My commentary is that I don't > know whether Victor could go > further than a merely intellectual > understanding of this phrase? > If this is the case then I don't > think this is of great help. > (In my opinion, realization should be done > with panna (wisdom) and not intellect) > > __Many people on this list > (the Abhidhammikas) think that > studying the teachings, contemplating, > constantly observing the rising and falling > of the dhammas at the six sense doors > are kusala conditions for << panna >> > to arise. And this is panna that eradicates > the feeling of self (correct me if I'm wrong) > > __Others think that the eradication > should be done by << insight >> meditation > (ie. Vipassana/Satipatthana) > > __Others think that by jhanas > (but I think jhanas give only > a << temporary >> eradication) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 21165 From: dwlemen Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 1:06pm Subject: Dreams Everyone, If I may, I would like to interject with yet another of my new person questions. In a recent chat with my wife, we were discussing dreams and dream therapy. I mentioned that I don't put much stock into it. She indicated that she was suprised, that she figured that, with my interests in Buddhism, that I would have been. Anyway, the question is, what is the traditional Buddhist's take on meanings in dreams? Are they just the "random firing of synapsis," "Secret messages from our subconscious" or something else? Peace, Dave 21166 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:01am Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute To Mike: In a message dated 4/10/03 7:43:28 PM, mlnease@z... writes: << Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > In a message dated 4/9/03 8:39:15 PM, mlnease@z... writes: > > << p.s. What is "duality (ducca)"? By 'ducca', do you mean the Pali > 'dukkha'? > > If so, I've never seen it translated as 'duality'. > > Thanks for your patience. > > mike >> > > Well, my good friend, are not the causes of suffering, ignorance, delusion > and doubt? No. The origin of dukkha is tanhaa, as I understand it. > Are not ignorance, delusion and doubt a consequence of grasping > and aversion? Ignorance, delusion, doubt, grasping and aversion are all different mental factors, each with its own unique characteristics and all arising and subsiding instantaneously according to conditions. > Isn't grasping and aversion a consequence of, a belief in a > separate self? No. Grasping and aversion can each arise independent of micchaadi.t.thi--the belief in a (separate?!) self. Isn't a separate self duality? No. It is a concept. > best regards, Jeff And to You, mike >> Then obviously your knowledge of Pali has made you free of suffering, delusion and doubt. Congratulations. Unfortunately your lucid articulations were unable to have an effect on me. But, my subjective experiences have freed me from my suffering. So, blessing to you, Jeff 21167 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intro to Buddhism To Connie: In a message dated 4/10/03 9:00:30 PM, nichicon@h... writes: << Hi, Friends ~ I've been invited to give an hour long introductory talk on Buddhism at the community college's Comparative Religions next week and am open to any suggestions as to what to say. Thank-you, Connie >> Yes, one small one. Speak from your experience. Quoting books can be really boring. Good luck on the lecture, Jeff 21168 From: Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 10:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Back to Rob M :-) In a message dated 4/10/03 11:22:52 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << ===== Rob M :-) I'm sorry if I implied "rejecting" anything. I am saying that "science" and "Buddhism" should be seen as separate subjects and we should not try to merge the two. ===== Jeff: Well, that's your Buddhism. I predict the evolution of the Western Vehicle will synthesis many aspects of Western culture which will have to include the Western Scientific model, because that is what the West is based upon. But, we may be in more agreement than you realize, because often the attempts to make Buddhism or religion more 'scientific' often only seem to come off as silly justifications, which anyone who has a dedicated personal practice doesn't seem to need. ===== Rob M :-) Last week, I attended a dhamma talk. The speaker referred to a Sutta where the Buddha said that He had recently appeared in other countries (through his supernormal powers), shared the Dhamma with other people and then disappeared. The speaker then referenced the writings of Lao Tze (his writings formed the basis of Taoism), who was a contemporary of the Buddha. Lao Tze talked of "a golden skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy before disappearing". The speaker then went on to list amazing parallels between the writings of Lao Tze and the Suttas (Tao = Nibbana, Five Precepts, etc.). I am trying to find the Sutta reference. ===== Jeff: This brings up lots of dialog. First, if I remember correctly the historic Buddha said he wasn't going to do any magic tricks. But, as soon as he was dead there were lots of stories of his disciples BI-locating, etc. But first, yes, Lao Tze and the historic Buddha seemed to have been contemporaries, plus minus 50 years. There maybe a record of "a golden skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy" with Lao Tze, but it is most probably apocryphal. Additionally in China there are stories that when Lao Tze left China, he went to India and was recognized as the Buddha. I think you will agree with me that story is most probably apocryphal as well. I believe what is behind the magic stories that every culture invents about their prophet are most likely inventions to embellish upon the story to gain devotees. Until I see someone part the seas, walk on water, fly bodily through the air, BI-locate, or raise the dead, I'll assume these feats are all fiction. All I needed was freedom from suffering, and a method to get there. The magic in my life is, through rigorous practice, I have arrived at being more happy and fulfilled ever moment of everyday. What other magic would anyone ever want? Best to you, Jeff 21169 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 2:22pm Subject: Just a reminder.... Dear Group, The friendly, respectful communication between members on this list has always made it a safe and happy place for discussion, even when there are wide differences in individual understanding of the Dhamma and ways of following it. Often people vehemently supportive of one interpretation find they can learn and benefit from the fact that others see things from a different perspective. May I draw everyone's attention to the List Rules at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/ and particularly to this one: "Please respect and be tolerant of views which may be different from your own. The following are not welcome on this list: flame messages, messages that use harsh language or sarcasm, messages that are discourteous or show contempt, and messages that are likely to cause personal discord. " metta, Christine 21170 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:23pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Everyone. Thank you for the suggestions on the talk, Christine, Sarah, Howard, Victor and Jeff. And thanks in advance to anyone else who might add to them. Normally, I probably don't talk an hour's worth in a whole day, so I'm not sure how much I can say in that much time... plus another hour of Q & A. From the conversation with the teacher last night, it's going to turn into a comparative Buddhism talk... a little historical background, what I see as the common ground and differences among the main branches and my personal history with Buddhist thought. Guess I'll just have to come up with an outline with room for stuttering and talk outloud to myself all week. I'll let you know how it goes. peace, connie 21171 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 3:51pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > The friendly, respectful communication between members on this list > has always made it a safe and happy place for discussion, even when > there are wide differences in individual understanding of the Dhamma > and ways of following it. Often people vehemently supportive of one > interpretation find they can learn and benefit from the fact that > others see things from a different perspective. Christine, Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely disagree. Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only comes in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not the truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this group or any group allow for all different and varied interpretations of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who put forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual demise of Buddhism. Metta, James ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said differently were going on false information or kidding themselves (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly follow Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. 21172 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 4:02pm Subject: Re: Dreams Hi Dave, Have a look at Ven Dhammananda's book "What Buddhist's Believe". Chapter 17 has an article on 'Dreams and their Significance'. http://www.sinc.sunysb.edu/Clubs/buddhism/dhammananda/main.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > If I may, I would like to interject with yet another of my new person > questions. > > In a recent chat with my wife, we were discussing dreams and dream > therapy. I mentioned that I don't put much stock into it. She > indicated that she was suprised, that she figured that, with my > interests in Buddhism, that I would have been. > > Anyway, the question is, what is the traditional Buddhist's take on > meanings in dreams? Are they just the "random firing of > synapsis," "Secret messages from our subconscious" or something else? > > > Peace, > > > > Dave 21173 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 7:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha KKT You ask my views about the meaning of the well-known passage "Sabbe dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self"). We should perhaps include here also the other parts of that passage, namely, "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"). To answer this question, we need to know what is meant by "dhammas" and "conditioned phenomena" here. These expressions, together with the expressions aggregates (khandhas), elements (dhatu) and sense-fields/bases (ayatanas), appear repeatedly in the suttas in passages that expound the teaching on anicca/dukkha/anatta. So does each expression carry its own (different) meaning, or are they simply different ways of saying the same thing? To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana). The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. These 2 aspects of the teaching can be verified by each person for himself. One may start, for example, by asking oneself whether there is anything at this moment other than the experiencing of objects through the 5 sense-doors and the mind-door, and what the real nature of each of those objects is. One can contemplate the sense in which it is true to say that all conditioned phenomena are by nature impermanent and unsatisfactory. This of course will only be a superficial and intellectual level of understanding, but it has to be the starting point. Only with the development of insight can the truth of these aspects of the teaching be directly experienced. Turning now to your question, since these phenomena about which the Buddha spoke in the suttas dealing with anicca/dukkha/anatta do not include table, we should not read the teaching as saying that the characteristic of 'not-self' is to be found in table. The characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are capable of being *seen*, of being *experienced*, only in these conditioned, fundamental phenomena. The Buddha's teaching, especially in the suttas, concerns for the most part the presently arising actualities. As far as I'm aware, he did not apply the terms anicca/dukkha/anatta to anything other than the presently arising phenomena. At the moment of seeing a table, for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table'). The same applies for the 'object' of person (or butter-jar or computer). I hope this answers your question. Jon --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: It's my fault for not being > very clear with my question. > > I try another approach. > > Take the famous phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are no-self) > > Atta is usually understood as self/soul. > > Therefore if we say: > a human being/person is anatta (no self/soul) > then this phrase is understandable. > > But if we say: a table is anatta. > > Does it make sense? > How do you understand this phrase? > > > Metta, > > > KKT 21174 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 9:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Vinaya op 11-04-2003 15:01 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > In a message dated 4/11/03 12:10:20 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nilo@e... > writes: > > ============================ > Thanks, Nina. Well, okay then. So I wasn't completely off base. There > is a bit of avoidance recommended, at least at certain stages of development. The first monk replies: "I put her down a long > time ago, but you are still carrying her!" The first monk was at a stage at > which grasping after sensual experience was not an issue, the second monk was > not. Had the first monk been at the level of the second, his action would > have done harm to his equanimity and would have been inadvisable (plus > prohibited by rule, of course). N: I know what you mean, but there are other aspects to the Vinaya. The Buddha thought of the layfollowers who would see the monk's conduct. The Vinaya was laid down for several reasons and among them is helping layfollowers to have confidence in the Sangha. Nina. 21175 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: KKT You ask my views about the meaning of the well-known passage "Sabbe dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self"). We should perhaps include here also the other parts of that passage, namely, "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"). To answer this question, we need to know what is meant by "dhammas" and "conditioned phenomena" here. These expressions, together with the expressions aggregates (khandhas), elements (dhatu) and sense-fields/bases (ayatanas), appear repeatedly in the suttas in passages that expound the teaching on anicca/dukkha/anatta. So does each expression carry its own (different) meaning, or are they simply different ways of saying the same thing? To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana). The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. These 2 aspects of the teaching can be verified by each person for himself. One may start, for example, by asking oneself whether there is anything at this moment other than the experiencing of objects through the 5 sense-doors and the mind-door, and what the real nature of each of those objects is. One can contemplate the sense in which it is true to say that all conditioned phenomena are by nature impermanent and unsatisfactory. This of course will only be a superficial and intellectual level of understanding, but it has to be the starting point. Only with the development of insight can the truth of these aspects of the teaching be directly experienced. Turning now to your question, since these phenomena about which the Buddha spoke in the suttas dealing with anicca/dukkha/anatta do not include table, we should not read the teaching as saying that the characteristic of 'not-self' is to be found in table. The characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are capable of being *seen*, of being *experienced*, only in these conditioned, fundamental phenomena. The Buddha's teaching, especially in the suttas, concerns for the most part the presently arising actualities. As far as I'm aware, he did not apply the terms anicca/dukkha/anatta to anything other than the presently arising phenomena. At the moment of seeing a table, for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table'). The same applies for the 'object' of person (or butter-jar or computer). I hope this answers your question. Jon KKT: If I understand you correctly then: __For you the word << dhamma >> means exclusively << paramattha dhamma >> ? __A concept (pannatti) is not considered as << dhamma >> ? Therefore the concept 'table' is not a << dhamma >> ? Although concept is object of the mind-door, it is not considered as << dhamma >> ? __Concept does not rise and fall away like paramattha dhamma ? __Return to the phrase: Sabbe dhamma anatta (All dhammas are not-self) If I say << the eye is not-self >> << the sound is not-self >> << mana (conceit) is not-self >> what is the meaning of << not-self >> here? Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21176 From: ajahn_paul Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:28pm Subject: Re: Dreams Christine, any thinking in ur own mind about Dreams? I dont beleive that dreams is some kind of fortune-teller (many ppl do). BTW, i belive that ppl that practise meditation wont have much dreams! ^^ what do u think? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Have a look at Ven Dhammananda's book "What Buddhist's Believe". > Chapter 17 has an article on 'Dreams and their Significance'. 21177 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 11, 2003 11:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor I think you have put your finger on the nub of the difference between us, Victor, namely, what is meant by the five aggregates. I have discussed this subject in a post sent to KKT just a short time ago, so I won't repeat myself here, but I'm happy to expand on anything I said there. On your opening paragraph below, I have a brief comment. Although as a matter of conventional speech one can say that a computer is impermanent and might therefore also be considered unsatisfactory etc, I would certainly not regard this as *seeing* computer as impermanent or dukkha. I would regard what you describe here as a level of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just ordinary thinking. Thinking of computer as impermanent, or contemplating on the impermanence of computer, does not amount to the *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, nor is it necessarily even kusala. By that I mean that thinking of computer as dukkha or not-self could still be thinking with an idea of self or other form of wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think the characteristic of dukkha can be directly seen or experienced only by developing awareness and understanding of conditioned phenomena (aka the five aggregates), and I suspect it needs quite a lot of development before the 3 characteristics can be seen to any marked degree. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > You see that a computer is fabricated, impermanent, does not last > forever, breaks down, disintegrates eventually. You also see that > what is impermanent dukkha/unsatisfactory in the sense that > something that is impermanent cannot be a refuge in any meaningful > sense of the word. In short, you see that a computer is > impermanent > and dukkha as it actually is. > > When the Buddha stated the Noble Truth of Dukkha, he stated that: > > "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with > the > unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not > getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging- > aggregates are dukkha." > > The Buddha started with stating a few specific instances of > conditioned phenomena being dukkha and ended with a general > statement: > "In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > > Birth belongs to one of the aggregates, and so does aging, death, > sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair, association with the > unbeloved, separation from the loved, or not getting what is > wanted. The five aggregates include all the conditioned; they > includes the whole range of conditioned > things/qualities/phenomena/situations. > > A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the > aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of > > perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of > consciousness. > > Saying that form (feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness) > > is dukkha is in effect saying that whatever form (feeling, > perception, fabrications, consciousness), be it past, future, or > present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or > sublime; > far or near, is dukkha. > > Regards, > Victor 21178 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 0:08am Subject: Re: Dreams Hello Paul, and All, How lovely to hear from you. :-) I hope you and your lady and your families are all safe and well. I think dreams are a number of things. Firstly, I think there are dreams that seem to predict a future event - I had a clearly remembered dream when I was in high school about an event a year into the future. It was an insignificant event - just a day in an office job, but the office layout and the people were exactly as I dreamed, and I had never seen office or people before. I knew when I dreamed it that it was different to a normal dream, and I was quite disappointed that it wasn't about a world shaking event. It seemed rather pointless really - but it did occur. I wonder what this means from an Abhidhammic point of view - isn't the future supposed not to be set in place? Secondly, I think most dreams are just proliferation of thoughts as the mind sifts and files events of the day, and the body releases tensions and feeling *memories*. Thirdly, I have read that Arahats and Buddhas don't dream. So everyone else must? {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} And I do believe in *prophetic* feelings. I regularly know in advance if something 'bad' is going to happen to a dear one or to myself - usually just a day or two in advance - and nothing in detail, just which person and that it will be upsetting. Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > Christine, > > any thinking in ur own mind about Dreams? > > I dont beleive that dreams is some kind of fortune-teller (many ppl > do). BTW, i belive that ppl that practise meditation wont have much > dreams! ^^ what do u think? > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > Have a look at Ven Dhammananda's book "What Buddhist's Believe". > > Chapter 17 has an article on 'Dreams and their Significance'. 21179 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 2:16am Subject: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) KKT Thanks for the detailed questions. I believe this is a very important area. I always find it helpful to discuss. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __For you the word << dhamma >> means > exclusively << paramattha dhamma >> ? In the context of the passage from the texts that you asked me to comment on ('sabbe dhamma anatta'), I understand 'dhamma' to mean all conditioned phenomena (sankhara) plus nibbana, that is to say, the paramattha dhammas. (In some other contexts, 'dhamma' can include concepts.) > __A concept (pannatti) is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? In the context we are discussing, that's correct. A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind. > Therefore the concept 'table' > is not a << dhamma >> ? Correct. There is no paramattha dhamma of 'table' to be directly experienced through a single doorway. What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors (and assembled with the assistance of the recollection of previously assembled ideas). > Although concept is object > of the mind-door, it is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? Correct, concept is not considered a paramattha dhamma. While the objects experienced through the sense-doors are all paramattha dhammas, the object experienced through the mind-door may be a paramattha dhamma or it may be a concept. > __Concept does not rise and fall away > like paramattha dhamma ? Correct, to my understanding (by which I mean that I have nowhere seen it said that concepts arise and fall away). Concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness. > __Return to the phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are not-self) > > If I say << the eye is not-self >> > << the sound is not-self >> > << mana (conceit) is not-self >> > what is the meaning of << not-self >> here? > > Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. (A word of explanation first. 'Eye' here refers to the paramattha dhamma that is the eye-base -- the physical eye is not a paramattha dhamma) I think it's important to appreciate that 'not-self', like impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, is a *characteristic* of paramattha dhammas. The significance of saying that something is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas is that as paramattha dhammas gradually become better known to understanding, their characteristics also gradually become more apparent. The more understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the more one understands about the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. The Buddha gave at least 2 elaborations of the meaning of 'not-self'. One is to the effect of 'not subject to mastery', the other, 'lacking in an abiding soul or essence'. These are presumably different ways of saying the same thing. (Interestingly, it seems that for most listeners to the Buddha's sermons no such elaboration was necessary; the meaning of 'not-self' was readily apparent from the fact that the dhammas were already seen to be impermanent and unsatisfactory. I think those listeners must have had a highly developed understanding of paramattha dhammas already). I tend to think of 'not-self' as being a negation of certain characteristics that we wrongly attribute to paramattha dhammas, because of deeply ingrained wrong view. KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? Do they make sense? Jon 21180 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:59am Subject: Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Paul, and All, > > How lovely to hear from you. :-) I hope you and your lady and your > families are all safe and well. Im fine... today, but who knows what will happen tomorrow? :( > I think dreams are a number of things. Firstly, I think there are > dreams that seem to predict a future event - I had a clearly > remembered dream when I was in high school about an event a year into > the future. It was an insignificant event - just a day in an office > job, but the office layout and the people were exactly as I dreamed, > and I had never seen office or people before. I knew when I dreamed > it that it was different to a normal dream, and I was quite > disappointed that it wasn't about a world shaking event. It seemed > rather pointless really - but it did occur. I wonder what this means > from an Abhidhammic point of view - isn't the future supposed not to > be set in place? Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my dreams. > Secondly, I think most dreams are just proliferation of thoughts as > the mind sifts and files events of the day, and the body releases > tensions and feeling *memories*. agree! > Thirdly, I have read that Arahats and Buddhas don't dream. So > everyone else must? > > {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember > reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who > just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and > mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up > every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very > aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} mmm.... may be, its a way to relax for ordinary ppl! ^^ > And I do believe in *prophetic* feelings. I regularly know in > advance if something 'bad' is going to happen to a dear one or to > myself - usually just a day or two in advance - and nothing in > detail, just which person and that it will be upsetting. > > Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) may be its one of the questions Buddha not going to answer! ^_^ > metta, > Christine 21181 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon (and KKT) - I agree with what you write in the following; I especially like your statement "At the moment of seeing a table, for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table')". There is one thing, though, that you wrote which I think you didn't intend as it came out. With regard to the expressions "Sabbe dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self") and "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"), you wrote the following: "To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana)". You follow this immediately by the following: "The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta". Your main point in this was, of course, to state that the tilakkhana apply only to actually observed phenomena, and not projections of mere concept. But the last two paragraphs of your also, when read literally, and not as I know you intended, include nibbana as as being anicca and dukkha. I point this out just in case it might have been misunderstood by anyone. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/11/03 10:26:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > KKT > > You ask my views about the meaning of the well-known passage "Sabbe > dhamma anatta" ("All dhammas are not-self"). We should perhaps > include here also the other parts of that passage, namely, "Sabbe > sankhara aniccam/dukkham" ("All conditioned phenomena are > impermanent/unsatisfactory"). > > To answer this question, we need to know what is meant by "dhammas" > and "conditioned phenomena" here. > > These expressions, together with the expressions aggregates > (khandhas), elements (dhatu) and sense-fields/bases (ayatanas), > appear repeatedly in the suttas in passages that expound the teaching > on anicca/dukkha/anatta. So does each expression carry its own > (different) meaning, or are they simply different ways of saying the > same thing? > > To my understanding, they are different ways of referring to the same > thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental > phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the > Abhidhamma they are classified in a fourfold grouping of > consciousness, mental factors, materiality and nibbana (citta, > cetasika, rupa and nibbana). > > The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that 'the > world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just > these different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena > all share the same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. > > These 2 aspects of the teaching can be verified by each person for > himself. One may start, for example, by asking oneself whether there > is anything at this moment other than the experiencing of objects > through the 5 sense-doors and the mind-door, and what the real nature > of each of those objects is. One can contemplate the sense in which > it is true to say that all conditioned phenomena are by nature > impermanent and unsatisfactory. This of course will only be a > superficial and intellectual level of understanding, but it has to be > the starting point. Only with the development of insight can the > truth of these aspects of the teaching be directly experienced. > > Turning now to your question, since these phenomena about which the > Buddha spoke in the suttas dealing with anicca/dukkha/anatta do not > include table, we should not read the teaching as saying that the > characteristic of 'not-self' is to be found in table. The > characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta are capable of being *seen*, > of being *experienced*, only in these conditioned, fundamental > phenomena. > > The Buddha's teaching, especially in the suttas, concerns for the > most part the presently arising actualities. As far as I'm aware, he > did not apply the terms anicca/dukkha/anatta to anything other than > the presently arising phenomena. At the moment of seeing a table, > for instance, the presently arising phenomena through the eye-door is > visible object, not the 'object' of table. At the moment of thinking > about 'table' the presently arising phenomenon is the consciousness > that thinks (it's object is the concept of 'table'). > > The same applies for the 'object' of person (or butter-jar or > computer). > > I hope this answers your question. > > Jon > > /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) 21182 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, KKT - In a message dated 4/12/03 2:05:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __For you the word <>means > exclusively <>? > > __A concept (pannatti) is not > considered as <>? > > Therefore the concept 'table' > is not a <>? > > Although concept is object > of the mind-door, it is not > considered as <>? > > __Concept does not rise and fall away > like paramattha dhamma ? > > __Return to the phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are not-self) > > If I say <> > <> > <> > what is the meaning of <>here? > > Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. > > > Thank you, Jon. > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > =============================== I agree with you that concepts arise and cease as objects of consciousness. These momentarily arising mental constructs are actually observed and are anicca. They don't last. But their intended referents, which often, it seems to me, are what Jon and others here mean by "concepts", are not anicca because they do not actually exist at all, at least not undeniably. I see a sequence of visual rupas, sa~n~na separates out and mentally tags aspects of these as patterns seen before - they are "recognized", and then the concept of 'computer monitor' arises in the mind. The rupas were actually observed, the recognition occurred, and the arising concept was discerned, but the alleged external computer monitor was not observed, but only projected and presumed. The "monitor", per se, doesn't actually exist, or, at least, is, in principle never directly discerned. Conventionally, however, it is proper to speak of the monitor as impermanent, because "the monitor" projected now differs from "the monitor" projected five years from now - we identify the two alleged existents as a single entity which has changed over time. What has actually happened, is that certain types of paramattha dhammas that arose at first, and that we subsumed under 'the monitor' at that time, no longer arise, and, perhaps, also certain paramattha dhammas that did *not* at first arise, now do. For example, we might at first "see" a new looking monitor, but later we see that "it" has "become" faded in color, and that "it" doesn't work as well ("The keys now stick"), and so on. 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) 21183 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 6:47am Subject: five things to be remembered Dear Sarah and all, We are very upset, because we heard that my father has plans to ask for euthanasy. I am thinking so much of Jon's mother and how he tried to put it out of her head, with success. We are thinking of what to say, having to keep our heads cool. He liked a French philosopher, Teilhard du Chardin, who said, you have to end well (finir bien). It is not so much his oncoming death but this way that upsets us. I received from our Pali teacher a very good text that I used, helping a sick person. He reminded us that ageing is each moment. He said also: you need it yourself, not only the sick person. He said: This text reminds me that whatever happens is conditioned. This is a great consolation. I remembered that you mentioned A. Sujin's words, that we never know what will happen. When you phoned her about the change of Bgk plans because of Sars. This may seem too simple to some people, but when we deeply consider conditions this is full of meaning. As you also said, it is important to know that life is in one moment. I try to remember this when we visit my father. As Mike said to Rahula, "Dying and being reborn every instant, with each new mental moment and factor. Where did Rahula go?" And you also quoted A. Sujin's words that I had used, and how meaningful now for me: We cannot change my father but we have to face the problems with wise attention, to whatever degree we are able to. Anumodana for your very helpful reminders, Nina. 21184 From: dwlemen Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 6:55am Subject: Re: Dreams Christine and Paul, Thanks for the interesting input. As I mentioned at the beginning, I don't know much about Buddhist theory on dreams, but, just from my own perceptions/opinions, I do think I agree with Paul's statements, especially in regards to predicting the future. If the future can be "seen" in any way, that would have to dictate complete predestination which therefore means that any idea of effort or will is meaningless. I suppose it is just me, but I just can't see how a system of predestination is any better / different than nihilism. > PAUL WROTE: > > Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did > not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 > second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my > dreams. > DAVE REPLY: I agree. I've heard the same explaination for "deja-vous" as well. The eyes see it but somehow before it can get processed, it sees it "again" and tries to make sense of the second "original" sight by attributing it to an unknown past. > > CHRISTINE WROTE: > > Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) > > PAUL WROTE: > may be its one of the questions Buddha not going to answer! ^_^ > DAVE REPLY: Probably right. They probably don't have much to do with the real purpose of enlightenment. But, it's still an interesting point to think about! Peace, Dave 21185 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, I think you are right that we understand what is meant by the five aggregates differently, and my question to you is that: Is a computer permanent or impermanent? Please note that 1. The question is not asking whether or not one can say that computer is impermanent as a matter of conventional speech. 2. It is not asking whether you regard what I described as a level of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just ordinary thinking or not. 3. It is not asking whether or not thinking of computer as impermanent, or contemplating on the impermanence of computer, amounts to the *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, whether or not it is necessarily even kusala. 4. It is not asking whether thinking of computer as dukkha or not- self could still be thinking with an idea of self or other form of wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > I think you have put your finger on the nub of the difference between > us, Victor, namely, what is meant by the five aggregates. I have > discussed this subject in a post sent to KKT just a short time ago, > so I won't repeat myself here, but I'm happy to expand on anything I > said there. > > On your opening paragraph below, I have a brief comment. Although as > a matter of conventional speech one can say that a computer is > impermanent and might therefore also be considered unsatisfactory > etc, I would certainly not regard this as *seeing* computer as > impermanent or dukkha. I would regard what you describe here as a > level of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just > ordinary thinking. Thinking of computer as impermanent, or > contemplating on the impermanence of computer, does not amount to the > *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, nor is it > necessarily even kusala. By that I mean that thinking of computer as > dukkha or not-self could still be thinking with an idea of self or > other form of wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. > > As I mentioned in my earlier post, I think the characteristic of > dukkha can be directly seen or experienced only by developing > awareness and understanding of conditioned phenomena (aka the five > aggregates), and I suspect it needs quite a lot of development before > the 3 characteristics can be seen to any marked degree. > > Jon 21186 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:01am Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Hi Jon and KKT, Jon, if a concept is simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts), then is it conditioned or unconditioned? Is a concept permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: [snip] > > > __Concept does not rise and fall away > > like paramattha dhamma ? > > Correct, to my understanding (by which I mean that I have nowhere > seen it said that concepts arise and fall away). Concepts are simply > assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense- door > impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously > assembled concepts). Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall > away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same > in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are > a 'creation' of consciousness. [snip] > > Jon 21187 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor (and Jon) - In a message dated 4/12/03 10:50:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Jon, > > I think you are right that we understand what is meant by the five > aggregates differently, and my question to you is that: > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Please note that > > 1. The question is not asking whether or not one can say that > computer is impermanent as a matter of conventional speech. > > 2. It is not asking whether you regard what I described as a level > of intellectual understanding at best and most probably just > ordinary thinking or not. > > 3. It is not asking whether or not thinking of computer as > impermanent, or contemplating on the impermanence of computer, > amounts to the *direct experience of the characteristic of dukkha*, > whether or not it is necessarily even kusala. > > 4. It is not asking whether thinking of computer as dukkha or not- > self could still be thinking with an idea of self or other form of > wrong view, or with conceit, aversion etc. > > > Regards, > Victor > > ========================== What you ask of Jon is, indeed, none of the things in your list of 4 items. It seems to me that your question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires of Jon that he adopt the same presumption that you are making that there is a thing "out there" that is a computer, not just conventionally and in a manner of speaking, but actually. But this is similar to a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. The question itself carries a presupposition not accepted by Jon, and any direct yes/no answer to it accepts that presupposition. Jon cannot say that a computer is permanent or impermanent (except as a shorthand for a far more complex statement), because to say so would require acceptance of the claim that there exists, in actuality, and not just as a verbal shorthand, a thing called 'computer'. 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) 21188 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:10am Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... Hi James, Indeed, there is the truth and there is falsehood. Another word to characterize the Abhidhamma Pitaka is "specious." Regards, Victor > Christine, > > Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely disagree. > Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation > based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only comes > in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not the > truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, > geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this > group or any group allow for all different and varied interpretations > of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who put > forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their > egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the > development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual demise > of Buddhism. > > Metta, James > > ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to > Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all > false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything > having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said > differently were going on false information or kidding themselves > (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly follow > Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. 21189 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, Where did you get the idea that I am making the presumption that there is a thing "out there" that is a computer? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Jon) - > [snip] > What you ask of Jon is, indeed, none of the things in your list of 4 > items. It seems to me that your question "Is a computer permanent or > impermanent?" requires of Jon that he adopt the same presumption that you are > making that there is a thing "out there" that is a computer, not just > conventionally and in a manner of speaking, but actually. But this is similar > to a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. The question itself > carries a presupposition not accepted by Jon, and any direct yes/no answer to > it accepts that presupposition. Jon cannot say that a computer is permanent > or impermanent (except as a shorthand for a far more complex statement), > because to say so would require acceptance of the claim that there exists, in > actuality, and not just as a verbal shorthand, a thing called 'computer'. > > With metta, > Howard 21190 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 9:25am Subject: Re: (p.s.) Re: [dsg] sound and lute Hello Again, Jeff, ----- Original Message ----- From: > Then obviously your knowledge of Pali has made you free of suffering, > delusion and doubt. Congratulations. Spare me the sarcasm, too. It also is out of place on this list. > Unfortunately your lucid articulations > were unable to have an effect on me. Sorry I've been unable to help. > But, my subjective experiences have > freed me from my suffering. Are you claiming to have attained enlightenment? mike 21191 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 10:37am Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > Indeed, there is the truth and there is falsehood. Another word to > characterize the Abhidhamma Pitaka is "specious." > > Regards, > Victor Hi Victor, Thanks! That is completely the word I was looking for! Take care. Metta, James 21192 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:34am Subject: concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, Sorry to cut you off at the end of the lute thread. It got so complicated I couldn't figure out how to sort it out. Now I think I can do that in 2 posts, focusing on concept in this one and citta process in the next. Also, I'm not going to attempt to present your position, but only my own. I would like to use only the abhidhamma sense of "concept", which is that a concept is a word or meaning of a word. In that sense, discriminating between realty and concept is a matter of discriminating between experience and thinking (with words) about experience. To say that a concept lacks an "own-nature" (sabhava) is simply to say that there is no cake in the thought of the cake, for example. "Own-nature" is slightly different from "self" and means basically "experience". The problem is that many people are confusing concept with compound. In Buddhaghosa"s example of the carriage [anyone have an exact reference for this?] the carriage is said to not exist under analysis of its parts. But the carriage does not not-exist because it is a concept, rather it does not exist because it is a compound, like the khandhas. There is no carriage self or essence in the carriage but somebody could take a ride in the carriage, so it has kammic viability. Of course this discussion of the carriage is conceptual and as such there are no carriage characteristics in this discussion; nobody could take a ride in this discussion. So there is no carriage own-nature (experience) in this discussion. What is not an object of satipatthana is the self of the carriage and the experience of carriage in the concept of carriage. However, to conceptually analyze the carriage into its parts and not find any part that is carriage would give one a legitimate insight into the "not-self" characteristic. Presumably, a more powerful insight would be gained by analyzing the _experience_ of the carriage and not finding a carriage anywhere. This is exemplified by the destruction of the lute in the Lute Sutta.The point of the concept/reality discrimination is to emphasize experience over talking or thinking, but above all to emphasize analysis of experience and, at second best, analysis of concepts. To say that compounds are nonexistent is not quite right. It would be better to say there is no self in compounds and self is nonexistent. To say that concepts are nonexistent is also not quite right. It would be better to say there is no experience of the subject of a concept in the concept [except for words that sound like their meaning]. Larry 21193 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:57am Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... Hello James, Victor and All, What you see as the correct and full understanding of the Dhamma, is not what others believe, and have believed through the ages, to be the teaching of the Theravada tradition in its entirety. You, and everyone else, are welcome to put forward your understanding and discuss differences in a friendly, courteous and supportive way. Everyone is encouraged to read the Tipitaka and draw to attention when there is support (or not) for a particular understanding. Questions and requests for clarification are welcome from either of you and have been met with kindness and willing explanations. The Home Page of this group clearly states that it is "A discussion forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings as found IN ALL THREE BASKETS OF THE TIPITAKA, THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF THE BUDDHA'S WORD IN THE THERAVADA TRADITION, and as further elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present moment." It is assumed that everyone subscribing does so after being fully informed and in agreement with this description. Indeed, one wonders why else would anyone bother to join? Victor and James, you have been treated respectfully. I would hope that another time you may respond differently, when speaking of the teachings in the Pali Canon, deeply revered by millions of people around the world, and by countless others through the ages. I read the Pasuara Sutta today. I think it is relevant to some recent threads. It counsels against having vehement views and disputes about the Dhamma. "Only here is there purity" -- that's what they say -- "No other doctrines are pure" -- so they say. Insisting that what they depend on is good, they are deeply entrenched in their personal truths. <<<>>>> Those who dispute, taking hold of a view, saying, "This, and this only, is true," those you can talk to. Here there is nothing -- no confrontation at the birth of disputes. Among those who live above confrontation not pitting view against view, whom would you gain as opponent, Pasura, among those here who are grasping no more? So here you come, conjecturing, your mind conjuring viewpoints. You're paired off with a pure one and so cannot proceed." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp4-08.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi James, > > Indeed, there is the truth and there is falsehood. Another word to > characterize the Abhidhamma Pitaka is "specious." > > Regards, > Victor > > > Christine, > > > > Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely > disagree. > > Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation > > based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only > comes > > in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not > the > > truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, > > geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this > > group or any group allow for all different and varied > interpretations > > of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who > put > > forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their > > egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the > > development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual > demise > > of Buddhism. > > > > Metta, James > > > > ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to > > Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all > > false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything > > having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said > > differently were going on false information or kidding themselves > > (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly > follow > > Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. 21194 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/12/03 11:18:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Where did you get the idea that I am making the presumption that > there is a thing "out there" that is a computer? > > Regards, > Victor > ========================== I understood you to be saying that a computer, literally, is impermanent. When one attributes a property to a thing, per force, one usually considers the thing to exist. I take it, though, that I am not understanding you correctly on this, and I welcome correction by you. 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) 21195 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 1:08pm Subject: kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi Howard, This is the second part of the sound and lute thread and relates to your idea that strong emotional reaction occurs in mind door process only, not 5 door process. There is some support for this in the snippet below but first I should clear up one misunderstanding. A sound rupa arises in the ear door with neutral feeling but is reacted-to in the javana series (impulsion) of the ear door process with _mild_ like, dislike, or vague attitude. Similarly, a pleasant body feeling arises in the body door with a pleasant feeling and is reacted-to with mild like, dislike, or vague attitude in the body door process. I am substituting "vague attitude" for moha (ignorance/bewilderment) and to keep it simple not using the opposite kusala root cittas. The main point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by accumulations rather than by the feeling that comes indoors with it. Here's the snippet on the relationship between 5 door and mind door processes: Way 63 & 64 concerning "Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front": Now, among the mental states of the life-continum and so forth or even in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray. [Tika] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion L: So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and therefor the seat of self-view and, imo, the place where the most profitable insight will be gained. There is no question of 5 door process being more real than mind door process. One thing I don't quite understand is what is involved in a mind door process with music (or sound) as object. In the commentary above the conceptual label of "person" etc. was used. I think there could also be a recognition without a word. But there wouldn't be any such word or recognition associated with a sound heard for the first time. Somehow the mind door must concentrate ear door experience into something that could be powerfully reacted-to with delight. Larry 21196 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 0:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/12/03 2:35:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Sorry to cut you off at the end of the lute thread. -------------------------------------------- Howard: Not at all! No problem. In fact, I think that it should be understood that any of us on the list should have the right to drop out of a thread at any time, without any explanation. (Just being tired of it should be enough.) --------------------------------------------- It got so> > complicated I couldn't figure out how to sort it out. Now I think I can > do that in 2 posts, focusing on concept in this one and citta process in > the next. Also, I'm not going to attempt to present your position, but > only my own. > > I would like to use only the abhidhamma sense of "concept", which is > that a concept is a word or meaning of a word. In that sense, > discriminating between realty and concept is a matter of discriminating > between experience and thinking (with words) about experience. To say > that a concept lacks an "own-nature" (sabhava) is simply to say that > there is no cake in the thought of the cake, for example. "Own-nature" > is slightly different from "self" and means basically "experience". > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I'm wary about the term 'own nature' or 'sabhava'. To me it suggests independent existence or entity-ness. But I certainly agree that there is no cake in the concept of cake. What is deeper than that, I think, though you may not buy this, is that there is actually no cake .. period (except in a manner of speaking). I see our "world" as populated only by so-to-speak things that we project based on conceptual construction. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > The problem is that many people are confusing concept with compound. In > Buddhaghosa"s example of the carriage [anyone have an exact reference > for this?] the carriage is said to not exist under analysis of its > parts. > But the carriage does not not-exist because it is a concept,> > rather it does not exist because it is a compound, like the khandhas. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: The carriage does not exist except conventionally, not because it is (referent of) a concept, but because it is a *never actually observed* referent of a concept. We *think* we have seen a carriage, but instead we have seen a sequence of images and then applied the 'carriage' concept as a mental tag. There is the idea or concept of carriage, which pops into the mind whenever certain sequences of images appear, but only those images, are directly apprehended, not the alleged carriage. (The same holds of cake.) When we see that an alleged entity is composed of parts, that is a means to know that it is concept-only (by which I mean "merely conceptual, merely conventional"). There are two kinds of concept-only categories of alleged objects, those which are well grounded (based on actual experiences) such as carriages, trees, and cakes, and those which are ungrounded, based on mere imagination, such as unicorns and selves. We also have the concept of hardness. But hardness is not concept-only, because it can be directly apprehended by rupic vi~n~nana. But the hardness, itself, felt in the body, is different from the hardness-concept. ----------------------------------------------------------- > There is no carriage self or essence in the carriage but somebody could > take a ride in the carriage, so it has kammic viability. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is a sequence of experiential events that can occur that we CALL "taking a ride in a carriage." ----------------------------------------------------- Of course this> > discussion of the carriage is conceptual and as such there are no > carriage characteristics in this discussion; nobody could take a ride in > this discussion. So there is no carriage own-nature (experience) in this > discussion. > > What is not an object of satipatthana is the self of the carriage and > the experience of carriage in the concept of carriage. However, to > conceptually analyze the carriage into its parts and not find any part > that is carriage would give one a legitimate insight into the "not-self" > characteristic. Presumably, a more powerful insight would be gained by > analyzing the _experience_ of the carriage and not finding a carriage > anywhere. This is exemplified by the destruction of the lute in the Lute > Sutta.The point of the concept/reality discrimination is to emphasize > experience over talking or thinking, but above all to emphasize analysis > of experience and, at second best, analysis of concepts. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think I concur with the content of your previous paragraph. ------------------------------------------------- > > To say that compounds are nonexistent is not quite right. It would be > better to say there is no self in compounds and self is nonexistent. To > say that concepts are nonexistent is also not quite right. It would be > better to say there is no experience of the subject of a concept in the > concept [except for words that sound like their meaning]. > --------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Here I think we disagree. I say that compounds are concept-only, they have conventional existence, but can not be found under analysis. -------------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 21197 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 0:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi, Larry - Thank you for the following. Unfortunately, I find myself at a loss to give you any sort of coherent response. This level of Abhidhamma-speak goes way beyond me. I find my eyes and mind glaze over as I read it. This is not your fault - it is mine! But it is what it is. I'm really sorry I can't engage you on the content of this post. I do hope that someone else will respond to you on this. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/12/03 4:10:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > This is the second part of the sound and lute thread and relates to your > idea that strong emotional reaction occurs in mind door process only, > not 5 door process. There is some support for this in the snippet below > but first I should clear up one misunderstanding. A sound rupa arises in > the ear door with neutral feeling but is reacted-to in the javana series > (impulsion) of the ear door process with _mild_ like, dislike, or vague > attitude. Similarly, a pleasant body feeling arises in the body door > with a pleasant feeling and is reacted-to with mild like, dislike, or > vague attitude in the body door process. > > I am substituting "vague attitude" for moha (ignorance/bewilderment) and > to keep it simple not using the opposite kusala root cittas. The main > point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door > process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by > accumulations rather than by the feeling that comes indoors with it. > > Here's the snippet on the relationship between 5 door and mind door > processes: > > Way 63 &64 concerning "Clear comprehension in looking straight on and > in looking away from the front": > > Now, among the mental states of the life-continum and so forth or even > in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight > on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance > by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision > by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the > fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, > like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up > gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking > straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and > ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," > or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished > after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for > recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray. > > [Tika] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh > impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a > definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a > woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of > sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, > by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical > reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to > adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed > arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion > that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not > liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an > extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door > cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and > ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But > impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, > hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all > beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the > root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has > been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual > state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the > newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors > of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion > > L: So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and > therefor the seat of self-view and, imo, the place where the most > profitable insight will be gained. There is no question of 5 door > process being more real than mind door process. > > One thing I don't quite understand is what is involved in a mind door > process with music (or sound) as object. In the commentary above the > conceptual label of "person" etc. was used. I think there could also be > a recognition without a word. But there wouldn't be any such word or > recognition associated with a sound heard for the first time. Somehow > the mind door must concentrate ear door experience into something that > could be powerfully reacted-to with delight. > > Larry > > /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) 21198 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, I think this is the crux of our disagreement: H: "Here I think we disagree. I say that compounds are concept-only, they have conventional existence, but can not be found under analysis." L: Actually I think this is very logical but I don't think it is what the Buddha taught. It doesn't allow for the middle ground of the truth of kamma unless you say kamma and, by implication, the 4 noble truths, are only conventional. I would agree with you if this is what you want to say but I don't think we will win many Buddhist friends with that idea. The most obvious counter argument is that it is nihilistic. Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear consciousness all arise together. Larry 21199 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Take heart Howard. Eventhough you didn't understand the lingo you got it right. Larry 21200 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello James, Victor and All, > The Home Page of this group clearly states that it is "A discussion > forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings > as found IN ALL THREE BASKETS OF THE TIPITAKA, THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF > THE BUDDHA'S WORD IN THE THERAVADA TRADITION, and as further > elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The > discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim > of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present > moment." > > It is assumed that everyone subscribing does so after being fully > informed and in agreement with this description. Indeed, one wonders > why else would anyone bother to join? Dear Christine, Let's go back a bit in time, I joined this group with only one purpose in mind: To learn about the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I had heard mention of it in other groups, how it was an additional teaching of the Buddha, and therefore I really wanted to learn about it. After joining this group and reading what was written about it, I knew pretty quickly that it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha. Why everyone doesn't see this plainly, for thousands of years, is really beyond me…and I am being dead serious. I cannot understand how anyone could take it as being the teaching of the Buddha! After reading more about its origination, after already feeling it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha, I found the scholarly evidence to back up what I already knew. Haven't I been honest about this process of mine since day one? Why are you now trying to tell me that I have to accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka as the work of the Buddha when it is not? Frankly, I don't care what millions of people think; millions of people can be wrong. I know what I know and you cannot dissuade me otherwise. I have stated, outright, that I will quit this group because I do not agree with the idea of the `Tipitaka' `The Three Baskets', as being the full, authentic record of the Buddha's teaching. I have offered that with full understanding. I was contacted by the moderators, on and off-list, and you also as a matter of fact, telling me not to do that. I was told that my participation was appreciated and valued. And now you are telling me that I should quit after all. Which is it to be? Rest assured, I am going to do my best to dissuade people from believing the Abhidhamma just as strong as you are going to promote it. I cannot be controlled. Make up your mind what you want and get back to me, since I see that you are now some kind of quasi- moderator here. Metta, James 21201 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Christine, Dave and Paul In a message dated 4/12/03 5:00:15 AM, ajahn_paul@y... writes: << Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my dreams. > Secondly, I think most dreams are just proliferation of thoughts as > the mind sifts and files events of the day, and the body releases > tensions and feeling *memories*. agree! > Thirdly, I have read that Arahats and Buddhas don't dream. So > everyone else must? > > {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember > reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who > just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and > mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up > every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very > aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} mmm.... may be, its a way to relax for ordinary ppl! ^^ > And I do believe in *prophetic* feelings. I regularly know in > advance if something 'bad' is going to happen to a dear one or to > myself - usually just a day or two in advance - and nothing in > detail, just which person and that it will be upsetting. > > Not sure if there is a Dhamma explanation for all this. :-) may be its one of the questions Buddha not going to answer! ^_^ > metta, > Christine >> Well, dreaming is an interesting subject for me, because it has been a domain of my mindfulness practice from the beginning. I figured, why leave a third of my life out of my practice? I was 20 at the time I began a daily meditation practice and I didn't often remember my dreams. I did recall as a child having a fairly active dream life, and I had read that sleep researchers had found everyone dreams. But, maybe they haven't tested an enlightened masters. But, I felt remembering my dreams was something that would help me in my practice, so I went out and bought a couple of books on do-it-yourself-dream-work and set to work. All of the books recommended setting an intention just before sleep to recall your dreams in the morning, and setting out a flashlight and notebook next to the bed, so I did it right away. Well, a couple of days later I woke early from a dream and I wrote it down and went right back to sleep. As the days and weeks went by I remembered more and more of my dreams. As the years went by I filled up journals with dream data. As my practice progressed my dreams became more lucid. I even began to have out-of-body experiences. That was a little weird, because I had no context for slipping and sliding in and out of my body. I thought I was going totally wako. I went to the most trusted individual in my life, which was my surrogate grandma. She was an old lady that rented a room from us when I was a kid, and became our surrogate granny. I confided in her that I was having some weird dreams like flying out the window and stuff, and I told her I was pretty sure I had to be going crazy, but I didn't want to be put away. She said, "Oh dear, you are just having out-of-body experiences." I said, "What?" She sat me down and told me all about it, then she gave me a collection of instruction manuals from the "Coptic Fellowship," a Coptic mystery school she had been initiated into in the 30s. For real. I had thought all along this old lady was as straight as a Midwestern spinster, born in 1900, could get. Well, I studied the books, practiced the exercise, and in a couple of weeks I found myself flying all over the place at the drop off a hat. It was pretty cool. I had a couple of scary experiences, like being attacked by demons and hungry ghosts and stuff, then I found out they couldn't do anything to me, so I kept it up. But, after a few years, flying out of my body was no big deal, so I stopped doing it intentionally. It still happens at regular intervals through no overt intention on my part. I've kept up recording my dreams though to this day. I have about 30 journals of the stuff. I don't record the boring dreams. I record the cool ones, like previous lifetime dreams, and other domain, and other planet stuff, and powerful astral teacher things that I am sure no one would ever believe. Over the years the most interesting aspect of my dream life has been its moment-to-moment lucidity. It must be a combination of my 3 decades of daily practice, and my four hours of daily meditation, and my continued recording of my dreams, because I don't seem to lose consciousness at night. I lay down, the body falls asleep, but I remain conscious. I have dream-after-dream all night, and they are as lucid as waking experiences. Then, I become aware of this body about 4:00 AM, and I get up and meditated for a couple of hours. Well, that's my experience. I can't really recall if I've had any prophetic dreams, but I have had some doozies with domains and planets and flying hither and thither. I did ponder whether an enlightened being dreams. I've read that enlightened beings don't dream. But, that story wasn't reported by an enlightened being. Just some devotee with too much thinking and not enough realizing. I decided why not? Enlightened beings can dream. They are here in this domain with us, why not enter the sleep domain, the astral as well? If they are enlightened, then why should they be unconscious when they sleep? I'm not. Well, that's my 2 cents. Now you probably think I'm a bit wako, but I'm used to it. Best to you all layman Jeff 21202 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 3:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... To james and Christine and all: In a message dated 4/11/03 3:53:25 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << Though this sounds reasonable and democratic, I completely disagree. Buddhism is not some sort of social issue open to interpretation based on individual circumstances and personal opinion; it only comes in one form. There is the truth and there is that which is not the truth. This truth is the same regardless of the time period, geographic location, or population. Why should discussion in this group or any group allow for all different and varied interpretations of dhamma when they may indeed be false? Why should members who put forth false ideas about Buddhism be humored for the sake of their egos? Viewing the larger picture, you are encouraging the development of a slippery slope that will lead to the eventual demise of Buddhism. Metta, James ps. Every single aspect of the Abhidhamma Pitaka is contrary to Buddhism. Mixing what is false with what is true makes it all false. The Buddha didn't teach the core, the outline, or anything having to do with the Abhidhamma; all those from the past who said differently were going on false information or kidding themselves (lying would be too strong to say, I think). Those who truly follow Buddhism, including meditation, know this instinctively. >> I certainly do not support this point of view. I believe innovation is essential in any contemplative tradition. A contemplative tradition that cannot tolerate the teaching of contemporary Buddhas is most certainly a dead religion. layman, Jeff 21203 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > I certainly do not support this point of view. I believe innovation is > essential in any contemplative tradition. A contemplative tradition that > cannot tolerate the teaching of contemporary Buddhas is most certainly a dead > religion. > > layman, Jeff Hi Jeff, This is untrue. The Buddha taught everything necessary. His teaching is timeless, and never 'dead'. It is not possible to improve on his teaching and anyone who would attempt to do so doesn't know the first thing about his teaching. Obviously, the Abhidhamma wasn't composed by enlightened beings...which is illustrated in its wishy washy explanation of Nibbana. Metta, James 21204 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams Hello Jeff, First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of slang! ^_~ In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be trained, including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams more and more. I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest that not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, its fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will be out of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our mind or our soul out of the body?) As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, dont take any risk! ^^ > Well, dreaming is an interesting subject for me, because it has been a domain > of my mindfulness practice from the beginning. I figured, why leave a third > of my life out of my practice? I was 20 at the time I began a daily > meditation practice and I didn't often remember my dreams. I did recall as a > child having a fairly active dream life, and I had read that sleep > researchers had found everyone dreams. But, maybe they haven't tested an > enlightened masters. > > But, I felt remembering my dreams was something that would help me in my > practice, so I went out and bought a couple of books on > do-it-yourself-dream-work and set to work. All of the books recommended > setting an intention just before sleep to recall your dreams in the morning, > and setting out a flashlight and notebook next to the bed, so I did it right > away. Well, a couple of days later I woke early from a dream and I wrote it > down and went right back to sleep. As the days and weeks went by I > remembered more and more of my dreams. As the years went by I filled up > journals with dream data. As my practice progressed my dreams became more > lucid. > > I even began to have out-of-body experiences. That was a little weird, > because I had no context for slipping and sliding in and out of my body. I > thought I was going totally wako. I went to the most trusted individual in > my life, which was my surrogate grandma. She was an old lady that rented a > room from us when I was a kid, and became our surrogate granny. I confided > in her that I was having some weird dreams like flying out the window and > stuff, and I told her I was pretty sure I had to be going crazy, but I didn't > want to be put away. > > She said, "Oh dear, you are just having out-of-body experiences." > > I said, "What?" > > She sat me down and told me all about it, then she gave me a collection of > instruction manuals from the "Coptic Fellowship," a Coptic mystery school she > had been initiated into in the 30s. For real. I had thought all along this > old lady was as straight as a Midwestern spinster, born in 1900, could get. > > Well, I studied the books, practiced the exercise, and in a couple of weeks I > found myself flying all over the place at the drop off a hat. It was pretty > cool. I had a couple of scary experiences, like being attacked by demons and > hungry ghosts and stuff, then I found out they couldn't do anything to me, so > I kept it up. But, after a few years, flying out of my body was no big deal, > so I stopped doing it intentionally. It still happens at regular intervals > through no overt intention on my part. > > I've kept up recording my dreams though to this day. I have about 30 > journals of the stuff. I don't record the boring dreams. I record the cool > ones, like previous lifetime dreams, and other domain, and other planet > stuff, and powerful astral teacher things that I am sure no one would ever > believe. > > Over the years the most interesting aspect of my dream life has been its > moment-to-moment lucidity. It must be a combination of my 3 decades of daily > practice, and my four hours of daily meditation, and my continued recording > of my dreams, because I don't seem to lose consciousness at night. I lay > down, the body falls asleep, but I remain conscious. I have > dream-after-dream all night, and they are as lucid as waking experiences. > Then, I become aware of this body about 4:00 AM, and I get up and meditated > for a couple of hours. > > Well, that's my experience. I can't really recall if I've had any prophetic > dreams, but I have had some doozies with domains and planets and flying > hither and thither. > > I did ponder whether an enlightened being dreams. I've read that enlightened > beings don't dream. But, that story wasn't reported by an enlightened being. > Just some devotee with too much thinking and not enough realizing. I > decided why not? Enlightened beings can dream. They are here in this domain > with us, why not enter the sleep domain, the astral as well? If they are > enlightened, then why should they be unconscious when they sleep? I'm not. > > Well, that's my 2 cents. Now you probably think I'm a bit wako, but I'm used > to it. > > Best to you all > > layman Jeff 21205 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > Hello Jeff, > > First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of > slang! ^_~ > > In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be trained, > including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams more and more. > > I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest that > not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, its > fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will be out > of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our mind or our > soul out of the body?) > > As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, > dont take any risk! ^^ Hi Ajahn Paul, One of the core teachings of Buddhism is that people don't have a soul. Metta, James 21206 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:50pm Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: KKT Thanks for the detailed questions. I believe this is a very important area. I always find it helpful to discuss. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __For you the word << dhamma >> means > exclusively << paramattha dhamma >> ? In the context of the passage from the texts that you asked me to comment on ('sabbe dhamma anatta'), I understand 'dhamma' to mean all conditioned phenomena (sankhara) plus nibbana, that is to say, the paramattha dhammas. (In some other contexts, 'dhamma' can include concepts.) > __A concept (pannatti) is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? In the context we are discussing, that's correct. A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind. > Therefore the concept 'table' > is not a << dhamma >> ? Correct. There is no paramattha dhamma of 'table' to be directly experienced through a single doorway. What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors (and assembled with the assistance of the recollection of previously assembled ideas). > Although concept is object > of the mind-door, it is not > considered as << dhamma >> ? Correct, concept is not considered a paramattha dhamma. While the objects experienced through the sense-doors are all paramattha dhammas, the object experienced through the mind-door may be a paramattha dhamma or it may be a concept. > __Concept does not rise and fall away > like paramattha dhamma ? Correct, to my understanding (by which I mean that I have nowhere seen it said that concepts arise and fall away). Concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness. > __Return to the phrase: > > Sabbe dhamma anatta > (All dhammas are not-self) > > If I say << the eye is not-self >> > << the sound is not-self >> > << mana (conceit) is not-self >> > what is the meaning of << not-self >> here? > > Eye, sound, conceit are all paramattha dhamma. (A word of explanation first. 'Eye' here refers to the paramattha dhamma that is the eye-base -- the physical eye is not a paramattha dhamma) I think it's important to appreciate that 'not-self', like impermanence and unsatisfactoriness, is a *characteristic* of paramattha dhammas. The significance of saying that something is a characteristic of paramattha dhammas is that as paramattha dhammas gradually become better known to understanding, their characteristics also gradually become more apparent. The more understanding there is of paramattha dhammas, the more one understands about the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. The Buddha gave at least 2 elaborations of the meaning of 'not-self'. One is to the effect of 'not subject to mastery', the other, 'lacking in an abiding soul or essence'. These are presumably different ways of saying the same thing. (Interestingly, it seems that for most listeners to the Buddha's sermons no such elaboration was necessary; the meaning of 'not-self' was readily apparent from the fact that the dhammas were already seen to be impermanent and unsatisfactory. I think those listeners must have had a highly developed understanding of paramattha dhammas already). I tend to think of 'not-self' as being a negation of certain characteristics that we wrongly attribute to paramattha dhammas, because of deeply ingrained wrong view. KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? Do they make sense? Jon KKT: Thank you for your long post, Jon. Your answer is very clear. I like it very much and enjoy our exchanges as well. I have some more questions, but before asking, I have to answer to your question first. You asked me: << KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? Do they make sense? >> For me, they describe perfectly the meaning of the word << not-self >> Maybe we can take them as the << official >> definition of not-self. Remember that they were elaborations presented by the Buddha Himself. NOT-SELF (anatta): __not subject to mastery __lacking in an abiding soul/essence What is interesting is that from this definition we can deduce the opposite that is the definition of << self >> even if the Buddha did not give a specific definition of this word. Therefore: SELF (atta): __subject to mastery __possessing an abiding soul/essence << subject to mastery >> means that SELF should be something self-existing, independent, unconditioned. << possessing an abiding soul/essence >> means that SELF should be permanent, eternal, unchanging. BTW, I read from MN 44 (Culavedalla Sutta) The lay follower Visakha asked the bhikkhuni Dhammadinna: __Lady, 'PERSONALITY, PERSONALITY' is said. What is called personality by the Blessed One? __Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called personality by the Blessed One. Can someone give the original Pali of the word PERSONALITY in this Sutta? Thanks. Following are my questions: __You wrote: << A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind >> What do you mean by << intrinsic nature >> ? Is there a Pali word corresponding to << intrinsic nature >> ? If concept has no intrinsic nature of its own, does << paramattha dhamma >> have one ? __You wrote: << What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors >> If I say: The table is a series (or combination) of paramattha dhammas existing << INDEPENDENTLY >> of the observer. Is this statement correct? Another way to formulate this question is: What we call 'table' (which is a concept) is merely a series of paramattha dhammas experienced through different sense-doors, OK? Now if you turn your back to the table (ie. the 'table' is no more experienced by you) then does the 'table' still << exist >> independently as a series of paramattha dhammas ? __You wrote: << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness >> What do you mean by << individual essence >> in the phrase << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence >> ? Does this word << individual essence >> have the same meaning of the above << intrinsic nature >> ? Have these two words << individual essence >> and << intrinsic nature >> the same meaning of the word SELF defined above as something << self-existing, independent, unconditioned, permanent, eternal, unchanging >> ? If your response to this question is Yes then how could a paramattha dhamma which has an << << individual essence >> or an << << intrinsic nature >> have also characteristics such as << impermanent (anicca) and not-self (anatta) >> ? An evident contradiction, is it not? Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21207 From: ajahn_paul Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 7:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the word in english. after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that call? > > Hi Ajahn Paul, > > One of the core teachings of Buddhism is that people don't have a > soul. > > Metta, James 21208 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:08pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... James, I have re-read my post to you (and Victor), and I see only a post asking for courtesy in dealings with other subscribers and sensitivity in writing about the scriptures that are held in the highest esteem by most members. I was writing as an ordinary member and asking that your posts show consideration for the beliefs of the great majority of other members. There was no suggestion for you to leave. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 21209 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > Hello Jeff, > > First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of > slang! ^_~ > > In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be > trained, including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams > more and more. > > I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest > that not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, > its fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will > be out of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our > mind or our soul out of the body?) > > As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, > dont take any risk! ^^ Hi Ajahn Paul, One of the core teachings of Buddhism is that people don't have a soul. Metta, James KKT: So << what >> is out of the body in such out-of-body (OOB) experience if there is no soul ? I have friends who have OOB experiences. KKT 21210 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:33pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > James, > > I have re-read my post to you (and Victor), and I see only a post > asking for courtesy in dealings with other subscribers and > sensitivity in writing about the scriptures that are held in the > highest esteem by most members. I was writing as an ordinary member > and asking that your posts show consideration for the beliefs of the > great majority of other members. There was no suggestion for you to > leave. > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, It is not my intention to hurt anyone's feelings. Could you please be a bit more specific about what I need to avoid posting? Are you suggesting that I shouldn't write ANYTHING questioning the validity of the Abhidhamma? Is this a `gag order' of sorts? Metta, James 21211 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:39pm Subject: Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: < snip > I did ponder whether an enlightened being dreams. I've read that enlightened beings don't dream. But, that story wasn't reported by an enlightened being. Just some devotee with too much thinking and not enough realizing. I decided why not? Enlightened beings can dream. They are here in this domain with us, why not enter the sleep domain, the astral as well? If they are enlightened, then why should they be unconscious when they sleep? I'm not. KKT: I read somewhere that Arahat has only << prophetic >> dreams. KKT 21212 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 8:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: So << what >> is out of the body > in such out-of-body (OOB) experience > if there is no soul ? > > I have friends who have OOB experiences. > > > KKT Hi KKT, Well, I am not sure, but it is probably either fantasy, remote viewing, or a low-level form of multiplicity. Metta, James 21213 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... To James and Christine: In a message dated 4/12/03 6:50:12 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello James, Victor and All, > The Home Page of this group clearly states that it is "A discussion > forum for anyone interested in understanding the Buddha's teachings > as found IN ALL THREE BASKETS OF THE TIPITAKA, THE ORIGINAL RECORD OF > THE BUDDHA'S WORD IN THE THERAVADA TRADITION, and as further > elucidated in the ancient commentaries of that tradition. The > discussions include matters of both theory and practice, with the aim > of developing precise understanding of the realities of the present > moment." > > It is assumed that everyone subscribing does so after being fully > informed and in agreement with this description. Indeed, one wonders > why else would anyone bother to join? Dear Christine, Let's go back a bit in time, I joined this group with only one purpose in mind: To learn about the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I had heard mention of it in other groups, how it was an additional teaching of the Buddha, and therefore I really wanted to learn about it. After joining this group and reading what was written about it, I knew pretty quickly that it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha. Why everyone doesn't see this plainly, for thousands of years, is really beyond me…and I am being dead serious. I cannot understand how anyone could take it as being the teaching of the Buddha! After reading more about its origination, after already feeling it wasn't the teaching of the Buddha, I found the scholarly evidence to back up what I already knew. Haven't I been honest about this process of mine since day one? Why are you now trying to tell me that I have to accept the Abhidhamma Pitaka as the work of the Buddha when it is not? Frankly, I don't care what millions of people think; millions of people can be wrong. I know what I know and you cannot dissuade me otherwise. I have stated, outright, that I will quit this group because I do not agree with the idea of the `Tipitaka' `The Three Baskets', as being the full, authentic record of the Buddha's teaching. I have offered that with full understanding. I was contacted by the moderators, on and off-list, and you also as a matter of fact, telling me not to do that. I was told that my participation was appreciated and valued. And now you are telling me that I should quit after all. Which is it to be? Rest assured, I am going to do my best to dissuade people from believing the Abhidhamma just as strong as you are going to promote it. I cannot be controlled. Make up your mind what you want and get back to me, since I see that you are now some kind of quasi- moderator here. Metta, James >> Well James, after my last email you and I both might be booted off, but maybe we both could also be less enthusiastic in the expression of our opinions. Best to you, Jeff 21214 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 4:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process For Larry and Howard; In a message dated 4/12/03 4:36:05 PM, upasaka@a... writes: << Hi, Larry - Thank you for the following. Unfortunately, I find myself at a loss to give you any sort of coherent response. This level of Abhidhamma-speak goes way beyond me. I find my eyes and mind glaze over as I read it. This is not your fault - it is mine! But it is what it is. I'm really sorry I can't engage you on the content of this post. I do hope that someone else will respond to you on this. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/12/03 4:10:16 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > This is the second part of the sound and lute thread and relates to your > idea that strong emotional reaction occurs in mind door process only, > not 5 door process. There is some support for this in the snippet below > but first I should clear up one misunderstanding. A sound rupa arises in > the ear door with neutral feeling but is reacted-to in the javana series > (impulsion) of the ear door process with _mild_ like, dislike, or vague > attitude. Similarly, a pleasant body feeling arises in the body door > with a pleasant feeling and is reacted-to with mild like, dislike, or > vague attitude in the body door process. > > I am substituting "vague attitude" for moha (ignorance/bewilderment) and > to keep it simple not using the opposite kusala root cittas. The main > point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door > process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by > accumulations rather than by the feeling that comes indoors with it. > > Here's the snippet on the relationship between 5 door and mind door > processes: > > Way 63 &64 concerning "Clear comprehension in looking straight on and > in looking away from the front": > > Now, among the mental states of the life-continum and so forth or even > in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight > on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance > by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision > by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the > fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, > like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up > gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking > straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and > ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," > or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished > after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for > recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray. > > [Tika] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh > impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a > definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a > woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of > sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, > by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical > reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to > adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed > arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion > that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not > liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an > extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door > cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and > ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But > impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, > hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all > beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the > root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has > been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual > state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the > newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors > of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion > > L: So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and > therefor the seat of self-view and, imo, the place where the most > profitable insight will be gained. There is no question of 5 door > process being more real than mind door process. > > One thing I don't quite understand is what is involved in a mind door > process with music (or sound) as object. In the commentary above the > conceptual label of "person" etc. was used. I think there could also be > a recognition without a word. But there wouldn't be any such word or > recognition associated with a sound heard for the first time. Somehow > the mind door must concentrate ear door experience into something that > could be powerfully reacted-to with delight. > > Larry >> Don't worry Howard, I think most of what's going on here is a handful of Pali geeks with over active cerebral cortexes running herd on this listserv. Jeff 21215 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/12/03 8:42:46 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a > compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear > consciousness all arise together. > > ========================== Interdependence and co-occurrence of several things make each of those things empty of independent existence, but does not make any one of them a complex. 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) 21216 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/12/03 8:47:08 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Take heart Howard. Eventhough you didn't understand the lingo you got it > right. ------------------------------------------ Howard: Well that's pleasant! ;-) ------------------------------------------ > > 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) 21217 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Hi, Jeff - In a message dated 4/12/03 11:45:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, macdocaz1@a... writes: > > Don't worry Howard, I think most of what's going on here is a handful of > Pali > geeks with over active cerebral cortexes running herd on this listserv. > > Jeff > ========================== You certainly have a right to your perspective on this, Jeff. While I have definite reservations about aspects of the Abhidhamma (and its origins), I also do find much of value in it. I do thank you for what I see as a show of support for me, Jeff, but it is only fair to also let you know that I don't share your evaluation of folks on the list. There is a considerable variety of views and approaches taken by folks here. Moreover, some of those people on this list with whom I have the greatest differences in how to interpret the Dhamma are also people for whom I have the greatest respect, respect for their intelligence, for their tolerance of positions different from their own (truly!), and most of all for their lovingkindness and compasssion. I find that there are many positions expressed on DSG that I take very strong exception to, but others that I agree with. In any case, I must say that there is, all told, no more and no better discussion of many and varied aspects of the Dhamma to be found anywhere on the internet than on DSG. (Of course, a close competitor in this is the list that I am one moderator of! ;-) 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) 21218 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To Ajahn Paul, James, KKT In a message dated 4/12/03 7:28:33 PM, ajahn_paul@y... writes: << Hello Jeff, First question,, what is wako means? @.@ i guess its some kind of slang! ^_~ In ur message, we can see that every part of our body can be trained, including our mind, thats why u can remember the dreams more and more. I do beleive what u said, like flying out of body, but i suggest that not to try this....bcoz...if its only ur mind is out of body, its fine,,but if its ur soul,,it will be dangerous,,ur soul will be out of protection. (this will be another funny topic, its our mind or our soul out of the body?) As i remember, even Arahats cant control themselves in dreams, so, dont take any risk! ^^ >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% <> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the word in english. after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that call? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% KKT: So << what >> is out of the body in such out-of-body (OOB) experience if there is no soul ? I have friends who have OOB experiences. KKT: I read somewhere that Arahat has only << prophetic >> dreams. KKT %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Thank-you Ajahn Paul, kind sir for your concern, but I have been traveling out-of-the-body for 30 years. And, yes I have been in as much trouble as anyone could possibly get into, and I have found no matter how scary and powerful a being I encounter, they can't harm me, only scare me more than you can imagine. It's also too late to stop it. All my dreams are lucid now, I just pop up in alternate time/space domains as soon as the body goes to sleep. Yes, wako is slang, sorry. It means insane. When I first started having out-of-body experiences I had no idea what was going on, nor did I even know it was possible. So, I thought I had gone insane. Good point James and Paul, As for whether it is the 'mind' or the 'soul' out-of-the-body, that is an interesting debate for us to contemplate, because, it is my understanding, and as James says, Buddhism does not acknowledge a soul. So, if there is no soul, what travels out-of-the-body? In my case I really don't care what name we call it, my experience is lucid, meaning the experience is either as real as the waking state or hyper real, meaning more real than the waking state. I believe lucid dreaming and out-of-body experiences are all in the domain of the jhanas, and therefore par for the course for any contemplative with an intense practice. Anyone interested in dialog on jhanas, and not feeling comfortable with that dialog in this venue, is welcome to log into a Yahoo group I manage called Jhanas@yahoogroups.com. To subscribe just email first to Jhanas-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or log into the Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas Blessings to all of you, layman Jeff 21219 From: Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... For James: In a message dated 4/12/03 7:11:45 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > I certainly do not support this point of view. I believe innovation is > essential in any contemplative tradition. A contemplative tradition that > cannot tolerate the teaching of contemporary Buddhas is most certainly a dead > religion. > > layman, Jeff Hi Jeff, This is untrue. The Buddha taught everything necessary. His teaching is timeless, and never 'dead'. It is not possible to improve on his teaching and anyone who would attempt to do so doesn't know the first thing about his teaching. Obviously, the Abhidhamma wasn't composed by enlightened beings...which is illustrated in its wishy washy explanation of Nibbana. Metta, James >> Well James, this is an orthodox view, not unlike the views of a born again Christian, who would be saying that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, and the Bible is the only word of God. I fortunately do not subscribe to either belief. These points of view seem pretty limiting to me. After all, in Buddhism, if enlightenment is in deed a possibility, and Buddhism is a functional means to enlightenment, then people would have been getting enlightened all long. Therefore their writings would be just as valid as the historic Buddha's. Don't you think? May you be free from suffering, Jeff 21220 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ajahn_paul" wrote: > May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the > word in english. > > after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that call? > Hi Ajahn Paul, Oh sorry, I didn't know you had limited English. I believe what you are referring to is called the 'karma stream' or 'continuum'...I am not sure if it can leave the body since it formed the body and is dependent on the body. However, there is a supernormal ability sometimes referred to as multiplicity where a person can 'clone' himself one or more times. The Lord Buddha could do this at will and would sometimes be at two places at once to give lessons. That could actually be what happens during an out-of-body experience, but maybe it doesn't happen full force (like all psychic ability can be at different strengths). It could also be remote viewing which is a psychic ability where the person can actually 'see' what is happening in different locations in real time. Metta, James 21221 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 12, 2003 11:46pm Subject: Re: Just a reminder.... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > For James: > Well James, this is an orthodox view, not unlike the views of a born again > Christian, who would be saying that Jesus is the only begotten son of God, > and the Bible is the only word of God. I fortunately do not subscribe to > either belief. These points of view seem pretty limiting to me. After all, > in Buddhism, if enlightenment is in deed a possibility, and Buddhism is a > functional means to enlightenment, then people would have been getting > enlightened all long. Therefore their writings would be just as valid as the > historic Buddha's. Don't you think? > > May you be free from suffering, Jeff Hi Jeff, LOL! Well, I must say, this is the first time anyone has compared me to a born again Christian! You are too funny! ;-) Actually, your posts are so sarcastic and articulate, you live in Arizona, you value meditation, you abhor the use of Pali, and your name starts with the letter `J', I am not so sure you aren't me! ;-). Enlightened masters didn't significantly change what the Buddha taught (The Abhidhamma is a major change!). There is just one truth. I am not referring to the cultural trappings of Buddhism, but the core beliefs. But you are probably just as stubborn as I am also and just won't let this go! ;-) So forget it. Metta, James 21222 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:56am Subject: Are there any teachings about anti-war? Hi James, You know the war now between America and Iraq. I absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I mean a real scream. Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about anti-war? If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, if yes, most likely into what? Metta, Hilary 21223 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:53am Subject: Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Thank-you Ajahn Paul, kind sir for your concern, but I have been traveling out-of-the-body for 30 years. And, yes I have been in as much trouble as anyone could possibly get into, and I have found no matter how scary and powerful a being I encounter, they can't harm me, only scare me more than you can imagine. It's also too late to stop it. All my dreams are lucid now, I just pop up in alternate time/space domains as soon as the body goes to sleep. Yes, wako is slang, sorry. It means insane. When I first started having out-of-body experiences I had no idea what was going on, nor did I even know it was possible. So, I thought I had gone insane. Good point James and Paul, As for whether it is the 'mind' or the 'soul' out-of-the-body, that is an interesting debate for us to contemplate, because, it is my understanding, and as James says, Buddhism does not acknowledge a soul. So, if there is no soul, what travels out-of-the-body? In my case I really don't care what name we call it, my experience is lucid, meaning the experience is either as real as the waking state or hyper real, meaning more real than the waking state. I believe lucid dreaming and out-of-body experiences are all in the domain of the jhanas, and therefore par for the course for any contemplative with an intense practice. Anyone interested in dialog on jhanas, and not feeling comfortable with that dialog in this venue, is welcome to log into a Yahoo group I manage called Jhanas@y... To subscribe just email first to Jhanas-subscribe@yahoogroups.com or log into the Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas Blessings to all of you, layman Jeff KKT: One question, Jeff. You have your out-of-body experiences while you sleep or while you sit in meditation? KKT 21224 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process Larry and Howard, I've found it very helpful to follow this discussion. Trying to make sense of these details in (my own) vernacular, rather than just committing the translations of the texts to memory is a very good exercise, I think. Thanks for taking the trouble for this wholesome activity (di.t.thujukamma or correction of one's views, kusala accomplished by acquiring right view of realities, from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas). mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 5:45 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process > Take heart Howard. Even though you didn't understand the lingo you got it > right. > > Larry 21225 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... Dear Chris, No worries please, Mate--your posts are always well within the bounds of the 'well-spoken', in my opinion. Please keep up the good work. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Saturday, April 12, 2003 8:08 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Just a reminder.... > James, > > I have re-read my post to you (and Victor), and I see only a post > asking for courtesy in dealings with other subscribers and > sensitivity in writing about the scriptures that are held in the > highest esteem by most members. I was writing as an ordinary member > and asking that your posts show consideration for the beliefs of the > great majority of other members. There was no suggestion for you to > leave. > > metta, > > Christine 21226 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 8:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, A computer is impermanent. I am not saying "A computer, literally, is impermanent." Please note that the question to Jon "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is not asking whether a computer exists or not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > I understood you to be saying that a computer, literally, is > impermanent. When one attributes a property to a thing, per force, one > usually considers the thing to exist. I take it, though, that I am not > understanding you correctly on this, and I welcome correction by you. > > With metta, > Howard 21227 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/13/03 11:37:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > A computer is impermanent. > > I am not saying "A computer, literally, is impermanent." > > Please note that the question to Jon "Is a computer permanent or > impermanent?" is not asking whether a computer exists or not. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That's correct. That question does not ask whether a computer exists or not - it *presumes* that it exists. It is the same as when one asks a man whether he has stopped beating his wife. That query *presumes* that the man has a wife and that he has beaten her. (And a statement/question which carries a false presupposition is not a legitimate statement/question. In the case of a statement with false presupposition, it is neither true nor false.) Getting back to your question: In ordinary parlance, of course a computer is impermanent! And it should not be clung to, not only for that reason, but also because, ultimately, it is only conventionally existent. In discussing Dhamma issues, one often goes beyond ordinary parlance to speak of ultimates. The Buddha did this in the Sutta Pitaka, especially in the suttas of the Samyutta Nikaya. All those actually observed dhammas from which the mind constructs 'the computer' fail to remain, and, as time goes by, similar dhammas, but not quite the same as the original, arise and then fail to remain, and this appears to us as "the computer changing" (aging, ceasing to work as well, fading in color, etc, etc). ----------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > ======================== 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) 21228 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To: KKT and James In a message dated 4/12/03 8:44:17 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: So << what >> is out of the body > in such out-of-body (OOB) experience > if there is no soul ? > > I have friends who have OOB experiences. > > > KKT Hi KKT, Well, I am not sure, but it is probably either fantasy, remote viewing, or a low-level form of multiplicity. Metta, James >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Well, James, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your opinion may reflect denial. I will acknowledge your skeptical intentions, because I will agree that exploring a topic that is of a purely subjective nature requires we, the listeners, to have to accept the report of the participant observers who, because of the subjective nature of out-of-body experiences and other jhanic activity, cannot provide physical evidence for their experience. But, in place of physical evidence, we could most certainly provide a record of reports from participant observers, and we can also examine the reputation of those observers, when considering the weight of their record. If there is a long record of reports of out-of-body experiences, as well as the many other subjective experiences of the jhanas, we could assume there may be some validity to the phenomena. We could also develop models within which we can critic the validity of someone's record. I have found that those how experience out-of-body excursions, as well as other manifestations of jhana, often feel dismissed, and thus rarely report their experiences. Therefore I have found an environment of skepticism does not encourage these subjects to report their findings. I believe this skeptical environment only exacerbates the problem of developing a record, which by its very weight, could force public acceptance. There maybe many more subjects who have these experiences than we can ever know, but because they are most often dismissed, even on a listserv dedicated to enlightenment, they are likely to keep their experiences to themselves. As you recall in my own report, early on I was afraid to come forward, because I thought I was crazy. In deed when one first has one of these experiences it can be so disruptive to one's concept of reality, that it is easy to question one's own mental stability. So, why would anyone even come forward to admit they have had these experiences, if these subjects can expect immediate dismissal? I have had these experiences for 30 years. Can you understand why I have kept them to myself until now? This very environment of skepticism is why I have mounted a group dedicated to the jhanas, because I do not believe people who experience the various manifestations of jhana are ever accepted for their report alone. But, perhaps through community, a sangha of fellow travelers, if you will, might be able to draw out many more reports worthy of examination. Your skepticism may in deed be a self fulfilling prophesy, because by criticizing these people, they are not likely to come forward with their reports. I hope KKT's friend joins the jhana group and contributes a record of his or her experience and remains to become a member of a sangha that supports others who have had these experiences, which will encourage more to come forward. Arguably those who experience out-of-body travel, and other jhanic activity, may appear somewhat neurotic, but I believe you would also, if you had your sense of reality called into question at regular intervals. I hope a sangha of jhana yogis develops, because I believe they deserve and require peer level support. Best to you, Jeff 21229 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:27am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, The question to Jon is "Is computer permanent or impermanent?". Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer is permanent or impermanent in ordinary parlance. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > Howard: > That's correct. That question does not ask whether a computer exists > or not - it *presumes* that it exists. It is the same as when one asks a man > whether he has stopped beating his wife. That query *presumes* that the man > has a wife and that he has beaten her. (And a statement/question which > carries a false presupposition is not a legitimate statement/question. In the > case of a statement with false presupposition, it is neither true nor false.) > > Getting back to your question: In ordinary parlance, of course a > computer is impermanent! And it should not be clung to, not only for that > reason, but also because, ultimately, it is only conventionally existent. In > discussing Dhamma issues, one often goes beyond ordinary parlance to speak of > ultimates. The Buddha did this in the Sutta Pitaka, especially in the suttas > of the Samyutta Nikaya. All those actually observed dhammas from which the > mind constructs 'the computer' fail to remain, and, as time goes by, similar > dhammas, but not quite the same as the original, arise and then fail to > remain, and this appears to us as "the computer changing" (aging, ceasing to > work as well, fading in color, etc, etc). [snip] > With metta, > Howard 21230 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/13/03 12:28:38 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The question to Jon is "Is computer permanent or impermanent?". > > Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer is > permanent or impermanent in ordinary parlance. > > Regards, > Victor > > ============================ Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) 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) 21231 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To: KKT and James > Your skepticism may in deed be a self fulfilling prophesy, because by > criticizing these people, they are not likely to come forward with their > reports. I hope KKT's friend joins the jhana group and contributes a record > of his or her experience and remains to become a member of a sangha that > supports others who have had these experiences, which will encourage more to > come forward. > > Arguably those who experience out-of-body travel, and other jhanic activity, > may appear somewhat neurotic, but I believe you would also, if you had your > sense of reality called into question at regular intervals. I hope a sangha > of jhana yogis develops, because I believe they deserve and require peer > level support. > > Best to you, Jeff Hi Jeff, I never questioned your experiences or anyone else's in regards to out-of-body experiences. They seem to happen to a lot of different people, across cultures, so there must be something to them. All I simply said is that there is no soul that leaves the body...there is another explanation for it. When one practices vipassana, the knowledge that there is no soul because apparent. Ultimately, beneath the arising and falling energy known as the five aggregates, there is boundless awareness. We should be thankful that there isn't a 'soul'; it would be rather limiting. As far as your encouragement for the practice of jhana for the sake of developing supernormal powers, the Buddha spoke much against that. I hope that is not what your group encourages because it is a fruitless endeavor. Metta, James 21232 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:19am Subject: Re: Temples --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for that really interesting information about > the temple. Now that you told me so much I just can't > stop questions coming out. > > Do the dharmas talk in Pali?Are there special Buddhist > foods like the Sikhs? If there are do you eat them for > lunch? On special events are there there any unique > decorations like Christmas trees for Christmas? Or is > there a head of the community to lead the ceromony > during special event? > > Thanks again for the amazing answers. > > Metta > HIlary Hi Star Kid Hilary! How are you doing? I hope you are fine. I haven't answered this letter for a long time because I know that you Star Kids are quarantined due to SARS. But I was recently informed that some of you still read the message board and are waiting for a response. Sorry about that! Here are some answers to your questions: Question: Do the dharmas talk in Pali? Answer: No, the dharma talks are usually in Thai, the predominate language of the temple, and sometimes they are in English also if they have a monk fluent in English. The chanting that the monks do are in Pali because that was the language of the Buddha, but no one speaks Pali anymore and so no one knows what it means! ;-) (except the monks who learn to read Pali at Buddhist universities). But there are books and materials available for everyone that translates the Pali chants into English and Thai. Question: Are there special Buddhist foods like the Sikhs? If there are do you eat them for lunch? Answer: No, there aren't special types of foods that are Buddhist, but the food brought to the temple is special because it is intended for the monks. Intention plays a large role in Buddhism. If your mom makes a big casserole for the monks, and then sets some aside for the family to eat later, that is okay. But if your mom makes a big casserole for the family, and after everyone eats she decides to give the leftovers to the monks, that is not okay. The intention of the food at the temple is that it should be for the monks specifically and not just food that happened to be around. Additionally, the monks can eat meat that was bought specifically for them, but not if the animal was killed specifically for them. That has to do with intention also, which has to do with karma. Question: On special events are there there any unique decorations like Christmas trees for Christmas? Answer: Well, all of the decorations that are used in Buddhist celebrations are usually particular to the culture. I can't think of anything similar to a `Christmas Tree' in Buddhism...but at my temple they have `Money Trees'! Yep, people who want to donate money to the monks often like to put the money on little trees, kinda like a Christmas tree, and they sometimes fold the money into shapes like Christmas ornaments! This is also supposed to be like a `wish-tree' and the person makes a wish for each bill they put on the tree. But the Buddha didn't teach this, and it probably wouldn't work if the person was being selfish in wishing, but it is kinda fun! ;-). Question: Or is there a head of the community to lead the ceremony during special event? Answer: Usually the Abbot of the temple or the Vice Abbot will lead the Buddhist ceremony. Also, any special guests or important people from other temples will lead the ceremonies. I hope these answer your questions and that you are still reading and practicing your studies even though you aren't in school. Let's both wish real hard that SARS goes away soon and never comes back again! Metta, James 21233 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34am Subject: the Buddha's Omniscience, 2 Venerable Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo, In the Commentary to the Brahmjala Sutta, Tr. by Ven. Bikkhu Bodhi, (The All-embracing Net of Views, p. 128) we find under a discussion about it that the plural is used for the objects of omniscience, sabba~n~nuta~naa.na. I only quote parts, it is rather long. It is said: There is a discussion in the Subco. : This text refers to the Tika of the Visuddhimagga, VII, 29, footnote 7, where there is the same discussion. The Visuddhimagga, in the "Recollection of the Buddha" explains all the words we use when paying respect to the Buddha. As to "Endowed with clear vision and virtuous conduct, vijja carana sampanno", we read VII, 32: The text of the Path of Discrimination (Patisambhidamagga) about omniscience has been referred to in the previously quoted texts. I shall only quote a part of it. We read in Ch 72 (p. 131): After that the objects are the extent of the meaning of the three characteristics of dhammas, knowledge of the extent of the meaning of direct knowledge, etc. , of the khandhas, dhatus, bases (ayatanas) etc. Further on we read: With respect, Nina. 21234 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries, 1. Dear friends, this is the first part of my correspondance with Jou Smith, a great Pali scholar who made extensive studies and wrote about them. Jou wrote, then Nina came in and answered, then Jou answered again. Here are his reactions to what I wrote. Part 2 will contain my following answers, but I had to shorten the text for Pali yahoo. ---------- Van: Jou Smith Beantwoord: Pali@yahoogroups.com Datum: Mon, 7 Apr 2003 21:59:48 +1000 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries ----- Original Message ----- From: "Nina van Gorkom" To: Sent: Friday, November 22, 2002 5:18 AM Subject: Re: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries Jou: Hi Nina (N) teachings in the Dhamma/Vinaya and compare meaning with meaning. > Yes, we have to keep on comparing the Vinaya, the Suttanta and the Abhidhamma, these three. Jou: Well we don't agree completely. I don't accept the Abhidhamma as the word of the Buddha, but rather as a later text, which may have some words of the Buddha, or may not. Why do you include the Abhidhamma along with the Dhamma/Vinaya since the prefix Abhi- itself points to some secret teaching which the Buddha said he was not about. N:And then there are the Commentaries, our great Commentator Buddhaghosa. The more I read of him, the Visuddhimagga included, the more I appreciate. While reading one can see how much his writings help. Historical arguments won't help to convince others, but reading it ourselves. Jou: The Buddha would seem to have had a historical approach as well as an experiential approach. He was inclusive of all things that helped. N:I cannot get enough of reading in the Commentaries about the dhaatus, the khandhas, the aayatanas. No contradictions with the Tipitaka, Jou: Well that is a nice position to take. It totally does not address the contradictions within the Tipitaka. the commentaries are very necessary for the understanding of the Tipitaka. Jou: so you say. I have not needed them, but then if we discussed our different understandings you might well judge mine to be wrong because it does not agree with the commentaries. I take the position that the Buddha was the unsurpassable guide to those who wish guidance. As such he would not need the help of the commentaries. I also believe that he taught the Dhamma that was timeless and empirical. So we would not need modern interpreters. Of course we might need translators, but as I see it there is a lot of interpretation in the commentaries and that is what I see is dangerous - relying on the interpretation of others. If the Dhamma is empirical we can test it for ourselves, in our own experience. Also the Pa.tisambhidhaamagga I highly value: like the Visuddhimagga all the stages of vipassana are explained here. The whole book is about the development of pa~n~naa. I am not a scholar, just a beginning student. Jou: The Buddha taught us not to identify with the five aggregates as I, me (mine in some texts) or myself. Identifying yourself as "not a scholar, just a beginning student" is one of those subtle fetters, maana. It is one of the ways Maara fools us into thinking we are being humble, but keeps us in the realm of birth and death thru the process of identification with the five aggregates. N:But I am delighted to read even a few lines of Commentary and next to it subcommentary in Pali, even stumbling along. By reading the Pali I find one can prove to oneself the value of the Commentaries for the understanding of the Suttas. Jou: Do as you think is fit. I personally give preference to the words of the Buddha. After all I am interested in HIS teaching, not that of the commentators and I would not assume that the commentators got it right. I notice you do not say "I am delighted to read even a few lines of the Buddha's words". N:Today I was reading part of the Co to the Satipatthana sutta: this is first Ven. Soma's translation: <"In this world." In just this body. Here the body [kaya] is the world [loka], in the sense of a thing crumbling. As covetousness and grief are abandoned in feeling, consciousness, and mental objects, too, the Vibhanga says: "Even the five aggregates of clinging are the world."> N:It crumbles away: lujjanapalujjana.t.thena, in the sense of crumbling away. I remember Samyutta Nikaaya, Salaayatanavagga, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, §82: The world. It crumbles away. What crumbles away: the eye... objects... eye-consciousness... We see, that the Co completely agrees with the Sutta, and contains valuable reminders of the Truth, even a few lines. Jou: I do not deny that there may be things in the commentary that completely agree with the Sutta. I just have proven to myself that, if I am interested in the Buddha's teaching, it is safer to read what is ascribed to him (already a secondary text), which would already have been corrupted over time since it is part of a saasana, which gets corrupted over time (even though the Dhamma does not), rather than rely on a tertiary text which gets it's understanding from the corrupted secondary text and seemingly would accept any corruption as the Buddha's teaching, since it does not point out any corruptions. The Buddha gave a specific method to identify corruptions, but few know of or apply it. N: Very meaningful: when the whole is taken apart by pa~n~naa, dissolved into elements, realities can be seen as they are. As you also know there is a word association between lujjati and loko. We can begin now: whatever appears can be object of awareness. That is satipatthana. And my question is always: how do the Tipitaka and the commentaries help me to understand the dhamma appearing at this moment? Thus, as you stressed before, in the last instance we have to decide for ourselves what is true. As you so rightly say: Buddha as the Teacher and avoids reliance on others (Take yourself as > a refuge, take the Process -Dhamma- as a refuge).> Nina. op 20-11-2002 22:30 schreef Jou Smith op josmith.1@b...: > The Buddha taught us to lay teachings that are claimed to be his > beside the teachings in the Dhamma/Vinaya and compare meaning with meaning. I have done that within the suttas and found some are corrupted, I have done that with other texts and found MOST are corrupted. So now I focus on the suttas.> 21235 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 16 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 16 Truthfulness is sincerity in the development of kusala to the degree of a perfection. If there is no truthfulness, no sincerity in one¹s actions, they cannot reach accomplishment. Sacca, truthfulness, is necessary for all kinds of kusala, be it dåna, síla or mental development. One should not neglect the development of any degree of kusala. If one develops the perfections in order to abandon defilements, one should notice also subtle defilements such as deceptive speech even with regard to small matters. If deceptive speech becomes someone¹s habit, it will be easy to speak a lie and he will believe that it is not wrong to do so. If someone abstains from deceptive speech, if he is truthful, and acts in accordance with his promise, truthfulness will become natural to him. Then he is able to see the danger of akusala at the moment he tells a lie. Even deceptive speech concerning unimportant matters is akusala, but if someone accumulates deceptive speech all the time, he does not see its danger. Thus, we see that it is not easy to discern the characteristic of akusala. We can have understanding of realities stemming from listening to the Dhamma but this does not mean that we know their characteristics when they are appearing. We should further develop understanding in conformity with what we learnt by listening and we should be aware of realities. We may be deceptive in speech, be it even a little, or we may not act in accordance with our promise, but when sati-sampajañña arises it can realize that this is akusala. Many akusala cittas arise in a day, but we do not know this because of our forgetfulness; there is no awareness of the characteristics of realities, no understanding of them as they are. Understanding has to be very detailed and refined so that the characteristics of realities can be known as they are. The development of satipaììhåna will lead to a more subtle discrimination between different realities and thus, paññå is able to know the characteristic of akusala. When akusala arises paññå can know what type of akusala arises, and it can know its characteristic as different from kusala. In this way kusala dhamma can gradually be further developed. Truthfulness is a perfection that accompanies the perfection of paññå. Without paññå, there cannot be truthfulness, because defilements are still strong. We should make an effort to know what sacca, truthfulness, is: sincerity in the development of kusala, no deviation from kusala. If we happen to deviate from kusala we should know that it has not yet reached accomplishment. When sati sampajañña arises it can realize when we go wrong and this is a condition for restraint in the future. 21236 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 0:25pm Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries, 1. Hello Nina, I was interested in your remark about Jou Smith - "Jou Smith, a great Pali scholar who made extensive studies and wrote about them". I wonder if you can give more details about this 'great Pali scholar' and his 'extensive studies' and point us to some of his writings? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: 21237 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 2:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi UJeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > This brings up lots of dialog. First, if I remember correctly the historic > Buddha said he wasn't going to do any magic tricks. But, as soon as he was > dead there were lots of stories of his disciples BI-locating, etc. ===== There are stories of the Buddha "doing magic" such as simultaenously eminating both fire and water. The Buddha used this "twin wonder" (yamaka patihariya) to subdue the pride of his elder realitives when the Buddha returned to Kapilavatthu shortly after His enlightenment. The Buddha used the same "trick" during the sixth rainy season retreat at Mankula Hill to convert His alien followers. I recall hearing an Abhidhamma discussion of the mental states used to create this effect (I can't remember the details). The well known story of Anguilimala, the recruitement of Khema and the conversion of the Kassapa brothers are other times when the Buddha resorted to psychic powers. It was rare, but not unheard of, that the Buddha used psychic powers. I don't think that the Buddha said that he would never use them, I think that we warned monks not to rely on them. ===== > > But first, yes, Lao Tze and the historic Buddha seemed to have been > contemporaries, plus minus 50 years. There maybe a record of "a golden > skinned person appearing and discussing philosophy" with Lao Tze, but it is > most probably apocryphal. Additionally in China there are stories that when > Lao Tze left China, he went to India and was recognized as the Buddha. I > think you will agree with me that story is most probably apocryphal as well. ===== Your post had mentioned the coincidence that discussion of gnosis seemed to pop up at about the same time in many countries and that prompted me to pass along what I had heard. Discussing the possible accuracy of this story probably falls under the technical definition of "idle talk". ===== > > I believe what is behind the magic stories that every culture invents about > their prophet are most likely inventions to embellish upon the story to gain > devotees. Until I see someone part the seas, walk on water, fly bodily > through the air, BI-locate, or raise the dead, I'll assume these feats are > all fiction. All I needed was freedom from suffering, and a method to get > there. The magic in my life is, through rigorous practice, I have arrived at > being more happy and fulfilled ever moment of everyday. What other magic > would anyone ever want? ===== I couldn't agree with you more that correct practice is most important to obtaining results (See Bhumija Sutta Mn126). Metta, Rob M :-) 21238 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? To Hilary and James: In a message dated 4/13/03 5:57:47 AM, starkidsclub@y... writes: << Hi James, You know the war now between America and Iraq. I absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I mean a real scream. Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about anti-war? If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, if yes, most likely into what? Metta, Hilary >> Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. It is no different from the Protestant Rebellion. Look at the present rhetoric of Mahayana verses Hinayana. It is absurd hair splitting silliness as far as I'm concerned. Jeff 21239 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma in mind door and 5 door process To Howard: In a message dated 4/12/03 10:17:44 PM, upasaka@a... writes: << Hi, Jeff - In a message dated 4/12/03 11:45:45 PM Eastern Daylight Time, macdocaz1@a... writes: > > Don't worry Howard, I think most of what's going on here is a handful of > Pali > geeks with over active cerebral cortexes running herd on this listserv. > > Jeff > ========================== You certainly have a right to your perspective on this, Jeff. While I have definite reservations about aspects of the Abhidhamma (and its origins), I also do find much of value in it. I do thank you for what I see as a show of support for me, Jeff, but it is only fair to also let you know that I don't share your evaluation of folks on the list. There is a considerable variety of views and approaches taken by folks here. Moreover, some of those people on this list with whom I have the greatest differences in how to interpret the Dhamma are also people for whom I have the greatest respect, respect for their intelligence, for their tolerance of positions different from their own (truly!), and most of all for their lovingkindness and compasssion. I find that there are many positions expressed on DSG that I take very strong exception to, but others that I agree with. In any case, I must say that there is, all told, no more and no better discussion of many and varied aspects of the Dhamma to be found anywhere on the internet than on DSG. (Of course, a close competitor in this is the list that I am one moderator of! ;-) With metta, Howard >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Well said, Howard, but my observation was not meant as derogatory, but most certainly as a criticism that might inspire some self reflection. While I enjoy dialog as much as anyone, I believe there is a long history in all of the religions and philosophies of the world that one can somehow achieve enlightenment and freedom of suffering by thinking oneself there, but it is evident to me that gnosis is a subjective experience where the mind cannot go. Therefore no amount of thinking will make it so. I am supported by my earlier quote of the Potthapada Sutta under a different thread. Best to all of the Pali geeks, Jeff 21240 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To: James and KKT: To: KKT In a message dated 4/13/03 6:54:13 AM, phamdluan@a... writes: << KKT: One question, Jeff. You have your out-of-body experiences while you sleep or while you sit in meditation? KKT >> Jeff: That is a very good question. No, my OOB practices are strictly when the body is prone. And, there is never a dual lucid awareness of other realities. I think for lucidity to occur there can't be an awareness, however slight, of another domain. Most of these experiences take place when this body is resting at night. Early, when I was more actively engaged in the practice, I took every opportunity to fly out, so I took a lot of midmorning and late afternoon "naps," so I could spend as much of my life "off word." My interest in out-of-body travel, when I was in my early 20s, no doubt reflects the unhappy state I was in at the time. Best to you, Jeff %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% James: In a message dated 4/13/03 10:37:17 AM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << Hi Jeff, I never questioned your experiences or anyone else's in regards to out-of-body experiences. They seem to happen to a lot of different people, across cultures, so there must be something to them. All I simply said is that there is no soul that leaves the body...there is another explanation for it. When one practices vipassana, the knowledge that there is no soul because apparent. Ultimately, beneath the arising and falling energy known as the five aggregates, there is boundless awareness. We should be thankful that there isn't a 'soul'; it would be rather limiting. As far as your encouragement for the practice of jhana for the sake of developing supernormal powers, the Buddha spoke much against that. I hope that is not what your group encourages because it is a fruitless endeavor. Metta, James>> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Hi James, I want to say first that I enjoy our dialog here, but I do wish to point out that you happened to mention in a recent message that I maybe sarcas tic at times. At the time I let the comment slide, but then I reflected this morning on how we can often misconstrue someone's intention in a purely textual communication, such as this medium of a listserv. I just wish to point out that I am hardly ever sarcastic, so if I seem to be, please assume I have failed to express myself adequately. Now on to the subject of jhanas. Let's also dispense immediately with your concern that I, or anyone else I am talking about, "practice jhana for the sake of developing supernormal powers." I have no interest in power of any kind, nor does my practice involve the cultivation of jhana, or anything else other than enlightenment. What I am trying to expose in this dialog, and apparently not very successfully, is that jhanas are a natural out come of contemplative practice for at least some people. And, to discriminate against these people, who in my opinion are very fortunate people, is highly unskillful and I believe detrimental to the dharma. As for the question of a soul, I find that an interesting and complex question that has apparently plagued Buddhism from the beginning. Because Buddhism denies a soul, and for that matter a godhead, may be the reason why Buddhism didn't otherwise sweep across all cultures 25 centuries ago. It may also be interesting to point out here that Buddhism didn't have much impact in China until Pure Land invented a soul and a godhead in a Buddhist context. Check that for a contradiction. Personally, I consider many of the deeply philosophical questions of whether there is a god or a soul or not, and dualism verse non-dualism, is to me all purely mental masturbation. One is not going to know whether there is a soul or a god, or understand what non-dualism is about until one gets there. And, I am quite sure it is not a domain that the thinking mind can enter. So, I personally don't care if one believes in a god or a soul, or non-dualism verses dualism. Who cares? One will find out when one gets there. Now out-of-body experiences, I think, pose a particular challenge for a denial of a soul. Those who have out-of-body experiences typically report something like a subtle body, often called an etheric or astral body. Your proposed "boundless awareness," in my opinion, really does not adequately describe the experience. I have had the experience of "Boundless Awareness" but it was not in the context of an out-of-body experience. Also, even though Buddhism denies a soul they have lots of commentary on pervious lifetimes, hungry ghosts, and angry gods. The attempts that I have heard and read to correct this apparent contradiction in Buddhism always seem lame and apologetic or too much philosophy. So, where does that leave us? I think I couldn't care less really. I try not to set too many limits on my experience, and to just let "whatever" unfold in its own and magical way. Best to you, Jeff 21241 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Way 75, Repulsiveness Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section of Reflection on Repulsiveness After explaining body-contemplation by way of the fourfold clear comprehension, to explain it by way of the reflection of repulsiveness, the Master said: "And further," and so forth. Everything that should be said in connection with the passage beginning with "On just this body" and so forth, is stated in detail, taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, in the Path of Purity, the Visuddhi Magga, and its commentary, The Casket of the Highest Thing, Paramattha Mañjusa; a summary of that account is given here. This reflection by way of mindfulness directed bodywards, called the reflection of repulsiveness is unknown to non-Buddhists in the form of subject of meditation development (kammatthana bhavana vasena). Hence it is a thing which comes into being when a Buddha arises; not at other times. This mindfulness directed bodywards leads to the following: Great moral-emotional upsurge (maha samvega). The great tranquillity or security based on effort (maha yogakkhema) Great mindfulness and clear comprehension (maha sati sampajañña) Attainment of insight-knowledge (ñanadassanapatilabha) Happy living here and now (ditthadhammasukhavihara) Realization of the fruition of wisdom and freedom[28] (vijjavi-muttiphalasacchikiriya). This mindfulness has been explained in the following sections: Breathing-in-and-out; four kinds of deportment; the fourfold clear comprehension; the reflection on repulsiveness; the reflection on the elements or modes of existence; and the nine cemetery contemplation. There are these seven kinds of skill in study to be acquired in regard to this subject of meditation, by: Repetition of the thirty-two parts of the body verbally (vacasa). Repetition of the parts only mentally (manasa). Determining of the hair of the head and so forth according to color (vannato). Determining of the parts according to shape (santhanato). Determination of situation of the parts as above or below the navel, on the upper or lower side of the body, directionally (disato). Determination of the place in the body acquired by a part, that is, determination spatially (okasato). Determination of one part by the position of another to it and by way of dissimilarity of one part to another (paricchedato). There are these ten kinds of skill in reflecting on this subject of meditation: Doing the meditation gradually as one climbing a stairway one step after another in due order taking one part after another serially (anupubbato). Doing it not too quickly (natisighato). Doing it not too slowly (natisanikato). Doing it by warding off mental rambling (vikkhepapatibahanato). Practice by way of going beyond the concept of hair and so forth to the idea of repulsiveness (pannattisamatikkamanato). Practice by gradual elimination of the less clear parts (anupubbamuñcanato). Practice by way of the part which is the source of ecstasy (appanato). Practice by way of the Three Discourses: Adhicitta,[29] Sitibhava,[30] and Bojjhangakosalla.[31] The following is the application of the simile: Like the bag with the two openings is the body made up of the four great primaries, earth, water, fire and air. The thirty-two parts beginning with hair-of-the-head are like the various grains thrown into that bag after mixing them. Like a man with seeing eyes is the yogi. Comparable to the time when after loosening the bag the various grains become clear to one reflecting, is the time when the thirty-two parts become clear to the yogi. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." The bhikkhu lives contemplating the body in his body or in another's. Sometimes he contemplates the body in his own body, at other times in another's, by way of laying hold on things beginning with the hair of the head. From here the meaning should be known just in the way already stated by the commentator. Here the mindfulness which lays hold of the thirty-two parts, is the Truth of Suffering. Having interpreted, thus, the portal to emancipation should be understood. 28. The three kinds of wisdom: inclination of mind, Nibbana, the four fruits of the homeless life (tisso vijja: cittassa adhimutti nibbanam cattari samaññaphalani] Paramattha Mañjusa Tika. 29. Anguttara i, 256: the ideas of concentration, energy and equanimity should be applied to the mind, according as they are needed, to check idleness, agitation and non-concentration. 30. Anguttara iii, 435: the bhikkhu should have these six states to reach peace: restraint, energy, interest, equanimity, leaning to the good, love of Nibbana. 31. Samyutta v, 112: The bhikkhu should know that when the mind is indolent it is not the time to cultivate the enlightenment-limb of calm. 21242 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: << KKT: One question, Jeff. You have your out-of-body experiences while you sleep or while you sit in meditation? >> Jeff: That is a very good question. No, my OOB practices are strictly when the body is prone. And, there is never a dual lucid awareness of other realities. I think for lucidity to occur there can't be an awareness, however slight, of another domain. Most of these experiences take place when this body is resting at night. KKT: My friend has OOB experiences while sitting in meditation (and at night) ----------------- Early, when I was more actively engaged in the practice, I took every opportunity to fly out, so I took a lot of midmorning and late afternoon "naps," so I could spend as much of my life "off word." My interest in out-of-body travel, when I was in my early 20s, no doubt reflects the unhappy state I was in at the time. Best to you, Jeff KKT: Another question, Jeff. You can have OOB experience by your own will or it just << happens >> ? Peace, KKT 21243 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) With metta, Howard KKT: And you have lost, Howard :-)) You have lost Patience (khanti) one of the 10 paramita (perfection) a Bodhisattva should practise :-)) Victor is more than << unintelligible >>, he is << opaque >> :-)) Peace, KKT 21244 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 6:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. KKT: I don't think so, Jeff. To my knowledge, I've never heard of such story. Peace, KKT 21245 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 3:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, KKT (and Victor) - In a message dated 4/13/03 9:22:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Dear Howard, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. > The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) > > With metta, > Howard > > > > > > KKT: And you have lost, Howard :-)) > > You have lost Patience (khanti) > one of the 10 paramita (perfection) > a Bodhisattva should practise :-)) -------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I know you are being humorous here, KKT, though, of course, not completely. Actually, I haven't lost patience. That is, I haven't *just* lost patience. I lost it a while ago! ;-)) But I have continued, because I thought that it would be worthwhile to do so. It might in fact still be useful to do so, but my judgement at this point is to the contrary. -------------------------------------------------------------- > > Victor is more than <>, > he is <>:-)) > --------------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I wouldn't say that Victor is unintelligible or opaque, but only that I'm having a hard time understanding him, and, more frustratingly than that, I'm unable to make Victor understand me. I'm not talking about agreement here, only about understanding. And I'm not attributing "blame" in this. It just may be that Victor and I are riding on different tracks that don't intersect. In any case, I admire Victor for his tenacity and very much so for his devotion to the Buddha and his Dhamma. I simply think it best to give our interaction on such topics as anatta and concept & reality a rest, at least for a while. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Peace, > > > KKT > > ========================== 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) 21246 From: connie Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 7:12pm Subject: Re: Dreams Hi, Dreamers ~ CHRISTINE: {Isn't dreaming necessary to remain healthy? - I seem to remember reading that people who really don't dream (as opposed to those who just don't remember their dreams) can become unwell physically and mentally. There was some experiment where someone was woken up every time they entered REM sleep and they ended up a very aggressive and unwell person. Can't quote any refs. though} CONNIE: I don't know how much is the drug and how much is the sleep (dream?) deprivation, but meth people hallucinate (dream?) when they've been up long enough and that hallucinating Is their reality then. Sometimes I can't help thinking of Howard's Diamonds and wondering how much all our lives are hallucinations... not just taking concepts for realities, but how much of our perceptions and how we put our concepts into Factual Frames really 'just ain't so'... or maybe that's part of the same thing. I've also wondered where the idea comes from that Arahats or Buddhas don't dream (Nikayas? Commentaries? Who says?)... besides their seeing things as they really are... guess that's why they're called Awakened. ========== PAUL: Many ppl have this experience, but what i think is, the (picture) did not happen in any of ur dreams, its just the picture appeared 1/10 second b4 it happened, so, ppl will think that, oh, it was one of my dreams. DAVE REPLY: I agree. I've heard the same explaination for "deja-vous" as well. The eyes see it but somehow before it can get processed, it sees it "again" and tries to make sense of the second "original" sight by attributing it to an unknown past. DAVE: If the future can be "seen" in any way, that would have to dictate complete predestination which therefore means that any idea of effort or will is meaningless. I suppose it is just me, but I just can't see how a system of predestination is any better / different than nihilism. CONNIE: What about Buddha surveying the four quarters and appearing before people he knew were/could be ready to attain... usually to the sotapanna level, I think. When I was about 14, I woke up knowing the girl I'd just dreamed about was going to be my daughter some day (never mind that I had no intention of Ever having any children). Of course, I suppose I could have just mis-remembered the dream-girl 20 years later when the 10 year old girl and I were looking at each other again. I don't know who said this, but it's how I think of deja vu: "Through previous associations or present advantage, that old love springs up again like the lotus in the water." I think because we've all been in samsara so long there's nothing that can't trigger 'that old love'. Just thinking, Connie 21247 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 9:24pm Subject: Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > To: James and KKT: Jeff: > Hi James, I want to say first that I enjoy our dialog here, but I do wish to > point out that you happened to mention in a recent message that I maybe sarcas > tic at times. At the time I let the comment slide, but then I reflected this > morning on how we can often misconstrue someone's intention in a purely > textual communication, Hi Jeff, I am glad that you enjoy this exchange. I also enjoy it because it gives me a chance to think deeply about matters I don't often need or get to express. As far as the sarcasm comment, I was referring to some of your posts to others, not to me. Thus far you haven't been sarcastic to me, but you have most definitely been sarcastic to others. I do, on occasion, use sarcasm with people in my posts…and it has gotten me into a great deal of trouble. I predominately use sarcasm to point out hypocrisy in others, and that isn't usually well received by the person it is directed to or the observers. I am sometimes accused of being mean and insensitive (even `murderous'). Then when I attempt to point out the hypocrisy directly, without sarcasm, I am accused again of being mean and insensitive. But this group has found the perfect solution: Have me write predominately to Star Kids! I am never sarcastic with kids because they haven't learned yet how to be hypocrites ;-) (But sometimes I miss being able to talk with the adults ;-). I don't know what solution they are going to come up with for you, but I can't wait to see! ;-). Sounds like you will censor yourself, which is probably best. I can't seem to do that. I wish some of Howard would rub off on me, but it hasn't yet. (And no Howard, that isn't a proposition ;-). If you don't want to think one way or the other about having a soul, and consider such thought `mental mas…….' (I am not going to repeat it because children do read these posts), okay, then don't. However, I believe it is important to be mindful that we don't have a `soul' because it keeps us mindful of anatta (non-self). When you start to identify with things about you being `you' (like appearance, race, sex, possessions, personal history, etc.), you can always remind yourself, "Hey, I don't have a soul. Those things aren't me! These things I think are me don't last at all! The lights are on but there is no one home! ;-)" It also allows you to take yourself less seriously and to approach life with an easy, relaxed attitude. It also allows you to take risks and to not see every setback as the end of the world or every accomplishment like money that needs to be hoarded. It is very liberating to remind ourselves that we don't have a soul; at least I think so. As far as the popularity or non- popularity of Buddhism because of this teaching, that is the thing I really don't care one iota about. The majority of public opinion doesn't define what is truth and what isn't. Okay, I am off my soapbox now! ;-) Take care. Metta, James 21248 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Dear Dreamers (esp. those who are not averse to Abhidhamma and commentaries;-)): ..... --- connie wrote: > Hi, Dreamers > I've also wondered where the idea comes from that Arahats or Buddhas > don't dream (Nikayas? Commentaries? Who says?)... besides their seeing > things as they really are... guess that's why they're called Awakened. > ========== I’ve had discussions with other psychologists and psychotherapists who increasingly use dream therapy. I personally believe that by attaching importance to dreams and recollecting of them, one is for the most part merely accumulating attachment to self and one’s experience. Like with any other conceptualising, better to ‘let go’ and be aware of the present realities with detachment imho. Now for one source of textual reference which I find interesting-- (I’d also be curious to read any other references): Sammohavinodani (dispeller of Delusion), comy to Vibhanga, PTS, 2051ff: ********** “But one who sees a dream sees it owing to four freasons, namely: 1)owing to a disturbance of the elements (dhaatukkhobha), or 2) owing to what was experienced previously (anubuutapubba), or 3) owing to provision by deities (devatopasa.mhaara), or 4) owing to a portent (pubbanimitta). Herein, 1) one whose elements are disturbed through being joined with some condition which causes a disturbance of the bile, etc sees a dream owing to a disturbance of the elements. And doing so he sees the dream in various forms; it is like falling from a mountain, LIKE GOING THROUGH SPACE, like being chased by wild beasts, deer, elephants, robbers, etc. 2) One who sees it owing to what was experienced previously sees and object previously experienced. 3) To one who sees it owing to provision by deities, deities wishing him well or wishing him ill, provide many kinds of objects for good or for ill. He sees those objects through the power of those deities. 4) One who sees it owing to a portent sees the dream as the portent of some good or ill seeking to arise due to merit or demerit, like the Bodhisatta’s mother the omen of having a son (see MA iv 175), like the bodhisatta the five great dreams (see Aiii240 and comy; VinA 520), like the King of Kosala the sixteen dreams (Ji 334 ff). Herein, any dream he sees owing to a disturbance of the elements and owing to what was experienced previously is not true. Any he sees owing to provision by deities may be either true or false. For angry deities wishing to destroy him by (some) means (upaaya) show it disguised. But any he sees owing to a portent is entirely true only. The stopping of dreams comes about owing to the stopping of contact with these four root causes. BUT ONLY TRAINERS AND ORDINARY MEN SEE THESE FOUR KINDS OF DREAMS OWING TO NON-ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS. NON-TRAINERS DO NOT SEE THEM OWING TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS. Herein, in one doing in a dream (such things as) paying homage at shrines, listening to the Law, preaching the Law, etc, it is profitable; in one doing (such things as) killing of living things, it is unprofitable; when free from either extreme, at the moment of advertence and registration it is indeterminate. It should be understood in this way. At the time of saying: ‘it was as though seen by me, heard by me in a dream,’ it is indeterminate only. But how, then does profitable and unprofitable kamma done in a dream have result or no result? It has result. But owing to WEAKNESS it cannot bring about rebirth linking. But when rebirth linking has been given by other kamma, it may be experienced during the course (of an existence).” ********** I have never read any suggestion in the texts of jhana cittas arising during sleep or dreaming. Metta, Sarah ====== 21249 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > Hi, Everyone. > Guess I'll > just have to come up with an outline with room for stuttering and talk > outloud to myself all week. I'll let you know how it goes. ..... In addition to all the other helpful suggestions, I'l like to just stress metta and consideration for those you are addressing. With metta, there's no opportunity for nervousness and thinking of oneself;-) Look forward to hearing how it goes. Metta, Sarah ======= 21250 From: Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 5:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group To Rob M :-) In a message dated 4/13/03 3:00:53 PM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi UJeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > This brings up lots of dialog. First, if I remember correctly the historic > Buddha said he wasn't going to do any magic tricks. But, as soon as he was > dead there were lots of stories of his disciples BI-locating, etc. ===== There are stories of the Buddha "doing magic" such as simultaenously eminating both fire and water. The Buddha used this "twin wonder" (yamaka patihariya) to subdue the pride of his elder realitives when the Buddha returned to Kapilavatthu shortly after His enlightenment. The Buddha used the same "trick" during the sixth rainy season retreat at Mankula Hill to convert His alien followers. I recall hearing an Abhidhamma discussion of the mental states used to create this effect (I can't remember the details). The well known story of Anguilimala, the recruitement of Khema and the conversion of the Kassapa brothers are other times when the Buddha resorted to psychic powers. It was rare, but not unheard of, that the Buddha used psychic powers. I don't think that the Buddha said that he would never use them, I think that we warned monks not to rely on them. ===== Jeff: Thank-you Rob M :-) for your kind and thoughtful reply. Nice story, I guess you know my position on magic tricks. Just because the bible or the Pali canon report them, doesn't mean to me that they happened. Since none of us are likely to have witnessed these magic tricks, it is doubtful that they are possible. And as I have already said, I didn't need them to begin or sustain the practice. Jhana and freedom from suffering are enough magic for me. ===== Your post had mentioned the coincidence that discussion of gnosis seemed to pop up at about the same time in many countries and that prompted me to pass along what I had heard. Discussing the possible accuracy of this story probably falls under the technical definition of "idle talk". ===== Jeff: Actually I'm a student of anthropology, and my field of interest is how cultures explore gnosis. My premise is that all cultures and peoples have a concept of gnosis going deep into prehistory, whether we have evidence for it or not, and they have been exchanging those ideas all along. To prove that I am having to prove the length and breadth of diffusionism, or how cultures exchange resources, materials, labor, language, ideas and genes. My premise is that Asia and Europe have been engaged in various forms of exchange on a regular basis for, at the very least, the last 5,000 years. There are some key archeological sites that prove this hypothesis quite well. My interest is in tracing not only the evidence of trade and exchange, but the actual movement of concepts of gnosis between Asia and Europe. I am extracting these details from the cultures with the oldest extant writing systems, which are basically Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek, Persian, Roman and Hebrew cultures and languages. The model is based on the spread of Buddhism, and Buddhist and Hindu concepts, art and architecture throughout Asia and Europe. This influence is actually pretty easy to trace back to the first century. As you can imagine the farther back in time one goes, the more difficult the evidence can be to nail down. I have excellent sources taking me back to the 6th to the 3rd century. I am now having to study the history of Iraq, Iran, Pakistan and Afghanistan to understand the details of the expansion of early Buddhism into the West, as well as the manifestation of the various Gnostic sects in and around the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin. Since, as I said, we know Buddhism was in the neighborhood (Baghdad) from the 3rd century BCE to the 7th century AD and the Gnostic sects started arriving on the scene almost at the same time, it is reasonable to speculate that Buddhism had an influence on the emergence of gnosis in the Mediterranean basin at this time. It has also been fairly successfully argued that Jesus was at least influenced by at least one of those Gnostic communities (Essenes), therefore Christianity, through Jesus and the Essenes, was influenced in part by Buddhism. There are actually many source of excellent evidence of Buddhism's influence on the European cultures and Christianity from the vary earliest times. Someday you may read about it if I get around to publishing the work. You can imagine the research has been a great deal of effort which has consumed much of my free time in the last 3 years. I am presently hopin to find some funding to support me through the summer, so I can continue my research. So, it isn't idle talk. I'm really not into idle talk, but then here I am on a listserv engaged in idle talk, when I could be either continuing my research, meditating or studying for a midterm in Archeology this Tuesday. Thanks for the distraction. Best to you all, Jeff 21251 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 10:30pm Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: BTW, I read from MN 44 (Culavedalla Sutta) The lay follower Visakha asked the bhikkhuni Dhammadinna: __Lady, 'PERSONALITY, PERSONALITY' is said. What is called personality by the Blessed One? __Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected by clinging are called personality by the Blessed One. Can someone give the original Pali of the word PERSONALITY in this Sutta? Thanks. KKT: I find this word of this sutta: Sakkaya Sakkaya = Personality, person. Sakkaya-ditthi = 'Personality-belief' the first of the ten fetters. KKT 21252 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 15 Hi Sarah, Just following KKT’s example and talking to myself;-) --- Sarah wrote: > > I also found it very interesting to read in the same extract: > > Quote:“The recluse thought: ‘If I say that I did not indulge in sin, the > king would believe me, but in this world there is no surer foundation > than > truthful speech. Someone who forsakes the truth cannot attain > Buddhahood, > even if he sits in the sacred enclosure of the Bodhi Tree. Hence I > should > only speak the truth. In certain cases a Bodhisatta may destroy life, > take > what is not given to him, commit adultery, drink strong liquor, but he > may > not tell a lie, speech that violates the truth.’” > > There has been discussion before about whether it is possible for a > Bodhisatta to break the precepts. This seems to answer the question, > (though I thought in another post I quoted something contrary to this > ??). ..... You may have been thinking of this post: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m14524.html ***** "5.- right mother is Maha Maya “Then he made the observation concerning the mother. "The mother of a Buddha," thought he, "is never a wanton, nor a drunkard, but is one who has fulfilled the perfections through a hundred thousand cycles, and has kept the five precepts unbroken from the day of her birth. Now this queen Mahâ-Mâyâ is such a one; and she shall be my mother." “-- p. 42 " ***** This also applied to the Bodhisatta in his last life (i.e unbroken precepts, though I forget where that reference is), but I wonder about other references to other lives as a Bodhisatta in the Jatakas or elsewhere and whether there are any other general ‘rules’. Perhaps Robert K, Nina or someone else may have seen other references. metta (not to myself of course;-)), Sarah ====== 21253 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 13, 2003 11:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: > ===== > > Jeff: > Thank-you Rob M :-) for your kind and thoughtful reply. Nice story, I guess > you know my position on magic tricks. Just because the bible or the Pali > canon report them, doesn't mean to me that they happened. Since none of us > are likely to have witnessed these magic tricks, it is doubtful that they are > possible. And as I have already said, I didn't need them to begin or sustain > the practice. Jhana and freedom from suffering are enough magic for me. ===== Agreed! ===== > > Your post had mentioned the coincidence that discussion of gnosis > > seemed to pop up at about the same time in many countries and that > > prompted me to pass along what I had heard. Discussing the possible > > accuracy of this story probably falls under the technical definition > > of "idle talk". > > > ===== > > Jeff: > Actually I'm a student of anthropology, and my field of interest is how > cultures explore gnosis. My premise is that all cultures and peoples have a > concept of gnosis going deep into prehistory, whether we have evidence for it > or not, and they have been exchanging those ideas all along. To prove that I > am having to prove the length and breadth of diffusionism, or how cultures > exchange resources, materials, labor, language, ideas and genes. My premise > is that Asia and Europe have been engaged in various forms of exchange on a > regular basis for, at the very least, the last 5,000 years. There are some > key archeological sites that prove this hypothesis quite well. > > My interest is in tracing not only the evidence of trade and exchange, but > the actual movement of concepts of gnosis between Asia and Europe. I am > extracting these details from the cultures with the oldest extant writing > systems, which are basically Hinduism, Buddhism, Greek, Persian, Roman and > Hebrew cultures and languages. The model is based on the spread of Buddhism, > and Buddhist and Hindu concepts, art and architecture throughout Asia and > Europe. > > This influence is actually pretty easy to trace back to the first century. > As you can imagine the farther back in time one goes, the more difficult the > evidence can be to nail down. I have excellent sources taking me back to the > 6th to the 3rd century. I am now having to study the history of Iraq, Iran, > Pakistan and Afghanistan to understand the details of the expansion of early > Buddhism into the West, as well as the manifestation of the various Gnostic > sects in and around the eastern half of the Mediterranean basin. > > Since, as I said, we know Buddhism was in the neighborhood (Baghdad) from the > 3rd century BCE to the 7th century AD and the Gnostic sects started arriving > on the scene almost at the same time, it is reasonable to speculate that > Buddhism had an influence on the emergence of gnosis in the Mediterranean > basin at this time. It has also been fairly successfully argued that Jesus > was at least influenced by at least one of those Gnostic communities > (Essenes), therefore Christianity, through Jesus and the Essenes, was > influenced in part by Buddhism. > > There are actually many source of excellent evidence of Buddhism's influence > on the European cultures and Christianity from the vary earliest times. > Someday you may read about it if I get around to publishing the work. You > can imagine the research has been a great deal of effort which has consumed > much of my free time in the last 3 years. I am presently hopin to find some > funding to support me through the summer, so I can continue my research. ===== Sounds fasinating! I am looking forwad to reading the published work! ===== > > So, it isn't idle talk. I'm really not into idle talk, but then here I am on > a listserv engaged in idle talk, when I could be either continuing my > research, meditating or studying for a midterm in Archeology this Tuesday. ===== According to the Suttas and Vinaya, the technical definition of "idle talk" is: "talk of kings, of thieves, of great ministers, of armies, of fears, of battles, of food, of drink, of clothes, of beds, of garlands, of scents, of relations, of vehicles, of villages, of little towns, of towns, of the country, of women, of strong drink, of streets, of wells, of those departed before, of diversity, of speculation about the world, about the sea" In brief, almost everything we talk about fall under the category of "idle talk". Good luck on your mid-term. Metta, Rob M :-) 21254 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Rob M (& Mike & James at the end), --- robmoult wrote: R: > I extracted this definition from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive > Manual of Abhidhamma (I, 3). "... The commentators define citta in > three ways: as agent, as instrument and as activity..." ..... S: I’m probably just displaying my ignorance and it may be a matter of terminology, but I’m not sure where ‘citta as instrument’ comes from in the commentaries. Perhaps it just means ‘citta is a condition’ do you think? I know this has been quoted before (though I had forgotten) and B.Bodhi clarifies: “As the instrument, citta is that by means of which the accompanying mental factors cognize the object (etena cintentii ti citta”m). As an activity, citta is itself nothing other than the process of cognizing the object (cintanamatta”m citta”m).” He also writes “the definitions in terms of agent and instrument are proposed to refute the wrong view of those who hold that a permanent self or ego is the agent and instrument of cognition....” Fair enough. What I find clearer and which I can easily find mirrored in the commentaries is the following: “In the case of citta, its characteristic is the knowing of an object (vijaanana). Its function is to be a “forerunner” (pubbangama) of the mental factors in that it presides over them and is always accompanied by them.” ***** Mike, I agree that it’s helpful to appreciate the Guide notes in CMA are BASED on commentary and other explanatory material, otherwise one may take it for a literal translation. Actually, in fairness, B.Bodhi explains this in the preface, pp xxiv and xxv. He writes: “from the mass of explanatory material thus collected, we have tried to compose a detailed guide to the Abhidamattha Sangaha ....” Friends like Christine who study prefaces and introductions carefully have an advantage;-) and are not likely to be misled at all. In the Atthasalini, it discusses citta in detail. In particular, it discusses it in relation to: a) as chief or forerunner and accompanied by mental factors b) as cognizing its object c) as arranged in a series or continuity (cinoti) d) as variagated (citra) Of interest is p185. We know that citta and mano (and vinnana) are synonyms used in different contexts. Here we read: “In the exposition of consciousness, ‘consciousness’ (citta) is so called because of its variegated (citta) nature. ‘Mind’ (mano) is do called because it knows the measure of an objet, ‘Mental action’ (maanasa) is just ‘mind’....... ‘Heart’ is the same as mind (citta)......” ..... S: Much more detail given, but I’m lazy to type more for now;-) ..... R: > I see sati as "mirror-thought", "non-judgmental > observation", "impartial watchfulness", "non-conceptual > awareness", "present-time awareness", "non-egoistic > alertness", "goalless awareness", "awareness of change" > and "participatory observation". (extracted from "Mindfulness in > Plain English" by Venerable Henepola Gunaratana) > > http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/mfneng/mind0.htm ..... S: hmm....I’d question many of these definitions ..... R: > Though some these definitions of sati use the word "awareness", > there is the implicit (kusala) feeling of "seeing things as they > truly are". ..... imho, awareness or sati is simply aware. It doesn’t ‘know’ or ‘see things as they are’. That is the function of panna. No feelings involved. ..... R: >This type of "seeing things as they truly are" is not > part of my understanding of citta. Citta is simply aware. ..... I would say, citta simply experiences its object. This is true regardless of whether it is kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya citta. To say it is ‘aware’ and especially to refer to ‘pure awareness’ is misleading, I think, especially considering the connotations that ‘awareness’ carries. Just my opinion. In another post, I think it may have been James who referred to an ‘underlying awareness’. I believe these ideas may be common in Mahayana teachings, but I haven’t seen them in Theravada texts. Look forward to further comments from any of you or anyone else. Metta, Sarah ====== 21255 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:51am Subject: Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. Nina make reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we can note nama and rupa. But she does not say, ( I have still to read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some one please post her e-mail address here, yasalalaka 21256 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Sariputta's Lion Roar (was: Buddhaghosa) Hi Swee Boon, --- nidive wrote: > > Stopping at right view would not lead to right concentration. If > stopping at right view would lead to right concentration, then right > concentration is a redundant factor of the path. Indeed, all the other > seven factors of the path except right view would be made redundant. > Right view as the forerunner does not mean that right view is the end. ..... I haven’t seen any suggestion of ‘stopping’. The path factors arise together. None are redundant. ..... > What's the difference? Have you experienced a nama or a rupa > individually ever? You could do so, provided you have the same kind of > intense concentration as the Buddha had. .... No self to do or experience. Cittas experience namas and rupas repeatedly. It’s a question of whether rt awareness, rt understanding, rt concentration etc arise with the citta at this moment or not. ..... > This is certainly some strange doctrine. Do you mean that the object > of awareness in the jhana realm of nothingness is not a concept? Do > you mean that nothingness is not a concept? ..... The objects of samatha and jhana are usually concepts, but from the suttas you quoted (eg 1170), I understood we were discussing the development of satipatthana in particular. There may be some confusion here. ..... > > I think I have really stumbled onto some Abhidhammic cult that I only > realized until now. My understanding of the Abhidhamma is totally > different from yours. ..... That’s OK, Swee Boon. As Howard said, we can all appreciate and listen to other understandings and perhaps respect others’ intentions and goodwill even if we don’t agree. I certainly have a lot of respect for your very careful and sincere reflections. I take it that your other questions are rhetorical and so I’ve left them. You’re welcome to raise them again anytime. ..... > I shall not bother anymore. Precious time is wasted in writing to you. > Let this be the last one. ..... I’m sorry you see it this way and I’m sorry for having been a condition for distress. I’m only one member and I hope you’ll find others you can write to without feeling you’re wasting time. For my part, I’m always glad to read anything you write here. Metta, Sarah ===== 21257 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Hello KKT, If it is the first question, it is: 1. Sakkàyo sakkàyoti ayye vuccati. Katamo nu kho ayye sakkàyo vutto bhagavatàti? http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/ A couple of other translations to compare: Noble lady, it is said the self, for what did the Blessed One say self.? http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/044-culavedalla-sutta-e1.htm "'Self-identification. Self-identification,' it is said, lady. Which self-identification is described by the Blessed One?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn044.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" > wrote: > > > > BTW, I read from MN 44 (Culavedalla Sutta) > > The lay follower Visakha asked > the bhikkhuni Dhammadinna: > > __Lady, 'PERSONALITY, PERSONALITY' is said. > What is called personality by the Blessed One? > > __Friend Visakha, these five aggregates affected > by clinging are called personality by the Blessed One. > > > Can someone give the original Pali > of the word PERSONALITY in this Sutta? > Thanks. > > > > > KKT: I find this word > of this sutta: Sakkaya > > Sakkaya = Personality, person. > > Sakkaya-ditthi = 'Personality-belief' > the first of the ten fetters. > > > KKT 21258 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 1:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] five things to be remembered Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah and all, > We are very upset, because we heard that my father has plans to ask for > euthanasy. I am thinking so much of Jon's mother and how he tried to put > it > out of her head, with success. We are thinking of what to say, having to > keep our heads cool. He liked a French philosopher, Teilhard du Chardin, > who > said, you have to end well (finir bien). It is not so much his oncoming > death but this way that upsets us. .... I’m sure we all sympathise with you and Lodevick. I think that we can have a lot of compassion for the elderly and sick. In Jon’s mother’s case, there wasn’t any wish for anyone to help deprive her of life but just whilst being connected to so much equipment, having blood transfusions one after the other with little or no effect in the end, she just felt like ‘giving up’. In fact the doctors (including another of her sons) agreed in the end there just wasn’t anything else they could do to stop the internal bleeding as I understand. At that point, all one can do is to help encouage kusala reflection and show metta rather than anxiety or sorrow which don’t help at all. Your father isn’t yet at this stage, so perhaps you can encourage him by showing your understanding and compassion for his present sorry state. Maybe also, although he has no interest in dhamma, you can encourage him to have the strength and courage to keep going as he really doesn’t know the implications of trying to cut short his life or have anyone else assist with this. Maybe you can also express your appreciation for his example of fortitude and the value his life holds for you, his only child. Whenever Jon talked to his mother by phone on a daily basis for the last few weeks or on his visits to see her, he stayed very calm and reassuring however he may have felt in private. I think that when we’re in this state, we’d all like to have a calm, loving and reassuring ‘dear one’ nearby, however our ‘end’ unfolds. It is also a time for detachment and equanimity, I think. We just do our best to help and then have to leave it at that. Sometimes it’s not possible to give any assistance at all. Of course the metta and compassion is never wasted! ...... > I received from our Pali teacher a very good text that I used, helping a > sick person. He reminded us that ageing is each moment. He said also: > you > need it yourself, not only the sick person. ..... Thank you for sharing this. Yes, we all need the helpful reminders and daily. Reading out the Pali reminds me of the monks in Sri Lanka reciting - the sound is still very clear in my mind. ..... > This text reminds me that whatever happens is conditioned. This is a > great > consolation. > ..... I liked the way we were also quoting back the same words to each other;-) so many of our problems come back to the clinging to self and crying over what cannot be helped at all;-) When there is kindness and compassion for your father, no tears and no upset. As K.Sujin said, ‘no limit to metta’. Please let us know how it goes and share any more of your own helpful reflections. Best wishes to you both during this difficult period. Metta, Sarah p.s Perhaps he was just protesting that you went away for a few days??? ================== 21259 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa Hi, Yasalalaka - In a message dated 4/14/03 4:04:40 AM Eastern Daylight Time, charlesperera@h... writes: > > I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several > attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. Nina make > reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities > like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we > can note nama and rupa. But she does not say, ( I have still to > read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting > meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other > activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note > these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is > the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it > (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. > > Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again > watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, > and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the > four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of > meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms > address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some > one please post her e-mail address here, > > yasalalaka > > =========================== Here's my perspective: The Abhidhamma is like a map of a landscape. There is some debate about exactly who drew the map and about its perfect accuracy, but many Theravadins accord it enormous respect. But as we know from ordinary experience, one cannot be fully attending to the road (or to the instruments if one is flying) at exactly the same time one is examining the map. The map needs to be used as a reference. It can be consulted before a trip, and on stop-overs, and it can be looked at after the trip is over to check where one has been. Now, to drop the simile and get down to brass tacks: One cannot attend directly to what arises with full mindfulness and concentration while simultaneously thinking over what Abhidhammic categories one's experiences fit into, and to attempt to do so would be a mistake. But having studied some Abhidhamma, and, more generally, having studied the Dhamma, particularly having familiarized the mind with the concepts of anicca, dukkha, and anatta, and with various skillful means taught by the Buddha, fruitful conditioning of the mind will have resulted, making the mind more fit for the task of vipassana bhavana, just as samatha bhavana makes the mind more fit for that task. 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) 21260 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah > Mike, I agree that it's helpful to appreciate the Guide notes in CMA are > BASED on commentary and other explanatory material, otherwise one may take > it for a literal translation. Actually, in fairness, B.Bodhi explains this > in the preface, pp xxiv and xxv. He writes: > > "from the mass of explanatory material thus collected, we have tried to > compose a detailed guide to the Abhidamattha Sangaha ...." > > Friends like Christine who study prefaces and introductions carefully have > an advantage;-) and are not likely to be misled at all. You're right. I only skimmed the preface and introduction (ironically) because I wanted to avoid the translator's opinions and get straight to the source material. Serves me right! > I would say, citta simply experiences its object. This is true regardless > of whether it is kusala, akusala, vipaka or kiriya citta. To say it is > 'aware' and especially to refer to 'pure awareness' is misleading, I > think, especially considering the connotations that 'awareness' carries. > Just my opinion. In another post, I think it may have been James who > referred to an 'underlying awareness'. I believe these ideas may be common > in Mahayana teachings, but I haven't seen them in Theravada texts. This is how I see it too. Thanks again, mike 21261 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 6:51am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard and KKT, Howard, it is not that you are unable to make me understand you. It is that you are unable to make me or pursuade me to accept your point of view in some topics. KKT, instead of calling someone unintelligible and opague, it is more important to abandon the self-identity view: "This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is mine. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is what I am. This << vivid >> feeling of << I, me, mine, myself >> is my self." Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, KKT (and Victor) - > > In a message dated 4/13/03 9:22:07 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > phamdluan@a... writes: > > > Dear Howard, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > > Okay, Victor. You have won. I throw in the towel. > > The "wisdom of cessation" has arisen in me! ;-) > > > > With metta, > > Howard > > > > > > > > > > > > KKT: And you have lost, Howard :-)) > > > > You have lost Patience (khanti) > > one of the 10 paramita (perfection) > > a Bodhisattva should practise :-)) > -------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I know you are being humorous here, KKT, though, of course, not > completely. Actually, I haven't lost patience. That is, I haven't *just* lost > patience. I lost it a while ago! ;-)) But I have continued, because I thought > that it would be worthwhile to do so. It might in fact still be useful to do > so, but my judgement at this point is to the contrary. > -------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Victor is more than <>, > > he is <>:-)) > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Well, I wouldn't say that Victor is unintelligible or opaque, but only > that I'm having a hard time understanding him, and, more frustratingly than > that, I'm unable to make Victor understand me. I'm not talking about > agreement here, only about understanding. And I'm not attributing "blame" in > this. It just may be that Victor and I are riding on different tracks that > don't intersect. > In any case, I admire Victor for his tenacity and very much so for his > devotion to the Buddha and his Dhamma. I simply think it best to give our > interaction on such topics as anatta and concept & reality a rest, at least > for a while. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > KKT > > > > > ========================== > With metta, > Howard 21262 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Hi KKT and Jon, No, being not self does not mean not subject to mastery lacking in an abiding soul/essence It is an assumption, a misconception that self is something self- existing, independent, unconditioned, permanent, eternal, unchanging. This assumption is not the Buddha's teaching. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Jon, [snip] > > << KKT, how do the attributes 'not subject to mastery' > and 'lacking in an abiding soul/essence' sound to you? > Do they make sense? >> > > For me, they describe perfectly > the meaning of the word << not-self >> > > Maybe we can take them as > the << official >> definition of not-self. > Remember that they were elaborations > presented by the Buddha Himself. > > NOT-SELF (anatta): > > __not subject to mastery > __lacking in an abiding soul/essence > > > What is interesting is that > from this definition we can deduce > the opposite that is the definition of << self >> > even if the Buddha did not give > a specific definition of this word. > > Therefore: > > SELF (atta): > > __subject to mastery > __possessing an abiding soul/essence > > << subject to mastery >> means > that SELF should be something > self-existing, independent, unconditioned. > > << possessing an abiding soul/essence >> > means that SELF should be > permanent, eternal, unchanging. > [snip] > Metta, > > > KKT 21263 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 7:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dreams Jeff, I have some comments and questions about this OOB discussion that I've included below... > > Well, James, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but your opinion may > reflect denial. I will acknowledge your skeptical intentions, because I will > agree that exploring a topic that is of a purely subjective nature requires > we, the listeners, to have to accept the report of the participant observers > who, because of the subjective nature of out-of-body experiences and other > jhanic activity, cannot provide physical evidence for their experience. But, > in place of physical evidence, we could most certainly provide a record of > reports from participant observers, and we can also examine the reputation of > those observers, when considering the weight of their record. If there is a > long record of reports of out-of-body experiences, as well as the many other > subjective experiences of the jhanas, we could assume there may be some > validity to the phenomena. DAVE REPLY: subjective accounts wouldn't give any weight to the interpretation of the claim, but only the existence of the claim. I don't think anyone would dispute that people who claim to have had OOB experiences did, in fact, have some type of mental experience, but that does not mean it was really OOB. I am reminded of other "fantastic" events from other religions... like the many people who experience Stigmata. These people are even left with obvious scars. But, would you admit their own explaination (that Christ, the one son of the only God did this)? I'd assume you would not, but, rather, you would look for a more "common sense" approach. So, in the case of Stigmata, the current theory is a sort of self-mind over body. People under hypnosis can be led to believe that parts of them are "burning" and their skin will blister. It is documentable and repeatable in controlled settings. Isn't it "Occam's Razor" that sort of says that we should look for the most simple explaination? I guess I'm trying to say that we should not "assume there may be some validity to the phenomena" > We could also develop models within which we can critic the validity of someone's record. DAVE REPLY: Can you control when/where you go? It would seem like this would be extremely easy to validate. I, or any other skeptic of OOB, could leave something for you to fly to and see. I can put a note on my desk here at work and if you can report back what the note said, then I sure would believe your claims! If you cannot control where you go, then what models do you propose to validate? > > I have found that those how experience out-of-body excursions, as well as > other manifestations of jhana, often feel dismissed, and thus rarely report > their experiences. DAVE REPLY: I believe I read somewhere that the jhana's aren't supposed to have physical manifestations associated with them. I'm sure some of the more well versed member can (and will!) correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought I'd read that things like colors and lights are not part of it and are somehow misleading. Group? > > Your skepticism may in deed be a self fulfilling prophesy, because by > criticizing these people, they are not likely to come forward with their > reports. DAVE REPLY: I do hope you do not see my words as any type of criticism. I promise you they are not intended to be such. If they somehow do come across that way, I am truly sorry. Peace, Dave 21264 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Rob M, Jeff, and all Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well.* Regards, Victor * Anguttara Nikaya X.69, Kathavatthu Sutta, Topics of Conversation http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-069.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Jeff, [snip] > > According to the Suttas and Vinaya, the technical definition > of "idle talk" is: "talk of kings, of thieves, of great ministers, of > armies, of fears, of battles, of food, of drink, of clothes, of > beds, of garlands, of scents, of relations, of vehicles, of > villages, of little towns, of towns, of the country, of women, of > strong drink, of streets, of wells, of those departed before, of > diversity, of speculation about the world, about the sea" > > In brief, almost everything we talk about fall under the category > of "idle talk". > > Good luck on your mid-term. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21265 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 8:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Erratum: "Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well." should read "Talk of whether things exist or not falls under idle talk as well." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Rob M, Jeff, and all > > Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well.* > > Regards, > Victor > > * Anguttara Nikaya X.69, Kathavatthu Sutta, Topics of Conversation > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-069.html 21266 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor (and KKT) - In a message dated 4/14/03 10:03:54 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard and KKT, > > Howard, it is not that you are unable to make me understand you. It > is that you are unable to make me or pursuade me to accept your > point of view in some topics. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Ahh, okay then. So it's just me having a hard time understanding you. Well, that's good - 50% better than I thought it was! ;-) As far as my not persuading you of my view on some things, well that's no problem. --------------------------------------------- > > KKT, instead of calling someone unintelligible and opague, it is > more important to abandon the self-identity view: > > "This <>feeling of <>is mine. > This <>feeling of <>is what I am. > This <>feeling of <>is my self." > > > Regards, > Victor > ============================== 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) 21267 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick 2. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 19:39:51 +0200 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick 2. Dear Eltopo, some more about this subject. op 13-04-2003 13:39 schreef eltopo1uk op eltopo_@h...: 'he who > attends the sick' today in the twenty first century (or any other > century) in some sense attends on the Buddha. N: My husband was quite enthusiastic about this text. He said: "It is all so clear. Think of the mere passing fragrance of metta (Velama sutta, Ang. IV, 394), that is the practice." I remarked that who practises the Dhamma is near the Buddha, attends to the Buddha, because who sees the Dhamma, sees the Buddha. In the Velama sutta after metta, we read about the thought of impermanence, just for a fingersnap. My husband said that the Christians have a similar text about attending to the sick, that they took it all from Buddhism. But they could not understand about impermanence. He found when seeing such an old man dwindling away, you are reminded about impermanence (maranadhammomhi marana.m anatiito'ti-) He found it very clear that, when attending to my ailing father, we attend to the Buddha. Thank you again, Nina. 21268 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Dear Christine op 13-04-2003 21:25 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > I was interested in your remark about Jou Smith - "Jou Smith, a great > Pali scholar who made extensive studies and wrote about them". > > I wonder if you can give more details about this 'great Pali scholar' > and his 'extensive studies' and point us to some of his writings? N: He wrote before in Pali yahoo about his research and his publishing, but he referred to a web, so I do not know details. He gave a good tip to Rob K,who may know more. He mentioned Ven Bodhi and I believe BPS Kandy in connection with his publications. He knows his Pali for sure. I did not ask him whether he read the Abhidhamma, because as you know, on Pali yahoo we do not talk so much, just busy with texts. It would be a good thing if people would read at least part of the abh itself before making judgements. The second book, the Book of Analysis is very readable, with commentary: Dispeller of Delusion. The first book, Buddhist Psychological Ethics, may be difficult, but its Co the Expositor is very good, although not always easy. Next to this the Visuddhimagga is of great help and very readable. It can help understanding the Expositor. I can understand that the difference in style, compared to Suttanta, may be a stumbling bloc.However, also in the Suttas there are great differences in style, compare the Kindred Sayings IV, on Sense fields. It takes some effort to get the feel of the Abhidhamma. It helps you to see that citta is conditioned, and that it all pertains to the citta at this moment. We may know: o yes, lobha again, or this is kusala, but if we begin to understand, even intellectually, that cittas have their own conditions, it will help us to think less of my akusala or my kusala. There is so much clinging to kusala and akusala that is quite hidden to us. We need eye openers. As Suan wrote, one should not kill the messenger before even getting the message. I have to run now, Nina. 21269 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. 1 Dear all, by conditions we receive help from unexpected sides, sometimes from people we have not met before. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 06:21:04 +0200 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. Dear Eltopo, see below. op 13-04-2003 13:39 schreef eltopo1uk op eltopo_@h...: 'he who > attends the sick' today in the twenty first century (or any other > century) in some sense attends on the Buddha. So I would like to > know is it fair to read it in this way, or would this be to take it > out of context? The Thanisarro Bhikkhu version seeems more like > those who wish to attend on me (the historical Buddha), and so that > the opportunity to attend the Buddha only applies to those bhikkus > who lived contemporaneously with him. So my question re translation > is also about how one should read the suttas, and how one views the > Buddha. Of course the Buddha is talking to the Bikkhus when he says > this, but does it have any relevance to us today? N: I am so surprised, I am really touched by this text. How true is this text. I just thought of this, when today helping my very ailing, old father (almost dying, 102) to eat something. At first I felt so clumsy and awkward to feed him with a spoon, not being used to such experience. I was thinking of paying respect to the Buddha while doing this, and then I remembered having seen this text, but did not know the good writer, because I have many mails in a day. I am glad now. Thank you very much, you are helping me. It is really true that you while tending a sick person can pay respect to the Buddha, thinking of him and thus attend to the Buddha. We try to practise what he taught. Also in the Vinaya there is sutta. The Tipitaka contains messages not only for people long ago but for each one of us now. Nina. In the Pali Text Society, it > is translated 'He who attends on the sick attends on me'. (Vinaya > Pitaka i, 301ff) 21270 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 10:47am Subject: Tipitaka and Coomentaries 2. Dear friends, this is my answer to Jou, but I had to shorten some parts. op 20-11-2002 22:30 schreef Jou Smith op josmith.1@b...: > The Buddha taught us to lay teachings that are claimed to be his > beside the teachings in the Dhamma/Vinaya and compare meaning with meaning. I have done that within the suttas and found some are corrupted, I have done that with other texts and found MOST are corrupted. So now I focus on the suttas. Dear Jou, Although you are busy with your writings you took time off to answer me, which I appreciate. See below. op 07-04-2003 13:59 schreef Jou Smith op josmith.1@b...: > Jou: Well we don't agree completely. I don't accept the Abhidhamma as > the word of the Buddha, but rather as a later text, which may have some > words of the Buddha, or may not. Why do you include the Abhidhamma along > with the Dhamma/Vinaya since the prefix Abhi- itself points to some > secret teaching which the Buddha said he was not about. N: We had many discussions on dhamma study group, dsg@yahoogroups.com about the Abh, the commentaries, their sources, their value. It is too long for this list where we are so busy with sutta texts. If you like to see the archives, under Abhidhamma or U.P. (Useful Posts) you can have some idea of what we discuss. We try to see the discussions as agreeable disagreements when we do not agree. Jou: (N)< the commentaries are very necessary for the understanding of the > Tipitaka.> > > Jou: so you say. I have not needed them, but then if we discussed our > different understandings you might well judge mine to be wrong because > it does not agree with the commentaries. N: Your approach is different, and you have done good scholarly work, studying older and newer forms of language. Linguistics is a hobby of mine. When we see more modern forms of language it does not mean that the contents are not stemming from the oldest tradition. A simple example: you stated that originally there were only two refuges, if I understood you well. This does not mean that we do not pay respect to the Triple Gem many times a day, don't we? Jou: I take the position that the > Buddha was the unsurpassable guide to those who wish guidance. As such > he would not need the help of the commentaries. I also believe that he > taught the Dhamma that was timeless and empirical. So we would not need > modern interpreters. Of course we might need translators, but as I see > it there is a lot of interpretation in the commentaries and that is what > I see is dangerous - relying on the interpretation of others. If the > Dhamma is empirical we can test it for ourselves, in our own experience. N: I agree only with the last sentence. Buddhaghosa used very old commentaries: the Mahaa-Atthakathaa, the Mahaa-paccarii and the Kuru.n.di, stemming from the time of the Thera Mahinda. He said that he did not add his own opinion, except in a few cases, which he expressively mentioned. Jou: (N)< I am not a scholar, just a beginning student.> The Buddha taught us not to identify with the five aggregates as I, > me (mine in some texts) or myself. Identifying yourself as "not a > scholar, just a beginning student" is one of those subtle fetters, > maana. It is one of the ways Maara fools us into thinking we are being > humble, but keeps us in the realm of birth and death thru the process of > identification with the five aggregates. N: You are right, conceit is one of the last defilements to go, at arahatship. We puthujanas are full of it. When we think with dosa:"How can he do that to me", it conditions immediately conceit, arising with lobha-mula-citta. We attach to the importance of self, don't we? And this is what I mean by Abhidhamma put into practice. When I say, I am only a student, many kinds of cittas can motivate this, kusala cittas in alternation with akusala cittas, cittas are so fast, arising because of their own conditions. I like the word student, indicating that I am learning, developing understanding of dhammas. I am not a guru. > Jou: I notice you do not say "I am delighted to read even a few lines > of the Buddha's words". N: Here I can refer to my correspondance with John (around 5, 6 April). Trying to memorize parts of the wonderful Sutta texts he gives us. Jou: The Buddha gave a > specific method to identify corruptions, but few know of or apply it. .....> I have done that within the suttas and found some are corrupted, I have > done that with other texts and found MOST are corrupted. So now I focus > on the suttas. N: you have done a thorough literary study, I am really interested (but I am not a web-goer). However, we do not agree about what a corruption is. If you have time, I would appreciate your joining dsg. In fact, I shall forward our discussions to dsg, people over there will be interested. On this list we also use Pali texts, although not everyone is interested in Pali. I also forward some of John's sutta texts to dsg, elaborating on them. People appreciate them. We try to apply them also in times of distress. Appreciating, Nina. 21271 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 11:44am Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Dear Nina, What is eye openers?And who is messenger in your post? With Respect, Htoo Naing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: >We need eye openers. > As Suan wrote, >one should not kill the messenger before even getting the > message. > I have to run now, > Nina. 21272 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, regarding the following exchange: L: Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear consciousness all arise together. H: Interdependence and co-occurrence of several things make each of those things empty of independent existence, but does not make any one of them a complex. L: I disagree. Indivisible is a concept with a referent not found in nature, partly, imo, because the consciousness which finds something is _part_ of that thing. Khandha means compound, sometimes translated as "heap". Nature is always a heap of experience. To compound is to superimpose (heap) one thing on another. When compounding ceases khandhas cease. Sound rupa is a compound because its dependence is part of its nature. Larry ps: maybe I should have said psychology instead of nature; that's what we are discussing. 21273 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 3:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/14/03 7:40:48 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, regarding the following exchange: > > L: Btw, even a single sound rupa is considered by abhidhamma to be a > compound because it cannot arise independently. Sound, ear base, and ear > consciousness all arise together. > > H: Interdependence and co-occurrence of several things make each of > those things empty of independent existence, but does not make any one > of them a complex. > > L: I disagree. Indivisible is a concept with a referent not found in > nature, partly, imo, because the consciousness which finds something is > _part_ of that thing. Khandha means compound, sometimes translated as > "heap". Nature is always a heap of experience. To compound is to > superimpose (heap) one thing on another. When compounding ceases > khandhas cease. Sound rupa is a compound because its dependence is part > of its nature. > > Larry > > ps: maybe I should have said psychology instead of nature; that's what > we are discussing. > ========================== Sorry, Larry - I don't buy it. The coming together of sound, ear base, and ear consciousness has a name - it is (ear) contact. The event of their coming together is contact. And even if each of these three never occurs on its own, still they are not the same, and none of them is, itself, the complex consisting of the three. They are interdependent, but no two are identical with each other, and certainly no one is identical with the entire group of three. An analogy: There is no up without a down, and no down without an up, but and down are not the same, and neither one of them is the group of two. A khandha is, indeed, an aggregate. In fact, the khandhas are pa~n~natti!! What they are comprised of are paramattha dhammas. The word 'sankhata' is sometimes (poorly) translated as 'compounded'. In that case, the word 'compounded' means formed/fabricated, and does not mean 'a complex'. With metta, Howard P.S. I simply cannot understand your sentence: <> /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) 21274 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa Dear Yasalalaka, Welcome to the list. Thanks for your kind letter. You bring up many points and Howard has answered some of it. It is very good you write to me in this forum, better than in personal mail. In this way others can also join in. Because of family matters I cannot answer all mails, but I keep your points in mind for later. Only, what do you mean by hetu and phala, cause and fruit, in this context? So, I come back to you later. Please, can you send again your complete letter, because just now I lost it in cyber. best wishes, Nina. op 14-04-2003 09:51 schreef yasalalaka op charlesperera@h...: > I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > these lessons. 21275 From: Date: Mon Apr 14, 2003 9:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, Up is part of the concept of down and consciousness is part of the experience of sound. Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta and object) to make an experience. The Buddha definitely considered the khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, was a kind of indivisible atom. There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the compounding of concept and experience. Larry 21276 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa Hi Yasalalaka, Welcome to DSG from me as well and thank you for starting with such good questions. I’m glad you’ve found Nina and the rest of us here and look forward to hearing more of your qestions and comments. We’d all be glad if you’d also share anything more about yourself such as where you live. ..... --- yasalalaka wrote: > I am a new commer. I started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several > attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. ..... I remember having a similar experience. Gradually it does become more meaningful and practical as you’re finding with the help of Nina’s books. ..... >Nina make > reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities > like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we > can note nama and rupa. ..... Of course ‘noting’ is not the same as being aware, but understanding that nama and rupa to arise repeatedly in daily life and can be known is a good start. Nina has already written you a note to say she will be replying in more detail to your other comments after a little more clarification from you on ‘hetu’ and ‘phala’ in what you write, so I’ll just hope you find it helpful here and look forward to more of your contributions. Metta, Sarah p.s. Nina- I’ve left the rest of the post below as you mentioned you had accidentally erased it. ======= ..... >But she does not say, ( I have still to > read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting > meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other > activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note > these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is > the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it > (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. > > Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again > watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, > and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the > four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of > meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms > address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some > one please post her e-mail address here, > > yasalalaka 21277 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:41am Subject: Re: Nina Van Gorkom- Nama Rupa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Yasalalaka, > > Welcome to DSG from me as well and thank you for starting with such good > questions. I'm glad you've found Nina and the rest of us here and look > forward to hearing more of your qestions and comments. We'd all be glad if > you'd also share anything more about yourself such as where you live. > ..... > --- yasalalaka wrote: > I am a new commer. I > started reading Nina Van Gorkom's letters and I > > am reading her on line book on Abhdhama. I thank her for providing > > these lessons. I found Abhidhamma very difficult and gave up several > > attempts trying to read Ven Narada's Book on Abhidhamma. > ..... > I remember having a similar experience. Gradually it does become more > meaningful and practical as you're finding with the help of Nina's books. > ..... > >Nina make > > reading Abhidhamma interesting. I found that in daily activities > > like watching teleivion or hearing sounds, eating, talking etc. we > > can note nama and rupa. > ..... > Of course `noting' is not the same as being aware, but understanding that > nama and rupa to arise repeatedly in daily life and can be known is a good > start. Nina has already written you a note to say she will be replying in > more detail to your other comments after a little more clarification from > you on `hetu' and `phala' in what you write, so I'll just hope you find it > helpful here and look forward to more of your contributions. > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s. Nina- I've left the rest of the post below as you mentioned you had > accidentally erased it. > ======= > ..... > >But she does not say, ( I have still to > > read to know) how use of Abhidhamma in say walking or in sitting > > meditation. To be precise, in walking meditation or any other > > activity there is the causal factor, and I found it confusing to note > > these physical activities merely as nama-rupa. When walking, there is > > the intention (nama) to lift the foot, and then you lift it > > (rupa)...but the confusion arose as there is also the hetu and phala. > > > > Should we note it merely as nama rupa or hetu-phala. Then again > > watching the presense of hindrances (nivarana) while meditating, > > and contemplating on the 32 parts of the body,or meditating on the > > four foundations (satipattahana) how should one see these aspects of > > meditation as nama-rupa. I was looking for Mme Nina Van Gorkoms > > address to write to her personally, but I did not get it. Could some > > one please post her e-mail address here, > > > > yasalalaka > > Thankyou, Sara for your kind words of welcome. I am from France, I am from theravada lineage. I have been doing meditation for some time, and since internet is a treasure house of documents on Buddha's teaching, I am in the habit of browsing throug diferent websites and I came to Vipassana.info. As I wanted to know more about Abhidamma I started reading the writings of Nina. I thankyou also for reproducing the letter I had written for Nina's attention, which she has apparently misplaced. Yes I understand noting and being aware. I think it would take time to just be aware without interposing the concept of object, between nama and rupa. However, I tried introducing Nina's instructions to my daily practice of Meditation, and when I came to the walking part of the meditation.. I could not be aware of the the nama rupa, as it involved different movements .. Therefore I thought I ill ask Nina for more details on this aspect of meditation, in relation to nama- rupa. with metta, yasalalaka > 21278 From: azita gill Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. 1 --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear all, > by conditions we receive help from unexpected sides, > sometimes from people > we have not met before. > ---------- > eltopo_@h...: > 'he who > > attends the sick' today in the twenty first > century (or any other > > century) in some sense attends on the Buddha. So I > would like to > > know is it fair to read it in this way, or would > this be to take it > > out of context? The Thanisarro Bhikkhu version > seeems more like > > those who wish to attend on me (the historical > Buddha), and so that > > the opportunity to attend the Buddha only applies > to those bhikkus > > who lived contemporaneously with him. So my > question re translation > > is also about how one should read the suttas, and > how one views the > > Buddha. Of course the Buddha is talking to the > Bikkhus when he says > > this, but does it have any relevance to us today? > > N: I am so surprised, I am really touched by this > text. How true is this > text. I just thought of this, when today helping my > very ailing, old father > (almost dying, 102) to eat something. At first I > felt so clumsy and awkward > to feed him with a spoon, not being used to such > experience. I was thinking > of paying respect to the Buddha while doing this, > and then I remembered > having seen this text, but did not know the good > writer, because I have many > mails in a day. I am glad now. Thank you very much, > you are helping me. It > is really true that you while tending a sick person > can pay respect to the > Buddha, thinking of him and thus attend to the > Buddha. We try to practise > what he taught. > Also in the Vinaya there is sutta. The Tipitaka > contains messages not only > for people long ago but for each one of us now. > Nina. > > In the Pali Text Society, > it > > is translated 'He who attends on the sick attends > on me'. (Vinaya > > Pitaka i, 301ff) > > dear Nina, I also find this moving. I had not heard it before. As a nurse working in a hospital, I have daily reminders of illness [cannot add old age here bec. I work with kids] and it really can be a condition for me to reflect on death. My interpretation of 'he who attends....... ..on me' is that bec. I have heard the Dhamma and know that a condition for death is birth, and that death is often preceded by illness, then I am quite fortunate to have the profession of nursing. It feels kind of 'right' to attend to an ill person's needs. These daily reminders cause me to contemplate my own death and that even if we don't know what is going to happen in the next moment, we can certainly know that we will die, maybe even in the next moment. > It may be difficult caring for your father, but at least you have the wonderful opportunity to care for your parent. may you have much patience, courage and lots of good cheer, Azita P.S. I thought of you and Lodwick,today, when I went for a long bush hike and we also swam in a beautiful clear river. > 21279 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:15am Subject: Hetu-Phala Hi all! I'm still a bit of a novice to add much to the actual content of your conversation, but, I am able to do some web searching and I can add what I find there. According to the sites I've found, Hetu-Phala is Cause and Effect. I believe it is Sanskrit. Here's a snippet from one site: "One of the most important teachings of the Buddha is Kamma and Vipàka (cause and effect). According to the four Noble Truths, what is Kamma? Kamma is the cause of suffering or craving. Vipàka is Dukkha or the truth of suffering. On the other hand Kamma and Vipàka are regarded as Hetu-Phala (cause and effect). Hetu (cause) is the second Noble Truth. Phala is the First Noble Truth. According to the Paticca Samuppàda (Dependent origination) a human being is divided into ten aspects; ignorance, formation, craving and so on. Five of them from ignorance to action or becoming are regarded as Kamma or Hetu (cause). The rest are regarded as Vipàka or Phala (effect). In one sense Vipàka means rebirth." (taken from: http://www.metta.lk/english/buddhist-points.htm) Anyway, I hope that helps you all out! Peace, Dave 21280 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:24am Subject: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Dhamma friends How are you? The following is my response to those (like Jeff) who questioned if Theravaada Buddhism had contemplative practice. _________ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ Jeff asked: "What is the record of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism? I believe most of the Western participants in the study and practice of vipassana and Theravadan Buddhism assume, like I do, that there is a long history of contemplative practice in that tradition. But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" Before I answer your questions, please allow me to touch on the nature of Theravaada Tradition itself. Theravaada Tradition is solidly based on Pariyatti, Pa.tipatti, and Pa.tiveda. Pariyatti is the obligation of preserving the Buddha's teachings and their commentaries, namely Pali Tipi.taka literature. Pa.tipatti covers direct behavioral change (Vinaya or Siila) and progressive mental cultivation (Bhaavanaa covering both Samatha and Vipassanaa). Buddha's Vinaya means the Awakeners' taming of the mind and bodily behavior (Ariyassa Vinaya). As Theravaada Sayadaws strictly adhere to the Buddha's teachings in Pali Tipi.taka, Pa.tipatti is entirely in line with Pariyatti. That is to say, Theravaada Sayadaws simply follow the standard instructions of the Buddha. And, they do not feel the need to innovate or modify the Buddha's teachings. Pali commentaries guide them to be on the path of the Buddha and ancient Arahants by preserving the oldest interpretations (Orthodox teachings) handed down since the Buddha's time. They prefer to keep the Buddha's and the arahants' teachings and practices pure and original. Pa.tiveda is the climax of following Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. If we learn the Buddha's instructions from Pali Tipi.taka (Pariyatti), and follow them exactly (Pa.tipatti), they will achieve the goal of awakening. Jeff asked the following questions, "But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" My answer is as follows. Theravaada Buddhism is the only unbroken, longest-lasting, most successful and purest ascetic tradition in the world due to their zealous collective preservation power of Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. There is no personality cult, no Patriarchs in Theravaada Buddhism like in other Buddhist traditions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or Zen. Each Theravada ascetic such as Sayadaw Yanatharo or Sayadaw Dhammarato is the direct delegate of the Gotama the Buddha as soon as his ordination has been accomplished. Their preceptors or Abbots do not stand between a Theravaada ascetic and the Buddha, the Founder of Theravaada Saasanaa, in terms of spiritual autonomy and authority. Therefore, if you are looking for biographies and commentaries to "support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism", you have to go and meet each Theravaada ascetic, which is impossible and unrealistic. My readings of Suttam Pi.taka convince me of the fact that practicing certain area of Vinaya such as Indriyasamvara Siila is the same as practicing Vipassanaa and Abhidhamma. In short, Three Buskets Of Teachings (Pali Tip.taka) have overlapping practices. So, if you asked me what is the evidence of contemplative practice in Theravaada Tradition, my advice would be "Go to the nearest Theravaada monastery and see a monk on your knees." He and other ascetics like him are the evidence going back to 600 BC. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 21281 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/15/03 12:49:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Up is part of the concept of down and consciousness is part of the > experience of sound. Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. > The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no > experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta > and object) to make an experience. The Buddha definitely considered the > khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, > was a kind of indivisible atom. > > There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only > seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of > khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of > thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the compounding of > concept and experience. > > Larry > ========================== I'm being a bit dense. I seem not to get what your primary points are, and how to separate them. (Of course, you don't *want* to separate them!! ;-)) But I have been thinking further about what you've written, and *perhaps* we are not really so far apart. Let me pursue the matter a bit more now. I certainly don't deny that discernment and object discerned are interdependent and are aspects of a single event. (BTW, the up-down simile was only for purposes of conventional analogy - I realize that they are concepts.) With regard to the co-occurring pair of discernment (conciousness) and discerned object, I *agree* that the primary reality, and this I think is contrary to the Abhidhammic view, is the event which has the discernment and the object discerned as two interdependent aspects of it. At times that event, itself, is called "discernment", and therein lies a terminological confusion, because the subjective pole of that event is also called "discernment"! I do not consider the event, itself, which one might call an "act of discernment", and which has discernment and object-discerned as its subjective and objective aspects respectively, to be identical with the subjective aspect alone. Moreover, I do not consider the act of discernment to be concept-only. I think that it is at least as much of a reality as its subjective and objective aspects. In fact, I actually consider the act of discernment to be the *greater* reality, with the discerning and the discerned being merely its subjective and objective aspects. (This, of course, puts me at odds with Abhidhamma.) But the act of discernment is known only after the fact, and its subjective discernment-aspect is also known only after the fact. During the actual act of discernment, *all* that is discerned is the object. (That's why it is called the object!) When discerning hardness, it is only the hardness that is discerned, not the discerning awareness and not the event that I call the "act of discernment", but only the hardness. Immediately afterwards, there is the knowing, through the mind door, of the three: the entire act of discernment, its objective face (the hardness), and its subjective face (the discernment) - like the inside and outside surfaces of a box. Note, and again this is merely conventional analogy, the box is not fabricated from inside and outside surfaces. No one took an inside surface lying around somewhere ;-)), and took and outside surface, and assembled them into a box. The three appeared at the same time, with the box being the primary, and the inside and outside surfaces being its aspects. The inside and outside surfaces are not the same, and neither one of them is the box. But there is no inside with outside, there is neither inside nor outside without the box, and there is no box without both of these. But, as I see it, the box, itself, is the primary here. In this metaphor, the box is the act of discernment, the inside surface is the discerning, and the outside surface is the hardness. This way of looking at the matter smacks of non-dualism! ;-)) [Not monism, but non-dualism.] Perhaps, just perhaps, you are thinking about this matter in the same way as I am now expressing it. If so, then we are in agreement with each other, but in *disagreement*, I think, with Abhidhamma. Abhidhamma, I think, does not countenance the box, but only its inside and outside surfaces (to stick with the analogy) - more literally, it accepts the knowing and the known, but not the act of knowing which encompasses both. In the suttas, the Buddha, *does* countenance the act of discernment. The event which is the coming together of sense base, sense object, and sense consciousness he calls "contact". But Abhidhamma treats contact differently(!) as a cetasika arising at every mind moment, and not as described in the suttas. So what do you think, Larry? Is there some rapprochement here? With metta, Howard P.S. I realize that what I have written here *may* somewhat jeopardize my expressed view that whatever is a complex, must be concept-only. I'm not sure that it does. An act of discernment is not a complex in the sense of having been fabricated from awareness and object. It is not so fabricated. The awareness and the object arise as aspects of the act of discrment and are aspects of it. the act of discernment is only a complex in the milder sense of having aspects, of not being "homogeneous". /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) 21282 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > If the matter is the contradiction that you've presented in your > messages twice, then the matter is not for anyone to comprehend. "If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect is not-self. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid In one who contemplates the Dhamma in terms of the five aggregates (instead of the six sense bases), it would follow thus: "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of fabrications is not-self. Therefore, if `self` (or `any connotations of self within`) falls under the aggregate of fabrications, what is so contradictory about saying `self` is not-self? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21283 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:34am Subject: Change Dear Group, I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, not even for a week or two', she mourned. This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should matter, but somehow it does. metta, Christine 21284 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Victor, > > "This <>feeling of <>is mine. > > This <>feeling of <>is what I am. > > This <>feeling of <>is my self." Why should <> be a feeling? Feelings can only be pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant nor unpleasant. <> should NOT (and NEVER) be classified under the aggregate of feelings. This is a serious error. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21285 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Tipitaka and Commentaries. Messengers. Dear Htoo, I am so glad you are back, I missed you. I apppreciate your sincerity and your kusala citta. I like it that at the end of a message you always have a good wish, it is like a Buddhist prayer. Now see below. op 14-04-2003 20:44 schreef htootintnaing op htootintnaing@y...: > > What is eye openers? N: The Abhidhamma is an eye opener, it helps us to see what we did not see before. We were in the dark without the Tipitaka, The Vinaya, the Suttanta, and the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma helps us to see cause and effect, what is kusala, what is akusala. It helps us to see also our more subtle defilements, our hidden motives. It helps us to understand conditions, to see that whatever arises is conditioned. This can have a great influence on us, beginning to understand that there is no self. But we have to apply Abhidhamma in our life, as you like to stress. When we study the Vinaya we can also be reminded of the many degrees of akusala and kusala. We can see that the three parts of the Tipitaka are in comformity with each other. All three of them are very essential. H:And who is messenger in your post? N: In the olden days in Greece they would kill messengers who brought bad tidings. But at least they would listen first to get the message. It is worse when you see a messenger and you will not even listen, but start to kill him off immmediately. We can learn from this simile that it is important to listen to each other. We may not agree with the opponents of Abhidhamma, but do they perhaps have a point? What is the cause of misunderstandings which in the end may prove to be quite unnecessary? Can we perhaps take another approach to explain the Abhidhamma, to overcome misunderstandings? And for those who do not agree, it may be helpful to listen without aversion. When there is aversion, we cannot even listen. We can always learn from listening. May we all be openminded and learn to listen to each other, Nina. P.S. I hope you will write again, if time permits. 21286 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation Dear Yasalalaka, Your remarks are really good for everybody here, so I answer now on dsg. On this forum we can also write very personal letters, we can share these with others because it is about Dhamma. Are you from Sri Lanka? And whereabouts? See below. ---------- Van: "yasalalaka" Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:54:22 -0000 Aan: nilo@e... Onderwerp: Abhidhamma and Meditation I presume this e-mail is being directed to Ms.Nina Van Gorkom. I read with interest your letters and am reading the Abhidhamma in Daily Life. You write on Nama-rupa and how to see it in meditation to understand the ultimate reality and no-self. There is not much problem in noting the nama and rupa in hearing , seeing,tasting, smelling,feeling and thinking. Problem is doing actions... there is the causal aspect along with the nama and rupa. When walking for instance how should one note nama rupa, or when cutting, cooking etc. Nina: As Howard explained, all this is not a matter of taking the book in hand and then pinpoint this is such, that is such. We should see the Abhidhamma as a foundation knowledge and let it sink in. It helps you to see that whatever happens in your life is only conditioned realities. You do not have to try to catch realities. I take a momentary approach to samatha and to vipassana. There is no need to try to do anything, let cittas arise by conditions. Otherwise the idea of self becomes so strong, but the aim is less clinging to self. Samatha: this means a moment of kusala citta. Vipassana: this means beginning to develop understanding of the present reality, whatever it may be, as non-self. There is no rule that you have to do this first, then that, just let it arise naturally. Then there is no obstacle, no idea of I have to sit, or, I am distracted by daily activities. As you could read in my post about attending to the sick, such activities do not distract. We can think with confidence of the Buddha, a moment of samatha. Then sometimes, but not often, we can remember that the Buddha's teaching is mindfulness and developing understanding of the present reality, and that this is the highest respect to him. There is sound, there is hardness, we do not have to sit somewhere else to experience them. They can be objects of the development of understanding. I say, development, because we should not expect clear understanding yet of: hearing is nama, sound is rupa. In theory we learn that nama experiences and that rupa does not experience anything. It is an extremely slow process to learn their characteristics when they appear in daily life, for example, when hearing now. This is not just noting, it is understanding of those characteristics which develops, not you who notices them. We cannot force the growth of understanding. We should have confidence that listening to the Dhamma, intellectual understanding of it, considering thoroughly what we heard are the conditions for direct awareness and understanding. The Abhidhamma helps us to understand that awareness and understanding arise when there are the appropriate conditions, not because of "I" who try to have them. I appreciate very much what the subcommentary to the Satipatthana sutta states about four meditation subjects for every occasion: Don't we have many opportunities to recollect them in the midst of our activities? We have to know that we cling immediately to kusala citta, or to the pleasant feeling that may accompany it. Without the Abhidhamma we would not know this. There are many citttas with attachment in a day. I was having some correspondance with someone about lobha arising because of another person's kind words, and I said we are such a mixture of kusala and akusala. But more important than pointing out the lobha, attachment, is understanding that it is conditioned. Otherwise we may try not to have it and in that way we are deluding ourselves. We should not try not to laugh, being afraid of lobha, because such trying is again motivated by lobha. Behaving in a unnatural way, suppressing laughing (I could not anyway, I like laughing), is not the Middle way and then we are on the wrong Path. I cannot explain all in one mail, so, do not hesitate to bring up your questions, with appreciation, Nina. 21287 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] five things to be remembered Dear Sarah, Thank you for your kind support. op 14-04-2003 10:53 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Your father isn’t yet at this stage, so perhaps you can encourage him by > showing your understanding and compassion for his present sorry state. N: His case is altogether different from Jon's mother. But the doctor does not agree with him, won't comply with euthanasy. He has no pains. Lodewijk talked very well to my father: we did not mention kamma, but used the word nature. Lodewijk said that nature always knows best and one should leave things to nature. He was sensitive to that argument. By conditions helpful reminders come unexpectantly, as I said. Someone I did not know of Yahoo Pali. Lodewijk was so full of confidence and conviction when he spoke to me about attending to the sick is attending to the Buddha. My french cousins with their children, his great grandchildren, two families, came to see him. It helped me to see their sincere kusala, when we were all standing at his bedside. S: It is also a time for detachment and equanimity, I think. We just do our > best to help and then have to leave it at that. Sometimes it’s not > possible to give any assistance at all. Of course the metta and compassion > is never wasted! N: I am translating now Perfections the chapter on determination and received a very good reminder from A. Sujin, about thinking with worry. This is about guarding the five senses and the mind: I had not thought of it in this way. Of course we cannot help thinking as we do, but, knowing that such thinking is akusala and seeing the disadvantage of it, is a condition for breaking off the story. I can apply this while thinking of my father. At times we give in to thoughts with worry and sadness but this is useless. Thank you again, Nina. 21288 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:00am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 17 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 17 Truthfulness that is superior, ariya sacca, is the truth penetrated by the ariyan. The penetration of the noble Truths is the condition for becoming an ariyan, an enlightened person. At this moment we try to listen and to understand the true Dhamma. Nothing else can be as beneficial in our life as the understanding of the truth of realities [12]. We should make an effort to understand the realities that are appearing and to develop also all other kinds of kusala. The characteristics of realities can be penetrated in conformity with the understanding acquired through listening to the Dhamma and the study of it. At this moment realities are arising and falling away, they are not a being, not a person, not self. However, we are not able to see the arising and falling away of realities because of our many defilements and because of ignorance that hides the truth. We need the perfection of truthfulness, so that we are sincere in the development of all degrees of kusala through body, speech and mind, be it dåna, síla or bhåvana. Otherwise we shall be overwhelmed by the power of akusala. Seeing the benefit of truthfulness is a condition for accumulating it. We may contemplate truthfulness within ourselves, but we should also reflect on the truthfulness of the Buddha when he was still the Bodhisatta and developed the perfection of truthfulness. Footnote: 12. By developing understanding of the truth of realities, paramattha sacca, one will penetrate the four noble Truths and this is the ultimate benefit of truthfulness. 21289 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi again, Larry - A few more thoughts: A sound, the objective pole of an auditory discernment-event, itself has various aspects such as pitch and volume. None of the aspects of a sound exist on their own, but only as aspects of the sound, and so the sound is not "built" by combining pitch and volume etc. On the other hand, what is the sound without its aspects? Likewise, contact has sense base, sense object, and sense consciousness as aspects, but it is not a complex built from these, for these do not exist on their own. Sense base, sense object, sense consciousness, and sense contact are co-occurring and interdependent (but with contact as primary, and the other as aspects of it - as I see it). The contact, not being a complex, is not necessarily mere concept - in fact, it is an actually occurring event, an actual condition. A chariot, or a person, on the other hand, is, indeed, a collection of components (with the collecting being done mentally), and the chariot or person as an existent is concept-only. So, as I see it, a paramattha dhamma can have manifold aspects/conditions to it, but is yet not a complex or collective. Ultimately, as I see it, all phenomena are mere conditions, and their aspects/features are also mere conditions, and there is a radically ramified network of interconnections of various sorts among these conditions. The bottom line on all this is EMPTINESS - that is, interdependency, essencelessness (or corelessness), impermanence, and impersonality. 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) 21290 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/14/2003 11:47:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Up is part of the concept of down and consciousness is part of the > experience of sound. ------------------------------ Howard: Consciousness is an aspect of that experiential event - for sure. But during that event, it is the sound of which there is awareness, and not the conciousness. ------------------------------ Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. > The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no > experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta > and object) to make an experience. ------------------------------ Howard: This is not so, as I see it. There is the event which is the experiencing of an object - that is a contact event. What is experienced during that contact event is the object, and not the awareness. ------------------------------ The Buddha definitely considered the > khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, > was a kind of indivisible atom. ----------------------------- Howard: Certainly a sound is not a separate, self-supporting entity. It is the object of hearing. I'm the last one to suppose entities existing independently of their being experienced. A heard sound is neither identical with the heaing of it nor is it separable from it. They are aspects of a single experiential event. ---------------------------- > > There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only > seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of > khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of > thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the > compounding of > concept and experience. > > Larry ============================= With metta, Howard 21291 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:29pm Subject: Way 76, Materiality Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section of Reflection on the Modes of Materiality The Master having explained body-contemplation in the form of reflection on the repulsiveness of the thirty-two parts of the body, said: "And further", now, to set forth body-contemplation by way of reflection on the modes (or elements) of materiality. The elaboration of the meaning together with the application of the simile, in this connection, is as follows: Just as if some cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice, a man who works for his keep, having killed a cow and made it into parts, were sitting at a four-cross-road, just so, a bhikkhu reflects, by way of the modes, on the body, in any one of the four postures thus: "There are in this body the modes of extension, cohesion, caloricity, and oscillation." The cow-butcher does not get rid of the cow-percept while feeding the cow, driving it to the place of slaughter, tying it and putting it up there, killing it, and even when seeing the dead carcass of the cow; not until he cuts it up and divides it into parts does the perception of a cow disappear. To that butcher sitting (with the meat before him) after cutting up the cow, however, the perception of a cow disappears, and the perception of flesh comes into being. To him, there is not this thought: "I am selling the cow; these people are taking away the cow." But to him, indeed, there occurs this thought: "I am selling flesh; these people indeed, are taking away flesh."... To the bhikkhu, similarly, the perception of a being or the perception of a person does not disappear as long as he does not reflect, by way of the modes of materiality, in this body as it is placed or disposed in whatsoever position, after sifting thoroughly the apparently compact aggregation. To him who reflects by way of the modes of materiality, however, the perception of a being disappears; the mind gets established by way of the modes of materiality. Therefore, the Blessed One declared: "A bhikkhu reflects on just this body according as it is placed or disposed, by way of the mode of materiality, thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity, the mode of cohesion, the mode of caloricity, and the mode of oscillation.' O bhikkhus, in whatever manner, a clever cow-butcher or a cow-butcher's apprentice having slaughtered a cow and divided it by way of portions should be sitting at the junction of a cross-road, in the same manner, a bhikkhu reflects... thinking thus: 'There are, in this body, the mode of solidity... And the mode of oscillation.' = Imameva kayam yatha thitam yatha panihitam dhatuso paccavekkhati: atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu apodhatu tejodhatu vayodhatuti. Seyyathapi bhikkhave dakkho goghatako va goghatakantevasi va gavim vadhitva catummahapathe bilaso pativibhajitva nissinno assa evameva kho bhikkhave bhikkhu imameva kayam... paccavekkhati atthi imasmim kaye pathavidhatu... vayodhatuti. The yogi is comparable to the cow-butcher; the perception of a being is comparable to the perception of a cow; the fourfold posture is comparable to the cross-road; and the reflection by way of the modes of materiality is comparable to the state of sitting with the cow's flesh in front after dividing the cow into parts. Here, this is the textual explanation. Details of the reflection on the modes of materiality as a subject of meditation, however, are given in the Path of Purity. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally". One dwells contemplating the body in the body thus by way of the laying hold of the four modes of materiality, in one's own or in another's body or at one time in one's own body and at another time in another's body. From here on the exposition should be known just by the method already mentioned. The mindfulness which lays hold of the four modes of materiality is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal to deliverance should be known. [Tika] By the word placed there is the elucidation of occasion by way of own (or particular) function of material things known as the body in various moments [kaya sankhatam rupadhammanam tasmim tasmim khane sakicca vasena avatthana paridipanam]. [T] By the word disposed here the following meaning should be known: By way of condition, the putting down or settling owing to the arrangement of several conditions [paccaya vasena tehi tehi paccayehi pakarato nihitam]. [T] Reflects (paccavekkhati) = Considers again and again, sees analytically, part by part, separately after sifting thoroughly with the eye of wisdom [pati pati avekkhati ñanacakkhuna vinibhujjitva visum visum passati]. 21292 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Howard Thanks for pointing out the oversight in my earlier post. What you say is of course correct. Jon PS I've impressed by many of your recent posts. Some fine analysis of sense-door/mind-door experiences. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and KKT) - > ... > There is one thing, though, that you wrote which I think you > didn't > intend as it came out. With regard to the expressions "Sabbe dhamma > anatta" > ("All dhammas are not-self") and "Sabbe sankhara aniccam/dukkham" > ("All > conditioned phenomena are impermanent/unsatisfactory"), you wrote > the > following: > "To my understanding, they are different ways of referring > to the same > thing, namely, what in the Abhidhamma are called 'fundamental > phenomena'/'ultimate realties' ('paramattha dhammas'). In the > Abhidhamma > they are classified in a fourfold grouping of consciousness, mental > factors, > materiality and nibbana (citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana)". > You follow this immediately by the following: > "The essence of the Buddha's teaching, as I see it, is that > 'the > world' or 'the all' (that is to say, the present moment) is just > these > different phenomena and nothing more, and that these phenomena all > share the > same 3 characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta". > Your main point in this was, of course, to state that the > tilakkhana > apply only to actually observed phenomena, and not projections of > mere > concept. But the last two paragraphs of your also, when read > literally, and > not as I know you intended, include nibbana as as being anicca and > dukkha. I > point this out just in case it might have been misunderstood by > anyone. > > With metta, > Howard 21293 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I think you are right that we understand what is meant by the five > aggregates differently, and my question to you is that: > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Please note that > > 1. The question is not asking whether or not one can say that > computer is impermanent as a matter of conventional speech. ... Thanks for this clarification. One needs to be clear about the sense (frame of reference) in which a question is being asked, since context is all-important. Here the stated context is the five aggregates (I hope I've got it right this time!). To my understanding, the five aggregates are a means of classifying conditioned phenomena/namas and rupas. Thus rupa-khandha has a specific meaning and includes conditioned phenomena such as visible object, sound (audible object), and hardness (tangible object), but not 'objects' such as computer. So the only answer I can give, in the stated context, is that the question does not arise ;-)). In any event, however, it seems to me that any perception of a computer as being impermanent (or impermanent) would have to be based on previous experiences, and as such would be in the nature of an assumption or inference. It could not be something directly experienced as an intrinsic characteristic or attribute of 'the computer'. By this I mean a computer could only be known as impermanent because of general experience in life as regards other objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with how it looked on some previous occasion. Either way, in my view, would be 'knowledge by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct experience of a characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. In an earlier post you said:, A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of consciousness. I am not sure what you mean by saying that a computer belongs to one aggregate or another. Are you suggesting it can belong to different aggregates at different times? If so, that would (to me) be a novel proposition. On the subject of 'computer and the five aggregates', may I put forward the following for discussion: - At moments of 'seeing a computer', the relevant conditioned phenomena/aggregates would include seeing consciousness (vinnana khandha) and visible object (rupa khandha), many moments of processing the visible data experienced (vinnana khandha), and other moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha also) with various concepts as object. - Likewise at a moment of 'touching a computer', the relevant conditioned phenomena/aggregates would include body consciousness(vinnana khandha) and tangible object (rupa khandha), many moments of processing the tangible data experienced (vinnana khandha), and other moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with various concepts as object. - At the moment of 'knowing/recognising a computer as being impermanent', the relevant conditioned phenomena would include many moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with various concepts (including 'computer' and 'impermanent') as object. Any comments on this analysis? I do hope I've addressed your question this time, Victor. If there's any sense in which the question is being asked that I haven't covered here, please feel free to let me know (perhaps you could spell it out iin positive terms). Jon 21294 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Swee Boon, I think you might want to ask the question to KKT because that is how he termed this particular feeling as the feeling of <>. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > Why should <> be a feeling? > > Feelings can only be pleasant, unpleasant or neither pleasant nor > unpleasant. > > <> should NOT (and NEVER) be classified under > the aggregate of feelings. This is a serious error. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21295 From: azita gill Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, .....snip... I cannot explain all in one mail, so, do not > hesitate to bring up your > questions, > with appreciation, > Nina. > dear Nina, Anumodana. Your words of wisdom are inspirational. It's amazing that I could be pleased to read your words and then to feel what must be the 'dreaded' mana. Often I think 'oh, I wish I had said that, or had written that'. I think Mana must arise a lot. I quite often find myself comparing me to the others. Thanks to Abhidhamma - and my small knowledge of it - that I even know what Mana [conceit] is. There is a remark in English 'swallow your pride' which I think means not to let one's pride get in the way of perhaps forgiving someone who you perceive has done you wrong. may you be well and happy, Azita. 21296 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 4:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) KKT Thanks again for another set of penetrating questions. Here are my answers. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... ++++++++++++++++++++ KKT: NOT-SELF (anatta): __not subject to mastery __lacking in an abiding soul/essence What is interesting is that from this definition we can deduce the opposite that is the definition of << self >> even if the Buddha did not give a specific definition of this word. Therefore: SELF (atta): __subject to mastery __possessing an abiding soul/essence << subject to mastery >> means that SELF should be something self-existing, independent, unconditioned. << possessing an abiding soul/essence >> means that SELF should be permanent, eternal, unchanging. ++++++++++++++++++++ J: We need to keep in mind here that we are talking about factors that are a characteristic of dhammas/conditioned phenomena. To my way of thinking, 'subject to mastery' means capable of being controlled. I would say that what we can deduce here is as follows: dhammas could only be prooperly regarded as self if they were both (a) capable of being controlled, and (b) permanent and unchanging. I wouldn't like to call this a 'definition of self', since that carries certain implications that the Buddha was at pains to refute. +++++++++++++++++++++++++ KKT: Following are my questions: __You wrote: << A concept has no intrinsic nature of its own; it is (by definition) purely a creation of the mind >> What do you mean by << intrinsic nature >> ? Is there a Pali word corresponding to << intrinsic nature >> ? If concept has no intrinsic nature of its own, does << paramattha dhamma >> have one ? ... __You wrote: << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence (sound is the same in individual essence, whenever or wherever it arises); concepts are a 'creation' of consciousness >> What do you mean by << individual essence >> in the phrase << Paramattha dhammas are said to arise and fall away, because they each have an individual essence >> ? Does this word << individual essence >> have the same meaning of the above << intrinsic nature >> ? Have these two words << individual essence >> and << intrinsic nature >> the same meaning of the word SELF defined above as something << self-existing, independent, unconditioned, permanent, eternal, unchanging >> ? If your response to this question is Yes then how could a paramattha dhamma which has an << << individual essence >> or an << << intrinsic nature >> have also characteristics such as << impermanent (anicca) and not-self (anatta) >> ? An evident contradiction, is it not? +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ J: These 2 terms 'intrinsic nature' and 'individual essence' are both translations of the Pali term 'sabhava' (my apologies for causing confusion by using different translations for the same term!). As to the meaning of 'sabhava', to my understanding it refers to the unique characteristic pertaining to a dhamma. Not only do all dhammas share in common the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta, but each dhamma also has its own individual characteristic by which it is distinguished (and distinguishable) from all other dhammas. The sabhava is capable of being experienced by panna. However, being with 'individual essence' does not imply being unconditioned. The 2 aspects are unrelated. Sound and visible object each have their own distinct characteristic, yet both are conditioned dhammas. ++++++++++++++++++ KKT: __You wrote: << What we call table is, from the point of view of moment-to-moment consciousness, an idea assembled by the mind from different paramattha dhammas that have been experienced through different sense-doors >> If I say: The table is a series (or combination) of paramattha dhammas existing << INDEPENDENTLY >> of the observer. Is this statement correct? +++++++++++++++++++++++ J: The statement, 'A table is ...' assumes an entity that is 'table'. On this point, I can do no better than refer you to Howard's recent post to Victor at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21187. At this moment of reading this message on 'a monitor', the reality is (among other things) moments of seeing consciousness experiencing visible object, followed by thinking/processing of the visible data that is experienced. There is no dhamma of 'monitor' there. If you reach out and touch the monitor, then there is the experience of tangible data to be thrown into the mix. But still no 'monitor' as such being experienced, only visible data and tangible data, accompanied by mental processing of that data. This is the 'reality/actuality' of the world as expounded by the Buddha. This is what needs to be known (the rest we can forget about!). +++++++++++++++++++++++ KKT: Another way to formulate this question is: What we call 'table' (which is a concept) is merely a series of paramattha dhammas experienced through different sense-doors, OK? Now if you turn your back to the table (ie. the 'table' is no more experienced by you) then does the 'table' still << exist >> independently as a series of paramattha dhammas ? +++++++++++++++++++++++ J: (Can we turn our back to a concept?) As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that question would be of any value. Jon 21297 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?". Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer could only be known as impermanent because of general experience in life as regards other objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with how it looked on some previous occasion. It is not asking whether or not knowing a computer being impermanent is 'knowledge by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct experience of a characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. Again, is a computer permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer belongs to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I would like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Thanks for this clarification. One needs to be clear about the sense > (frame of reference) in which a question is being asked, since > context is all-important. > > Here the stated context is the five aggregates (I hope I've got it > right this time!). To my understanding, the five aggregates are a > means of classifying conditioned phenomena/namas and rupas. Thus > rupa-khandha has a specific meaning and includes conditioned > phenomena such as visible object, sound (audible object), and > hardness (tangible object), but not 'objects' such as computer. So > the only answer I can give, in the stated context, is that the > question does not arise ;-)). > > In any event, however, it seems to me that any perception of a > computer as being impermanent (or impermanent) would have to be based > on previous experiences, and as such would be in the nature of an > assumption or inference. It could not be something directly > experienced as an intrinsic characteristic or attribute of 'the > computer'. By this I mean a computer could only be known as > impermanent because of general experience in life as regards other > objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with how it looked on > some previous occasion. Either way, in my view, would be 'knowledge > by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct experience of a > characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. > > In an earlier post you said:, > A computer is a fabricated object. It belongs to either the > aggregate of form, or the aggregate of feeling, or the aggregate of > perception, or the aggregate of fabrication, or the aggregate of > consciousness. > > I am not sure what you mean by saying that a computer belongs to one > aggregate or another. Are you suggesting it can belong to different > aggregates at different times? If so, that would (to me) be a novel > proposition. > > On the subject of 'computer and the five aggregates', may I put > forward the following for discussion: > - At moments of 'seeing a computer', the relevant conditioned > phenomena/aggregates would include seeing consciousness (vinnana > khandha) and visible object (rupa khandha), many moments of > processing the visible data experienced (vinnana khandha), and other > moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha also) with various > concepts as object. > - Likewise at a moment of 'touching a computer', the relevant > conditioned phenomena/aggregates would include body > consciousness(vinnana khandha) and tangible object (rupa khandha), > many moments of processing the tangible data experienced (vinnana > khandha), and other moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with > various concepts as object. > - At the moment of 'knowing/recognising a computer as being > impermanent', the relevant conditioned phenomena would include many > moments of mental activity (vinnana khandha) with various concepts > (including 'computer' and 'impermanent') as object. > > Any comments on this analysis? > > I do hope I've addressed your question this time, Victor. If there's > any sense in which the question is being asked that I haven't covered > here, please feel free to let me know (perhaps you could spell it out > iin positive terms). > > Jon 21298 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Let me ask you the following: Do you see what is wrong with the statement "a book is not a book."? Also, where did you get the idea that self falls under the aggregate of fabrication?? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > If the matter is the contradiction that you've presented in your > > messages twice, then the matter is not for anyone to comprehend. > > "If anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self,' that wouldn't be > tenable. The arising & falling away of the intellect are discerned. > And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow > that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable > if anyone were to say, 'The intellect is the self.' So the intellect > is not-self. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html#selfid > > In one who contemplates the Dhamma in terms of the five aggregates > (instead of the six sense bases), it would follow thus: > > "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' > that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate > of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are > discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's > why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of > fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of fabrications is not- self. > > Therefore, if `self` (or `any connotations of self within`) falls > under the aggregate of fabrications, what is so contradictory about > saying `self` is not-self? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21299 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:27pm Subject: Re: Change Hi Christine, Your colleague might have just well seen and expressed the characteristics of everything being impermanent and was about to see the characteristics of everything being stressful/unsatisfactory. What does it mean by "everyday view"? What special Buddhist enlightenment are you referring to? How are your questions relevant to the Buddha's teaching? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling > stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, > not even for a week or two', she mourned. > This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist > enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist > perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only > see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that > change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to > everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't > change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in > infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should > matter, but somehow it does. > > metta, > Christine 21300 From: jonoabb Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:29pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?". > > Please note that the question is not asking whether a computer could > only be known as impermanent because of general experience in life > as regards other objects, or by comparing 'the computer now' with > how it looked on some previous occasion. > > It is not asking whether or not knowing a computer being impermanent > is 'knowledge by deduction' rather than 'knowledge by direct > experience of a characteristic' of a conditioned phenomena. > > Again, is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Regards, > Victor I am clear on what your question *is not*. But I'm not clear on what it *is* ;-)). Mere words in total isolation have no particular meaning. Now let me ask you a question. Does a computer arise and fall away? Jon > P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer belongs > to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I would > like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. Thanks, Victor. 21301 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:04pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Suan, I may be a monk, but I always read your emails because I have great respect for what you write. I have a lot to learnt and I always learnt a lot from you. I do not know everything, as you know here in Canberra I do the ceremonies for the Sri Lankans and Laotians, I have learnt all the chantings and procedures, but I am still learning about the tipitaka and the meanings of a lot of sutras. I find you a book of knowledge and Wee a book in the way that the simple teachings of Buddha should be. With Metta and respect. Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] Enviado el: Miércoles, Abril 16, 2003 12:25 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Dhamma friends How are you? The following is my response to those (like Jeff) who questioned if Theravaada Buddhism had contemplative practice. _________ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ Jeff asked: "What is the record of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism? I believe most of the Western participants in the study and practice of vipassana and Theravadan Buddhism assume, like I do, that there is a long history of contemplative practice in that tradition. But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" Before I answer your questions, please allow me to touch on the nature of Theravaada Tradition itself. Theravaada Tradition is solidly based on Pariyatti, Pa.tipatti, and Pa.tiveda. Pariyatti is the obligation of preserving the Buddha's teachings and their commentaries, namely Pali Tipi.taka literature. Pa.tipatti covers direct behavioral change (Vinaya or Siila) and progressive mental cultivation (Bhaavanaa covering both Samatha and Vipassanaa). Buddha's Vinaya means the Awakeners' taming of the mind and bodily behavior (Ariyassa Vinaya). As Theravaada Sayadaws strictly adhere to the Buddha's teachings in Pali Tipi.taka, Pa.tipatti is entirely in line with Pariyatti. That is to say, Theravaada Sayadaws simply follow the standard instructions of the Buddha. And, they do not feel the need to innovate or modify the Buddha's teachings. Pali commentaries guide them to be on the path of the Buddha and ancient Arahants by preserving the oldest interpretations (Orthodox teachings) handed down since the Buddha's time. They prefer to keep the Buddha's and the arahants' teachings and practices pure and original. Pa.tiveda is the climax of following Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. If we learn the Buddha's instructions from Pali Tipi.taka (Pariyatti), and follow them exactly (Pa.tipatti), they will achieve the goal of awakening. Jeff asked the following questions, "But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" My answer is as follows. Theravaada Buddhism is the only unbroken, longest-lasting, most successful and purest ascetic tradition in the world due to their zealous collective preservation power of Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. There is no personality cult, no Patriarchs in Theravaada Buddhism like in other Buddhist traditions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or Zen. Each Theravada ascetic such as Sayadaw Yanatharo or Sayadaw Dhammarato is the direct delegate of the Gotama the Buddha as soon as his ordination has been accomplished. Their preceptors or Abbots do not stand between a Theravaada ascetic and the Buddha, the Founder of Theravaada Saasanaa, in terms of spiritual autonomy and authority. Therefore, if you are looking for biographies and commentaries to "support a long and productive history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism", you have to go and meet each Theravaada ascetic, which is impossible and unrealistic. My readings of Suttam Pi.taka convince me of the fact that practicing certain area of Vinaya such as Indriyasamvara Siila is the same as practicing Vipassanaa and Abhidhamma. In short, Three Buskets Of Teachings (Pali Tip.taka) have overlapping practices. So, if you asked me what is the evidence of contemplative practice in Theravaada Tradition, my advice would be "Go to the nearest Theravaada monastery and see a monk on your knees." He and other ascetics like him are the evidence going back to 600 BC. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 21302 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Howard, I'm not sure about some of the points you raised concerning differences between sutta and abhidhamma, so let's set that aside and focus on why is a complex a concept. It basically doesn't make sense to me to say one sound is a reality and two sounds is a concept. I think it would be a lot easier to limit the definition of concept to language. However, if you do take this wider view of concept, why not say one sound is also a concept, considering that one sound is complex in one way or another. Do we agree that emptiness is what we are looking for and both concept and reality (whatever it is) are empty of ultimate value, according to the Buddha? Maybe I went down the wrong path by saying concept is empty of reality. Even though this is true, the emptiness we are looking for is emptiness of self. Do you agree that "empty of self" equals "empty of itself"? Larry 21303 From: ilgu99 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:16pm Subject: If you are interested in Zen If you are interested in Zen: http://www.itsmysite.com/yourpage 21304 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:41pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar "Buddhism in Myanmar - A Short History" by Roger Bischoff, is a good read. Download from here: http://www.buddhanet.net/ftp03.htm 21305 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:02pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" Is a computer permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" wrote: > Victor > [snip] > > I am clear on what your question *is not*. But I'm not clear on what > it *is* ;-)). > > Mere words in total isolation have no particular meaning. > > Now let me ask you a question. Does a computer arise and fall away? > > Jon > > > P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer belongs > > to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I would > > like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. > > Thanks, Victor. 21306 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear, Your Highness, Officially Ordained Buddhist Monk, Venerable Yanatharo, I, for one, have never been terribly impressed by the posts of either Suan or Wee...not that anyone should really care one bit. But since you deem it necessary to cast 'votes', I thought I might as well also. Not a very Buddhist practice I must admit, but I hope that becomes apparent as well...maybe to everyone. Metta, James ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Suan, I may be a monk, but I always read your emails because I have > great respect for what you write. I have a lot to learnt and I always learnt > a lot from you. I do not know everything, as you know here in Canberra I do > the ceremonies for the Sri Lankans and Laotians, I have learnt all the > chantings and procedures, but I am still learning about the tipitaka and > the meanings of a lot of sutras. I find you a book of knowledge and Wee a > book in the way that the simple teachings of Buddha should be. With Metta > and respect. Venerable Yanatharo > > -----Mensaje original----- > De: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] > Enviado el: Miércoles, Abril 16, 2003 12:25 a.m. > Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Asunto: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar > > > > > Dear Dhamma friends > > > How are you? > > The following is my response to those (like Jeff) who questioned if > Theravaada Buddhism had contemplative practice. > > _________ _ _ _ _ _ ___ ___ ____ > > > Jeff asked: > > "What is the record of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism? > I believe most of the Western participants in the study and practice > of vipassana and Theravadan Buddhism assume, like I do, that there is > a long history of contemplative practice in that tradition. But, what > is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, history, > biography and commentary to support a long and productive history of > contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" > > Before I answer your questions, please allow me to touch on the > nature of Theravaada Tradition itself. > > Theravaada Tradition is solidly based on Pariyatti, Pa.tipatti, and > Pa.tiveda. > > Pariyatti is the obligation of preserving the Buddha's teachings and > their commentaries, namely Pali Tipi.taka literature. > > Pa.tipatti covers direct behavioral change (Vinaya or Siila) and > progressive mental cultivation (Bhaavanaa covering both Samatha and > Vipassanaa). > > Buddha's Vinaya means the Awakeners' taming of the mind and bodily > behavior (Ariyassa Vinaya). > > As Theravaada Sayadaws strictly adhere to the Buddha's teachings in > Pali Tipi.taka, Pa.tipatti is entirely in line with Pariyatti. That > is to say, Theravaada Sayadaws simply follow the standard > instructions of the Buddha. > > And, they do not feel the need to innovate or modify the Buddha's > teachings. Pali commentaries guide them to be on the path of the > Buddha and ancient Arahants by preserving the oldest interpretations > (Orthodox teachings) handed down since the Buddha's time. They prefer > to keep the Buddha's and the arahants' teachings and practices pure > and original. > > Pa.tiveda is the climax of following Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. If we > learn the Buddha's instructions from Pali Tipi.taka (Pariyatti), and > follow them exactly (Pa.tipatti), they will achieve the goal of > awakening. > > Jeff asked the following questions, > > "But, what is the evidence? Is there a record of dialog, innovation, > history, biography and commentary to support a long and productive > history of contemplative practice in Theravadan Buddhism?" > > My answer is as follows. > > Theravaada Buddhism is the only unbroken, longest-lasting, most > successful and purest ascetic tradition in the world due to their > zealous collective preservation power of Pariyatti and Pa.tipatti. > > There is no personality cult, no Patriarchs in Theravaada Buddhism > like in other Buddhist traditions such as Mahayana or Tibetan or Zen. > > Each Theravada ascetic such as Sayadaw Yanatharo or Sayadaw > Dhammarato is the direct delegate of the Gotama the Buddha as soon as > his ordination has been accomplished. Their preceptors or Abbots do > not stand between a Theravaada ascetic and the Buddha, the Founder of > Theravaada Saasanaa, in terms of spiritual autonomy and authority. > > Therefore, if you are looking for biographies and commentaries > to "support a long and productive history of contemplative practice > in Theravadan Buddhism", you have to go and meet each Theravaada > ascetic, which is impossible and unrealistic. > > My readings of Suttam Pi.taka convince me of the fact that practicing > certain area of Vinaya such as Indriyasamvara Siila is the same as > practicing Vipassanaa and Abhidhamma. In short, Three Buskets Of > Teachings (Pali Tip.taka) have overlapping practices. > > So, if you asked me what is the evidence of contemplative practice in > Theravaada Tradition, my advice would be "Go to the nearest > Theravaada monastery and see a monk on your knees." He and other > ascetics like him are the evidence going back to 600 BC. > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org 21307 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > The question is "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? I'm not sure what you mean. Does a computer arise and fall away? Jon > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "jonoabb" > wrote: > > Victor > > > [snip] > > > > I am clear on what your question *is not*. But I'm not clear on > what > > it *is* ;-)). > > > > Mere words in total isolation have no particular meaning. > > > > Now let me ask you a question. Does a computer arise and fall > away? > > > > Jon > > > > > P.S. I appreciate your long reply. Regarding the computer > belongs > > > to one of the five aggregates, I would reply separately. I > would > > > like to keep that discussion separate from this one. Thanks. > > > > Thanks, Victor. 21308 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, Victor and all, Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer conditioned?" smallchap 21309 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Dave, Thank you very much, Nina. op 15-04-2003 16:15 schreef dwlemen op dwlemen@y...: > > Here's a snippet from one site: > > On the other hand Kamma and Vipàka > are regarded as Hetu-Phala (cause and effect). 21310 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation, attending on the sick. 1 Dear Azita, op 15-04-2003 14:35 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: >> dear Nina, > I also find this moving. I had not heard it > before. > As a nurse working in a hospital, I have daily > reminders of illness [cannot add old age here bec. I > work with kids] and it really can be a condition for > me to reflect on death. N: The Pali teacher who gave me the texts (and also Frank and Mike gave them to me) five things to be remembered, stressed: remember ageing, and he said you not only need them for the sick person you want to help, also for yourself. We have to remember that we are ageing each moment. A: I am quite > fortunate to have the profession of nursing. It feels > kind of 'right' to attend to an ill person's needs. > These daily reminders cause me to contemplate > my own death N: thank you for your reminders and good wishes, especially courage and good cheer, Nina. 21311 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To James: In a message dated 4/13/03 9:32:31 PM, buddhatrue@y... writes: << If you don't want to think one way or the other about having a soul, and consider such thought `mental mas…….' (I am not going to repeat it because children do read these posts), okay, then don't. However, I believe it is important to be mindful that we don't have a `soul' because it keeps us mindful of anatta (non-self). When you start to identify with things about you being `you' (like appearance, race, sex, possessions, personal history, etc.), you can always remind yourself, "Hey, I don't have a soul. Those things aren't me! These things I think are me don't last at all! The lights are on but there is no one home! ;-)" It also allows you to take yourself less seriously and to approach life with an easy, relaxed attitude. It also allows you to take risks and to not see every setback as the end of the world or every accomplishment like money that needs to be hoarded. It is very liberating to remind ourselves that we don't have a soul; at least I think so. As far as the popularity or non- popularity of Buddhism because of this teaching, that is the thing I really don't care one iota about. The majority of public opinion doesn't define what is truth and what isn't. Okay, I am off my soapbox now! ;-) Take care. Metta, James >> Jeff: Thank-you for your kind reply about soul, and while we are at it a God head as well. Since they kind of go along together. I often think that the deb ate is almost irrelevant, because what we believe with our mind (thoughts) is no doubt nothing like reality anyway. At times I have sat in meditation and found myself as a galaxy of stars. As though my body was just all points of light. And each point of light an individual being, and each being resonating the most beautiful music of love. When I have that lucid experience, I have to ask myself, who are those beings if they aren't souls, and what was that being that contained them all if it wasn't "God?" Thank-you for your kind discussions. Best to you, layman Jeff 21312 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To: KKT, DAVE & Sarah In a message dated 4/13/03 6:13:55 PM, phamdluan@a... writes: <> You can have OOB experience by your own will or it just << happens >> ? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you KKT for your interesting questions. If you don't mind I will answer both of your excellent questions at the same time, because I think they are intimately related. Your friend's experience tends to violate the model of my experience, which basically has always taken place, as I have said, with total lucidity. By this I mean with equal or greater lucidity than the waking moment, and with no awareness of the physical body what so ever. So, I would wonder how one could maintain one's body in an erect sitting posture without any awareness of it. But, I am also aware of extending one's domain of awareness to other physical and spiritual domains, which can be quite lucid, while still maintaining a partial awareness of the physical. There may not be much difference here, but the so called out-of-body experience is much more dramatic, due to its seamless lucidity. With respect to contextualize your friend's experience. I've spoken to a number of people over the years who have reported to me out-of-body experiences and lucid dreams. While some people hold an orthodox definition for the experience, which state that it isn't an out-of-body experience if you don't experience lifting out of the body and flying across the landscape, my experience is, not everyone has all of the lucid details of lift off, and transport. Who needs liftoff, if you can just transport your "self" to another time/space domain without the necessity of covering the intervening space and time? Yes, my out-of-body experiences have both been volitional as well as spontaneous. I would say most of them have been spontaneous though, meaning they occur without me dictating that they occur. Originally I had no volition, because I had no control over the experience, then after under going the training I mentioned earlier, I gained full and willful control over the experience, thus I could make them happen at will, and direct myself where ever I wanted to go. I have found the spontaneous experiences are usually far more interesting, because I tend to go to space/time domains I don't know existed, and they are a whole lot more interesting than space/time domains I tend to have a reference for. When I engaged in out-of-body travel intentionally I found that the experience required deeply relaxing the body to the point that there was no muscle tone in any muscle group, which didn't seem quite possible in sitting posture, which requires holding he head and torso erect, etc. Now days, as I have said, my sleep domain is lucid, I don't typically have the experience of lifting out of the body and traveling across the landscape, as I used to. I do still have the experience of the body entering deep restful sleep, even to the point of hearing myself snore, then the brain functions switch from the cognitive to the subjective. At that moment there is a kind flash of blackness, when there is no sensory input or brain functioning, then I enter into a lucid domain of experience that is widely varied, but always lucid. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: subjective accounts wouldn't give any weight to the interpretation of the claim, but only the existence of the claim. I don't think anyone would dispute that people who claim to have had OOB experiences did, in fact, have some type of mental experience, but that does not mean it was really OOB. I am reminded of other "fantastic" events from other religions... like the many people who experience Stigmata. These people are even left with obvious scars. But, would you admit their own explaination (that Christ, the one son of the only God did this)? I'd assume you would not, but, rather, you would look for a more "common sense" approach. So, in the case of Stigmata, the current theory is a sort of self-mind over body. People under hypnosis can be led to believe that parts of them are "burning" and their skin will blister. It is documentable and repeatable in controlled settings. Isn't it "Occam's Razor" that sort of says that we should look for the most simple explaination? I guess I'm trying to say that we should not "assume there may be some validity to the phenomena" %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, Dave, interesting point, but then you are on a group that discusses Dhamma, so presumably you are at least in dialog with people who accept the concept of enlightenment without question. So, what is the difference in accepting Stigmata or OOB experiences, and enlightenment? Or, are you so fixed in your belief in Buddhism that you will not accept that other cultures and religions may also have a tradition of gnosis, and have their own way of articulating it, as well as some slightly different manifestations than Buddhism? I personally can accept the concept of Stigmata, even though I have not myself seen it. There are enough reports of it, that I will accept that it is a distinct possibility, along with the idea of the Dark Night of the soul, and other possible manifestations of jhana. I do how ever reserve my belief of extraordinary claims such as parting the seas, walking on water, and raising the dead. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: Can you control when/where you go? It would seem like this would be extremely easy to validate. I, or any other skeptic of OOB, could leave something for you to fly to and see. I can put a note on my desk here at work and if you can report back what the note said, then I sure would believe your claims! If you cannot control where you go, then what models do you propose to validate? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Interesting proposal. I have long since lost interest in most willful acts including sending myself around the planet, and I would find looking at a note in a desk drawer to have so little interest, compared to a visit to the heavenly planes, that it would probably be something I could not even will myself to do. And, while I wish of course to contribute to the relief of suffering of others, I hardly see how proving to you, or anyone else that OOB experiences exist would relieve your suffering. Another problem with the note experiment is that it presupposes that the OOB experience is limited to the passage of time in the same way the physical body is. But, I have found it is not. One can travel as easily through time as through space. So, you might set up your experiment, but perhaps I might arrive at the location in a different time than when the note is. Also, you may not realize that the cognitive processes of thinking are completely suspended during an OOB, so what is going to read what note and remember what it says? Also, the person experiencing an OOB has no control over the physical universe, so opening a drawer would not be possible, while flying through the drawer is. Nor do they have eyes to see, although there is certainly a "seeing" component to the experience. I do recall reading many documents during OOB experiences. And, I recall during the experience being deeply impressed with what I read, but upon returning to the body, I could only report on the structure of the experience, not on the content. I could not recall what it was I read, what language it was in, nor could I redraw the script. In fact most often information is simply transmitted instantaneously during an OOB. One just knows a thing instantly all at once. But, I have a much better experiment to try. I could train you to fly. That way you could find out for yourself. But, I usually satisfy people's curiosity in a much simpler fashion. I have found almost everyone has reported at one time in their life of having a lucid dream. What I mean by a lucid dream is one that is at least as real as the waking state, if not hyper real, more real. So, chances are you have had one, perhaps as a child, or while ill. If you did, then you have proof enough already, I just have mine every night, not just when I'm sick. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: I believe I read somewhere that the jhana's aren't supposed to have physical manifestations associated with them. I'm sure some of the more well versed member can (and will!) correct me if I'm wrong here, but I thought I'd read that things like colors and lights are not part of it and are somehow misleading. Group? %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, that depends on your definition of jhana. My definition for jhana is pretty broad, so it includes any manifestation of the "paranormal." It has been my experience that people who have jhanas on a regular basis often have paranormal experiences of various kinds, for instance the OOB. Now in the narrower definition of jhana in that something happened while meditating, well, no there are lots of external manifestations, such as the bobbing of my head, which I reported here (I think) or the rocking back and forth of my t orso. I know a practitioner who's head oscillates very rapidly when she meditates. Not so coincidentally, we both have OOB experiences. Ringing in the ears is another manifestation of jhana. Kundalini and chakra awareness, in my experience, are also manifestations of jhana. If you want to know more about jhana, check the archive for the jhana Yahoo group at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% DAVE REPLY: I do hope you do not see my words as any type of criticism. I promise you they are not intended to be such. If they somehow do come across that way, I am truly sorry. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Not at all. I have nothing to hide. I am committed to the relief of suffering of all beings. And I am committed equally to the dispelling of ignorance. So, I will not hide any "secret" teaching. In fact I blieve secret teachings are now only a harm to the dhamma. I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily. Best to you, layman Jeff 21313 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: < snip > J: These 2 terms 'intrinsic nature' and 'individual essence' are both translations of the Pali term 'sabhava' (my apologies for causing confusion by using different translations for the same term!). As to the meaning of 'sabhava', to my understanding it refers to the unique characteristic pertaining to a dhamma. Not only do all dhammas share in common the characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta, but each dhamma also has its own individual characteristic by which it is distinguished (and distinguishable) from all other dhammas. The sabhava is capable of being experienced by panna. However, being with 'individual essence' does not imply being unconditioned. The 2 aspects are unrelated. Sound and visible object each have their own distinct characteristic, yet both are conditioned dhammas. KKT: So your definition of sabhava is << having its own individual, unique characteristic >> but not necessarily << unconditioned >> ? (and therefore not << independent, self-existing >>) And each paramattha dhamma has its own sabhava (intrinsic nature/individual essence) Is this correct? The reason I ask you is because this notion of sabhava (Sanskrit: svabhava = self-nature) is very important in Mahayana. But in Mahayana, svabhava means self-sufficient, independent existence & lasting substance. Therefore according to Mahayana, because the paramattha dhammas arise and fall away because of << conditions >>, thus they are not self-existing, independent, permanent. In other words, they are EMPTY or << devoid of self-nature (svabhava) >> This is the definition of Emptiness. Emptiness = empty of self-nature (svabhava) ----------------- J: At this moment of reading this message on 'a monitor', the reality is (among other things) moments of seeing consciousness experiencing visible object, followed by thinking/processing of the visible data that is experienced. There is no dhamma of 'monitor' there. If you reach out and touch the monitor, then there is the experience of tangible data to be thrown into the mix. But still no 'monitor' as such being experienced, only visible data and tangible data, accompanied by mental processing of that data. This is the 'reality/actuality' of the world as expounded by the Buddha. This is what needs to be known (the rest we can forget about!). KKT: If I understand you correctly then: __Now if you turn your back to the 'monitor', ie. there are no more visible data and tangible data to be experienced at your sense-doors, then you don't know whether those datas << still exist >> independently of you? (even if, for example, Sarah who sits next to you, continues to experience those datas) To sum up and make more clearly, I want to know whether the exterior world exists << independently >> of an observer/experiencer? But I think your answer is negative since you wrote: << As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that question would be of any value. >> I agree that the answer to such question should be purely speculative (only for the sake of speculative philosophic pleasures :-)) and useless for the practice. Thank you, Jon. Metta, KKT 21314 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: Dear Jon, Victor and all, Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer conditioned?" smallchap KKT: My question is: Is computer computer? (ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) KKT 21315 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:09pm Subject: Re: Dreams Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: < snip > Yes, my out-of-body experiences have both been volitional as well as spontaneous. I would say most of them have been spontaneous though, meaning they occur without me dictating that they occur. Originally I had no volition, because I had no control over the experience, then after under going the training I mentioned earlier, I gained full and willful control over the experience, thus I could make them happen at will, and direct myself where ever I wanted to go. KKT: Another question (hope you don't mind :-)) When you are out of your body, do you << see >> your body, for example lying in bed ? Thank you, Jeff. Peace, KKT 21316 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 9:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar My Dear James, so nice to hear from you I was thinking you are already in Egypt. Sorry I forgot to mention you nam as the people who I have respect for their knowledge of the dhamma. As you know many times I have always come in your support. I am not taking votes, I was just making a remark that what Suan, Wee and you are always my favour in the way I think and interpret the dhamma. May you be well and happy/ Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: buddhatrue [mailto:buddhatrue@y...] Enviado el: Miércoles, Abril 16, 2003 01:17 p.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear, Your Highness, Officially Ordained Buddhist Monk, Venerable Yanatharo, I, for one, have never been terribly impressed by the posts of either Suan or Wee...not that anyone should really care one bit. But since you deem it necessary to cast 'votes', I thought I might as well also. Not a very Buddhist practice I must admit, but I hope that becomes apparent as well...maybe to everyone. Metta, James ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Suan, I may be a monk, but I always read your emails because I have > great respect for what you write. 21317 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry (& Howard). I’ve been following (mostly following I should say;-)) your discussion with Howard with interest. I don’t wish to interrupt but just to add an ‘aside’. --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, >Paramatta dhammas are basic elements of experience. > The only categories here are concept and experience. There is no > experience of a single element of experience because it takes two (citta > and object) to make an experience. The Buddha definitely considered the > khandhas to be experience and nowhere suggested that sound, for example, > was a kind of indivisible atom. ..... I think that your point is that no paramattha dhammas arise singly or in isolation but are always accompanied by other dhammas. So, for example, a citta (consciousness) is always accompanied by at least 7 cetasikas (mental factors), always has a nama or rupa as object and whenever a rupa arises, it is always in a kalapa(group) with many other rupas in support. ..... > There is no experience in concepts and no concepts in experience, only > seeming so. Compounding is not conceptualizing. It is the nature of > khandhas, even in the realm of no-thought. The seeming "life" of > thoughts and meaningfulness of experience is due to the compounding of > concept and experience. ..... I hope that what I wrote underlines what you mean by ‘compounding’ of paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities). I believe the confusion may be if after understanding this inter-relatedness of dhammas, one then has the idea that awareness of realities then means awareness of a ‘compound’ or group of phenomena appearing. On the contrary, sati (awareness) can only ever be aware of one reality (or one characteristic of a reality) at at a time. So it’s true, as you say, that when sound is experienced by hearing consciousness, at that instant the sound must be supported by at least 8 other rupas and there is also the hearing consciousness accompanied by 7 mental factors. However, if (in the javana impulsion process) the same sound is the object of awareness, only that characteristic of sound and no other rupas or namas is the object. At that moment, there are of course other mental factors accompanying the awareness and citta and all carrying out their kusala (wholesome) functions in this case. Not sure if this clarifies at all. I think they are important points and hope I understand you. Metta, Sarah ======= 21318 From: Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 5:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? To KKT: In a message dated 4/13/03 6:24:10 PM, phamdluan@a... writes: << Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. KKT: I don't think so, Jeff. To my knowledge, I've never heard of such story. Peace, KKT >> While I am by no means an expert on Japanese or Chinese Buddhism, and therefore I am not prepared to provide you with page numbers and references for my claim that there is ample history of Buddhists killing each other over doctrinal differences, I believe any history of Japanese Buddhism should be able to provide that kind of information. Buddhism in China, a Historical Survey, by Kenneth Ch'en, Princeton University Press, 1964 should have ample Chinese references. I am sure someone else here is far more qualified to discuse issues of history in Buddhism than myself. One could also reflect on the chronic insecurity represented by the Mahayana verses Hinayana debate that to this day punctuates almost every Mahayana text or discourse, while it doesn't represent violence, it most certainly does represent a conflict that at least the Mahayana tradition feels they must maintain to the this day. Please excuse the long delay in getting back with a reply to your excellent questions. I had a midterm in archeology that I had to study for. I took it this morning, so now I can engage in what I like most, which is stimulating dialog about gnosis and Buddhism. Best to you, Jeff 21319 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: < snip > I think that your point is that no paramattha dhammas arise singly or in isolation but are always accompanied by other dhammas. So, for example, a citta (consciousness) is always accompanied by at least 7 cetasikas (mental factors), always has a nama or rupa as object and whenever a rupa arises, it is always in a kalapa(group) with many other rupas in support. KKT: It seems that Abhidhamma accepts that citta, cetasikas could arise << simultaneously >> ? But Einstein postulates that: << There are not simultaneous events >> (but this proposition has not yet been proven :-)) The meaning is that for any two simultaneous events, we can always divide the time into smaller portions so that one event would happen before the other. Peace, KKT 21320 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Are there any teachings about anti-war? Dear Jeff, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, macdocaz1@a... wrote: Actually there is a long history of Chinese and Japanese Buddhists killing each other over doctrine. KKT: I don't think so, Jeff. To my knowledge, I've never heard of such story. >> While I am by no means an expert on Japanese or Chinese Buddhism, and therefore I am not prepared to provide you with page numbers and references for my claim that there is ample history of Buddhists killing each other over doctrinal differences, I believe any history of Japanese Buddhism should be able to provide that kind of information. Buddhism in China, a Historical Survey, by Kenneth Ch'en, Princeton University Press, 1964 should have ample Chinese references. I am sure someone else here is far more qualified to discuse issues of history in Buddhism than myself. One could also reflect on the chronic insecurity represented by the Mahayana verses Hinayana debate that to this day punctuates almost every Mahayana text or discourse, while it doesn't represent violence, it most certainly does represent a conflict that at least the Mahayana tradition feels they must maintain to the this day. KKT: There were actually passionate debates between Mahayanists and Hinayanists but I can assure you not to the point of killing each other over the doctrine. The Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang (7th century) found that many Buddhist monks of different schools (Mahayana, Hinayana, Tantrayana) lived together in the same monateries in India. Buddhism is a peaceful religion. Peace, KKT 21321 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear all, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" > wrote: > > > Dear Jon, Victor and all, > > Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer > conditioned?" > > smallchap > > > > > KKT: My question is: > > Is computer computer? > > (ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) > > > KKT I suppose your question is directed at me. This is a tough one. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at it. Is computer computer? From a puthujjana's point of view, yes, if it works as I intended it to. No, if it is otherwise. smallchap ps. 21322 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear KKT, Firstly, I’ve been most impressed by your careful consideration of the Theravada teachings and Abhidhamma here, even though I know you are well-versed in other traditions. I think it’s a good example of what Nina was referring to as listening to the message before shooting down the messenger;-) --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > KKT: It seems that Abhidhamma > accepts that citta, cetasikas > could arise << simultaneously >> ? ..... Yes, one citta only at a time with many cetasikas (at least 7 ‘universal’ cetasikeas arising simultaneously. ..... > > > But Einstein postulates that: > > << There are not simultaneous events >> ..... Any ‘event’, simultaneous or otherwise is a concept and I understand the term as we use it to represent a multitude of underlying dhammas. For example, the act of walking might be considered as an ‘event’. Cittas and cetasikas are not ‘events’. ..... > (but this proposition has not yet been proven :-)) > > The meaning is that for any two simultaneous events, > we can always divide the time into smaller portions > so that one event would happen before the other. ..... I’ll try not to be led astray by definitions of concepts;-) If there were only cittas (consciousness) arising without any cetasikas (mental factors) accompanying them, what would distinguish one citta, say a kusala (wholesome) citta from an akusala (unwholesome) citta? If there were no feelings accompanying cittas, would there be any attachment or aversion to those same cittas and so on? If there were periods with no consciousness, would it be possible for life to continue or experiences to be accumulated? If jivitindriya cetasika (life-faculty) did not arise with each citta, how would the life of cittas and cetasikas be maintained? If phassa cetasika (contact) did not accompany every citta, how could objects be ‘touched’ or experienced? We can ask lots more questions to see whether what we read is correct and makes sense according to what is taught and experience as well. Greatly appreciating the points you are raising with Jon as well. I understand ‘sabhava’ is a big issue for those from a Mahayana background. I think you’ll find it helpful to look under this the same topic name in U.P.as quite a lot was written on it before as well. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Metta, Sarah ====== 21323 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear smallchap, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: > KKT: My question is: > > Is computer computer? > > (ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) > I suppose your question is directed at me. This is a tough one. Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at it. Is computer computer? From a puthujjana's point of view, yes, if it works as I intended it to. No, if it is otherwise. smallchap KKT: My question is just a Zen joke :-)) If a Zen master asks you: __What is computer? And if your answer is: __A computer is impermanent, compounded, arises and falls away or whatever, etc. Then for sure you will receive 30 blows :-)) Why? Because your answer is the proof that your mind was wandering in unnecessary concepts. And Zen is to << see things as they actually are >> ie. as is, suchness, thusness :-)) Peace, KKT 21324 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 0:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Change Hi Christine (& Victor), Let me follow Victor’s lead and ask you some more questions;-) ..... --- christine_forsyth wrote: > But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist > perspective, everything changes all the time, ..... What is ‘everything’? >why is it that we only > see change in 'fits and starts'? ..... Do we (or panna) even see this ‘everything’ changing in ‘fits and starts’? ..... >Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that > change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to > everything? .... If so, what is the ‘first step’? ..... >Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? ..... What evidence is there that they do or don’t? ..... >Shouldn't > change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in > infrequent but sudden visible shifts? ..... Given the nature of moha (ignorance), why should anything be noticeable, smoothly or otherwise??? ..... >I'm not sure this should > matter, but somehow it does. ..... Would you kindly try to explain why. Oh, I think I must really be joining the Victor cult....;-( (just kidding, Victor) Metta, Sarah P.S. I can’t resist adding two quotes:- 1.From the latest Perfections instalment: “At this moment realities are arising and falling away, they are not a being, not a person, not self. However, we are not able to see the arising and falling away of realities because of our many defilements and because of ignorance that hides the truth.” 2.From comy to Satipatthana Sutta as quoted before by RobertK: “Gacchanto va gacchamiti pajanati = "When he is going (a bhikkhu) understands: 'I am going.'" In this matter of going, readily do dogs, jackals and the like, know when they move on that they are moving. But this instruction on the modes of deportment was not given concerning similar awareness, because awareness of that sort belonging to animals does not shed the belief in a living being, does not knock out the percept of a soul, and neither becomes a subject of meditation nor the development of the Arousing of Mindfulness.” *********** 21325 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 0:24am Subject: Reminder Hi All, Just a couple of reminders. Trimming When replying to another member’s post, please remember to delete any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. This applies to any part of the other post that appears *before* your own message, as well as to the part appearing after your message. Salutation etc Please use a salutation at the beginning of each post, and sign off the end (preferably with a real name). Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS As usual, any comments or questions on this reminder should be sent to us off-list only. Thanks. 21326 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Hi Dave & All. Firstly I appreciate comments on other threads which seem very sensible to me. Here’s one example: “subjective accounts wouldn’t give any weight to the interpretation of the claim, but only the existence of the claim....” Back to this thread and I think what you posted was very helpful, not because I think the content is correct, but in order to understand what people may understand by the terms. I’ll be very glad to see any further web searching you do and I’m sure Christine will be glad to have someone else sharing links as well;-) A few comments in context below: “--- dwlemen wrote: > Hi all! > Here's a snippet from one site: > > "One of the most important teachings of the Buddha is Kamma and > Vipàka (cause and effect). According to the four Noble Truths, what > is Kamma? Kamma is the cause of suffering or craving. ..... This is a little unclear, I think. Craving or attachment (tanha) is the cause of suffering. Kamma arises on account of attachment and the other defilements. ..... >Vipàka is > Dukkha or the truth of suffering. ..... All realities or paramattha dhammas are suffereing on account of being impermanent, not just vipaka which is very specific and refers to some particular kinds of consciousness only. ..... >On the other hand Kamma and Vipàka > are regarded as Hetu-Phala (cause and effect). Hetu (cause) is the > second Noble Truth. Phala is the First Noble Truth. ..... I think this is very misleading. Kamma is not hetu or any Noble Truth, although one of the six roots is lobha. In fact kamma (cetana cetasika) is a different condition or ‘cause’ from hetu. Phala citta (fruition consciousness) refers to the result of magga citta (path consciousness) which experiences nibbana. It is not the First Noble Truth. These terms are all very specific. Nina’s book, Abhidhamma in Daily Life gives more details. Sometimes I can understand it when friends have reservations about using Pali terms because they tend to be used with very different interpretations. ..... >According to the > Paticca Samuppàda (Dependent origination) a human being is divided > into ten aspects; ignorance, formation, craving and so on. Five of > them from ignorance to action or becoming are regarded as Kamma or > Hetu (cause). The rest are regarded as Vipàka or Phala (effect). In > one sense Vipàka means rebirth." (taken from: > http://www.metta.lk/english/buddhist-points.htm) ..... I understand how the writer draws his conclusions, but I think they are quite inaccurate and best ignored, though I’m happy to discuss further. ..... > Anyway, I hope that helps you all out! ..... I had never seen hetu and phala used in these ways or these particular ideas. It helps a lot to understand the questions raised in another post to Nina and any possible confusion. These are often intricate and complex points so I think it helps to check the texts carefully. I know I make many mistakes as well if I don’t do this or if I rush. Look forward to more of your practical suggestions, good questions and links. Metta, Sarah ======= 21327 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Buddha's Omniscience, 2 Dear Nina (& Ven. Dhammapiyo), --- nina van gorkom wrote:> N: The citta that knows an object falls away immediately, and so it is > with > the Buddha's citta with omniscience. He directed his omniscience then to > this and then to that object, not to more than one object at a time. > Each > citta can know only one object at a time. ..... Your two posts on the omniscience of the Buddha are very useful and full of helpful quotes. The question of the Buddha’s omniscience comes up frequently, so it’s great to have the sutta, abhidhamma and commentary references together, all in support of each other. K.Sujin said to me sth like: “Khun Sarah, we can never over-estimate the knowledge of the Buddha. Whatever he wished to know, he knew..” This came up after a discussion with Rob M in Hong Kong when I doubted (wrongly) whether he could have known precise details about future events like 9/11. As you quoted from Patism: “All that is past it knows, thus it is omniscinet knowledge: it is without obstruction there, thus it is unobstructed knowledge. All that is future it knows... All that is presently-arisen it knows....” ***** I also liked the reference to our new comy to Abhid.Sangaha and all the other quotes too. Thank you. Understanding or rather reflecting more on the Buddha’s omniscience is a condition (for me) for more moments of samatha (calm) even now as I write and reflect on the Buddha’s panna. Of course, as usual there are bound to be many moments of attachment and other kilesa in between as well - even mana as Azita said. ..... In your other post (to me) about your father, I also liked Lodevik’s way of explaining to your father about ‘leaving things to nature’. We have to know what is appropriate to say and I really appreciate L’s patience in this regard. Please let us know what else he says of comfort and support. Your father is very fortunate not to have pain. It just comes back to the kilesa and being ensnared by the wordly conditions regardless of whether there is any akusala vipaka at the time so often. I liked the quote about ‘worries’ as well. When we’re lost in the stories of SARS or your father or the War, the worries seem so ‘justified’ but as you say, they are so useless and a moment of awareness of a nama or rupas is far more precious than all the thinking about the stories without any awareness. I’m sure your father will also be glad to see (and hear you!) happy and laughing again too. I’m sure every parent wishes to see his or her children happy;-) Many thanks again for the wonderful posts on the Buddha’s omniscience. Metta, Sarah ======= 21328 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Hi Paul, Like Christine, I was glad to see you posting again after a long break. I suppose we’ll have to wait quite a while now for RobM to visit Hong Kong and deliver the Chinese text of Abh Sangaha to you;-( I’d be glad to hear how your reflections on the Buddha’s Teachings help you in your work and home life during this difficult time we’re all having here. Perhaps you can give me some inspiration. My students are coming back to study with me next week (if their parents allow it) and it’s like preparing for war with masks, surgical gloves, disinfectant, extra cleaning, distances between students and myself, hand-washing lessons and so on;-) ..... Back to the dhamma: --- ajahn_paul wrote: > May be i have been using the wrong word. i just cant figure out the > word in english. > > after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that >call? ..... As I understand, Paul, there’s no ‘gap’. How could there be? Just like now, one citta (consciousness) arises after another. The last consciousness of this life is followed by the first consciousness of the next life. This, I understand, is according to the Pali texts. I thought your comments on ‘Dreams’ were helpful too. As you said, the body and mind can be trained. I think the question always is whether the training is wholesome or unwholesome. We have to be very clear about the purpose and know the citta (consciousness) to understand whether it is concerned with sila, dana or bhavana as taught by the Buddha. You also mentioned ‘Arahats cant control themselves in dreams’. As arahats don’t dream, as we understand, and as there is no self in any case to control, I think you make a very good comment;-) Hope to meet you again when Rob M next visits (who knows when???). Metta and hope you and your dear ones are doing OK, Sarah ====== 21329 From: ajahn_paul Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:01am Subject: Re: Dreams --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Like Christine, I was glad to see you posting again after a long break. I > suppose we'll have to wait quite a while now for RobM to visit Hong Kong > and deliver the Chinese text of Abh Sangaha to you;-( actually, i come visit everyday,, but may not have time to read all the messages! ^_~ > > I'd be glad to hear how your reflections on the Buddha's Teachings help > you in your work and home life during this difficult time we're all having > here. Perhaps you can give me some inspiration. My students are coming > back to study with me next week (if their parents allow it) and it 's like > preparing for war with masks, surgical gloves, disinfectant, extra > cleaning, distances between students and myself, hand-washing lessons and > so on;-) > ..... from the data,,, it seems that adults r more easy to get sars than kids, i think this is a good news. but,,, u have to be more careful. if any kids' parents got sars,,, the kids might take them to school! > Back to the dhamma: > > --- ajahn_paul wrote: > May be i have been using > the wrong word. i just cant figure out the > > word in english. > > > > after ppl died and b4 they get in another life, whats that >call? > ..... > As I understand, Paul, there's no `gap? How could there be? Just like > now, one citta (consciousness) arises after another. The last > consciousness of this life is followed by the first consciousness of the > next life. This, I understand, is according to the Pali texts. > > I thought your comments on `Dreams?were helpful too. As you said, the > body and mind can be trained. I think the question always is whether the > training is wholesome or unwholesome. We have to be very clear about the > purpose and know the citta (consciousness) to understand whether it is > concerned with sila, dana or bhavana as taught by the Buddha. You also > mentioned `Arahats cant control themselves in dreams? As arahats don 't > dream, as we understand, and as there is no self in any case to control, I > think you make a very good comment;-) i'd read some books saying that arahats dreams, and differnt kinds of desire may raise in their dreams... also...mmm.... arahats will have sex dreams and will...COME! @.@ the books i read is some discussion on--- if arahats COME in dreams, r they breaking the sila! > Hope to meet you again when Rob M next visits (who knows when???). tell him not to come!!!! my mom came in march,, just went back to Canada on last sunday! ppl r scare to stay in Hong Kong. my boss' wife & daughter went to US yesterday, my other boss' wife and son moved to Yuen Long! > Metta and hope you and your dear ones are doing OK, wish u will be fine too! ^^ Paul 21330 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Change Hi Chris, Things change at a more or less continuous rate, I think. Noticing change occurs much more sporadically, I think. For what it's worth... mike ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Tuesday, April 15, 2003 10:34 AM Subject: [dsg] Change > Dear Group, > > I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling > stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, > not even for a week or two', she mourned. > This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist > enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist > perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only > see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that > change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to > everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't > change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in > infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should > matter, but somehow it does. > > metta, > Christine > 21331 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:45am Subject: pneumonia Hi James, You must know about the outbreak of pneumonia in Hong Kong. Would Buddhist go to the temple to pray to be blessed?Are there any teachings that calm people down when they panic about the pneumonia (well not necessary to calm down during the outbreak of pneumonia but any diffuclt or anxiouus times). Do the Buddhist have special types of funerals for the dead?Will their be pneumonia in the second life? Do you ever think about the pneumonia now when you meditate? I know these are really wierd questions but still I would love to find out the answers to them. Thanks! Metta, Hilary 21332 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires only a categorical answer. It is either that a computer is permanent or that a computer is impermanent. Is a computer permanent or impermanent? Regards, Victor P.S. Please don't think of it as a tricky or complicated question. It is not. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > [snip] > > I'm not sure what you mean. > > Does a computer arise and fall away? > > Jon [snip] 21333 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 2:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, KKT (and Sarah) - In a message dated 4/16/03 1:53:16 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > KKT: It seems that Abhidhamma > accepts that citta, cetasikas > could arise <>? > > > But Einstein postulates that: > > <> > > (but this proposition has not yet been proven :-)) > > The meaning is that for any two simultaneous events, > we can always divide the time into smaller portions > so that one event would happen before the other. > > > Peace, > > > KKT > ============================== If memory serves me correctly, I think that Einstein's non-simultaneity may have been relative to different observers. 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) 21334 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Smallchap, That would be a different question. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: > Dear Jon, Victor and all, > > Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer > conditioned?" > > smallchap 21335 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 6:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires > only > a categorical answer. It is either that a computer is permanent or > that a computer is impermanent. > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Regards, > Victor > > P.S. Please don't think of it as a tricky or complicated question. > It is not. Thanks for this further explanation. I am clear on the question now. If a categorical ('yes' or 'no') answer is required, then I believe the question to be misconceived. I would see this as being the same as your question in another post, namely, Is a concept permanent or impermanent? There is no such thing as a concept; by definition a concept 'isn't'. Since there is no concept in the first place, there's no question of it being said to be either conditioned or unconditioned, permanent or impermanent. The same answer applies as regards 'a computer' (a kind of concept). It cannot be said to be either permanent or impermanent. In fact, a concept (including the concept 'computer') can't be said to *be* anything. I hope this is clear ;-)) Jon PS Here again is my question to you: Does a computer arise and fall away? Looking forward with interest to your answer. 21336 From: nidive Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:15am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Do you see what is wrong with the statement "a book is not a book."? Do you see the difference between the statement "self is not-self" and the statement "self is not the self"? "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of fabrications is not-self. Self-identity view cannot arise when one sees through insight that "self" is merely a mental quality that arises and falls away. > Also, where did you get the idea that self falls under the aggregate > of fabrication?? "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood...From fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21337 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/16/03 9:29:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Jon, > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" requires only > a categorical answer. It is either that a computer is permanent or > that a computer is impermanent. > > Is a computer permanent or impermanent? > > Regards, > Victor > > P.S. Please don't think of it as a tricky or complicated question. > It is not. > ============================== Are you no longer an astronaut, Victor? (Either you are or you're not. A categorical answer is asked for .. nothing tricky. ;-)) A yes/no question which carries a (considered to be) false presupposition, cannot be truthfully answered either way by one who considers the presupposition to be false. This is the dilemma you present by formulating the question as you have. 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) 21338 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, A computer is impermanent. The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is not misconceived, nor is the answer "A computer is impermanent." In one of the post you said that concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). Now you are saying that there is no such thing as concept. Regards, Victor * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21179 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Thanks for this further explanation. I am clear on the question now. > > If a categorical ('yes' or 'no') answer is required, then I believe > the question to be misconceived. > > I would see this as being the same as your question in another post, > namely, Is a concept permanent or impermanent? > > There is no such thing as a concept; by definition a concept > 'isn't'. > > Since there is no concept in the first place, there's no question of > it being said to be either conditioned or unconditioned, permanent or > impermanent. > > The same answer applies as regards 'a computer' (a kind of concept). > It cannot be said to be either permanent or impermanent. > > In fact, a concept (including the concept 'computer') can't be said > to *be* anything. > > I hope this is clear ;-)) > > Jon > > PS Here again is my question to you: Does a computer arise and fall > away? Looking forward with interest to your answer. 21339 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:35am Subject: Suggestions on buying a Buddha Everyone, I have a quick question. I was thinking of buying a small Buddha statue to display at the house. A Google search turns up a great many places offering what seems to be very overpriced items. So, I was curious if any of you had any recomendations. I'm most interested in the "Thai" styles (as opposed to the Chinese or Japanese styles). Thanks in advance! Peace, Dave 21340 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 8:06am Subject: Re: Dreams Jeff, see below... > > Jeff: > Well, Dave, interesting point, but then you are on a group that discusses > Dhamma, so presumably you are at least in dialog with people who accept the > concept of enlightenment without question. So, what is the difference in > accepting Stigmata or OOB experiences, and enlightenment? Or, are you so > fixed in your belief in Buddhism that you will not accept that other cultures > and religions may also have a tradition of gnosis, and have their own way of > articulating it, as well as some slightly different manifestations than > Buddhism? > DAVE: Actually, one of the things I like about Buddhism is that the vast majority of it is either confirmable by science or at least not in opposition to science. The parts where I, at this point, perhaps diverge from others are in what I consider to be the embelishments (myths). So, are the 4 Noble Truths legitimate... I think so. Did the Buddha deal with temptation by some diety wanting to prevent enlightenment, I don't think so (since I don't currently accept the idea of divine realms for Mara(?) to be from). Anyway, I guess that, at least how I currently see Buddhism, and enlightenment, I don't see a need to "believe in" astral planes, gods, miracles, or any other paranormal thing. > I personally can accept the concept of Stigmata, even though I have not > myself seen it. There are enough reports of it, that I will accept that it > is a distinct possibility, along with the idea of the Dark Night of the soul, > and other possible manifestations of jhana. I do how ever reserve my belief > of extraordinary claims such as parting the seas, walking on water, and > raising the dead. > DAVE: The stated /visible effects of a Stigmata are not in dispute. The individual has physical scars that can be seen by anyone, even me! It is the cause of those scars. They state that they came from Jesus, the son of the only God. I say, just because they have scars, we should not accept that Jesus must therefore exist to do this. That was the point I was trying to make about OOB. I have no doubt that you have experiences. But, you are drawing a conclusion from them (OOB). And, my thought is that, rather than something "paranormal" we should first look at the "normal" which can include fantasy, dreams, hallucinations, etc. All of which can explain the experience in a more mundane way. Again, I'm just looking for the most simple explaination that describes the experience. > > But, I have a much better experiment to try. I could train you to fly. That > way you could find out for yourself. But, I usually satisfy people's > curiosity in a much simpler fashion. I have found almost everyone has > reported at one time in their life of having a lucid dream. What I mean by a > lucid dream is one that is at least as real as the waking state, if not hyper > real, more real. So, chances are you have had one, perhaps as a child, or > while ill. If you did, then you have proof enough already, I just have mine > every night, not just when I'm sick. > DAVE: Having a vivid or lucid dream would not be evidence of a paranormal event. Scientifically, my understanding of dreams is that they are random synapsis firing. The effect is that they cause the mind to "percieve" the 5 senses but in a non-sensical way. The mind then tries to patchwork these images into a context of some sort, as it does with the input it recieves in waking life. It is that context that it writes to memory as a "dream." They are more neurological flukes than anything else. I do hope that my most vivid dream from childhood was not in some way real... As a youth, I remember one dream. A nightmare where my family was staying at a hotel with a pool that had a Loche Ness Monster in it with the head of Kermit the Frog. Who, proceded to eat my brother, and the entire cast of the Dukes of Hazard (except for Daisy who I managed to recue!). That dream was powerful enough that now, some 25 years later, I can still see it plainly. Perhaps we can draw conclusions of my youthfull preference of Daisy over my brother, but I would hesitate to say I actually traveled there. Anyway, not to make light of your claims. I will just have to wait behind you until science can confirm the existence of paranormal events. And, just in case you do find your way to central Indiana, I'll leave the note on my desk! :-) > > Jeff: > Not at all. I have nothing to hide. I am committed to the relief of > suffering of all beings. And I am committed equally to the dispelling of > ignorance. So, I will not hide any "secret" teaching. In fact I blieve > secret teachings are now only a harm to the dhamma. > DAVE: Do you consider the effort you have put into OOB to be beneficial towards the relief of suffering? How did/does this effort help you towards enlightenment? > I hope I have answered your question satisfactorily. Best to you, > > layman Jeff You have. This is a very interesting conversation. I suspect that we will have to end it by agreeing to disagree about OOB, but, I at least am learning a lot about it from you and I do thank you for your time and patience in writing with me. Peace, Dave 21341 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 8:14am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent" does not have any false presupposition. The question you asked does. Regarding your question, I am not an astronaut, and I have never been one before. On the other hand, the categorical answer to the question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is: A computer is impermanent. The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is a straightforward question that requires only a categorical answer. The answer "A computer is impermanent" is a straightforward, categorical answer. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > Are you no longer an astronaut, Victor? (Either you are or you're not. > A categorical answer is asked for .. nothing tricky. ;-)) > A yes/no question which carries a (considered to be) false > presupposition, cannot be truthfully answered either way by one who considers > the presupposition to be false. This is the dilemma you present by > formulating the question as you have. > > With metta, > Howard 21342 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 8:51am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, I think you might want to reread and understand what you quoted. The view "Self is a mental quality that arises and falls away" is exactly the self-identity view that is untenable. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > Do you see what is wrong with the statement "a book is not a book."? > > Do you see the difference between the statement "self is not-self" and > the statement "self is not the self"? > > "If anyone were to say, 'The aggregate of fabrications is the self,' > that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of the aggregate > of fabrications are discerned. And when its arising & falling away > are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' > That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'The > aggregate of fabrications is the self.' So the aggregate of > fabrications is not-self. > > Self-identity view cannot arise when one sees through insight that > "self" is merely a mental quality that arises and falls away. > > > Also, where did you get the idea that self falls under the aggregate > > of fabrication?? > > "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... > assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. > > "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as > possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. > > "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... > > (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html > > > "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate > fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they > fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form > into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling > into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood...From > fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate > consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate > fabricated things, they are called fabrications. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21343 From: nidive Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:20am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > I think you might want to reread and understand what you quoted. > > The view "Self is a mental quality that arises and falls away" is > exactly the self-identity view that is untenable. Please understand the difference between the statement "self is a mental quality that arises and falls away" and the statement "my self arises and falls away". The former statement implies that there is no concrete entity called the self that exists. The latter statement implies the opposite; and that statement is untenable. Why? Because there is no self. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21344 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 9:52am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Where did you get the idea that there is no self? Please note that I am not discussing nor am I asking whether there is self or not. Regards, Victor P.S. The statement "A book is not a book" is a statement of contradiction. So is the statement "Self is not self." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > Please understand the difference between the statement "self is a > mental quality that arises and falls away" and the statement "my self > arises and falls away". > > The former statement implies that there is no concrete entity called > the self that exists. The latter statement implies the opposite; and > that statement is untenable. Why? Because there is no self. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21345 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/16/03 11:16:56 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent" does not have > any false presupposition. The question you asked does. > > Regarding your question, I am not an astronaut, and I have never > been one before. > > On the other hand, the categorical answer to the question "Is a > computer permanent or impermanent?" is: > > A computer is impermanent. > > The question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?" is a > straightforward question that requires only a categorical answer. > > The answer "A computer is impermanent" is a straightforward, > categorical answer. > > > Regards, > Victor > > ============================= In ordinary parlance, the question "Is a computer impermanent?" is truly answerable in the affirmative. The question is actually a shorthand for a far more complex set of statements and questions, and the shorthand sums up a multitude of experiences shared by many. But if the statement "A computer is impermanent" is taken literally, as most people do, it carries the presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers". Most people accept that presupposition as literally true. Jon and I do not. Thus the sentence "A computer is impermanent", when understood literally, is neither true nor false (for us), but meaningless, because of the buried false (as Jon and I evaluate it) presupposition. Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that computers exist, but literally it is false. I do not expect you to buy the falsehood of the literal existence of computers - I'm just trying to explain what is going on here with me and Jon on 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) 21346 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, Your example of different cetasikas arising when citta contacts rupa is different from what I had in mind but probably better. I was thinking, in experience, there is no rupa without consciousness so, at the very least, it takes two to make an experience. I believe Howard is saying any conglomeration of two or more of anything is a concept. Possibly this is because of the appearance of being a compact whole. [waiting to hear from Howard on this] It's very difficult to find a satisfactory answer here. I don't like anyone's position, even my own. Larry 21347 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, Well, perhaps you are trying to explain what is going on with you but not Jon. If he likes, Jon will speak for himself. Regards, Victor P.S. I see that the discussion is leaning toward talk on whether computers exist or not. I am not interested and would not engage in that kind of discussion. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > In ordinary parlance, the question "Is a computer impermanent?" is > truly answerable in the affirmative. The question is actually a shorthand for > a far more complex set of statements and questions, and the shorthand sums up > a multitude of experiences shared by many. But if the statement "A computer > is impermanent" is taken literally, as most people do, it carries the > presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called > "computers". Most people accept that presupposition as literally true. Jon > and I do not. Thus the sentence "A computer is impermanent", when understood > literally, is neither true nor false (for us), but meaningless, because of > the buried false (as Jon and I evaluate it) presupposition. Conventionally, > as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that computers exist, but > literally it is false. I do not expect you to buy the falsehood of the > literal existence of computers - I'm just trying to explain what is going on > here with me and Jon on this matter. > > With metta, > Howard 21348 From: nidive Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 5:42pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Where did you get the idea that there is no self? The understanding of not-self leads to the understanding of no self. But the Buddha did not say this outright for fear of (1) bewilderment and (2) annihilation view to arise in others. Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable Gotama, is there a self?" When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. "Then is there no self?" A second time, the Blessed One was silent. Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" "No, lord." "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used to have now not exist?'" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of a certain monk: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?" Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a senseless person -- immersed in ignorance, overcome with craving -- might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in this way: 'So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard to this & that topic here & there? What do you think -- Is form constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn109.html The fact that the Buddha employed the technique of counter-questioning the silly monk's thinking "what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self" implies that there is no self. It requires some intelligence to figure this out. The meaning is hidden. > P.S. The statement "A book is not a book" is a statement of > contradiction. So is the statement "Self is not self." The statement "self is not-self" is different from the statement "self is not self". Not-self is a term in itself. And self is a term in itself. In the latter statement, "self" implies a concrete entity called the "self" that exists. The term "self" is a noun. In the former statement, "not-self" is not a noun. It doesn't imply a concrete entity called the "self". It has no allusions to that. I think your difficulty in understanding this stems from the lack of knowledge that there is no self. The knowledge of not-self leads to the knowledge of no self. How can it be otherwise? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21349 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 1:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Change anicca To Christine In a message dated 4/15/03 10:37:07 AM, cforsyth@v... writes: << Dear Group, I was seeing a colleague today - she was unhappy and feeling stressed. 'Everything changes all the time, nothing stays the same, not even for a week or two', she mourned. This is an everyday view - no need for any special Buddhist enlightenment. But I wondered to myself - if, from a buddhist perspective, everything changes all the time, why is it that we only see change in 'fits and starts'? Doesn't the Abhidhamma teach that change is occuring in every infinitesimal part of a second to everything? Shouldn't all things change at a similar rate? Shouldn't change then be smoothly noticeable, rather than as it is, in infrequent but sudden visible shifts? I'm not sure this should matter, but somehow it does. metta, Christine >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Good question Christine, is this not anicca (impermanence)? Change is the very essence of our moment to moment experience. One of the things that might be worth looking at is anicca is a word often associated with the pleasant sensations of jhana. By allowing jhana to manifest we directly experience the pleasurable sensations of impermanence. Best to you, layman Jeff 21350 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dreams To Paul: In a message dated 4/16/03 4:04:35 AM, ajahn_paul@y... writes: << i'd read some books saying that arahats dreams, and differnt kinds of desire may raise in their dreams... also...mmm.... arahats will have sex dreams and will...COME! @.@ the books i read is some discussion on--- if arahats COME in dreams, r they breaking the sila! >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Sorry to pick up on this post, having a delicate nature, but it does cause me to ponder the question, since physical reality is often called an illusion, Marra (Maya), and dreaming is also and illusion, then what is the difference between keeping one's vows in the physical and not in the dream world? While in the case of an unenlightened monastic we would of course say he or she is trying, and if they fail, well they try again. But, in the case of an enlightened being, an Arhat, if he or she is enlightened, should this one be liberated from grasping in the dream world as well as the physical world? best to all layman Jeff 21351 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Sarah, op 16-04-2003 10:37 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: >> >> "One of the most important teachings of the Buddha is Kamma and >> Vipàka (cause and effect). According to the four Noble Truths, what >> is Kamma? Kamma is the cause of suffering or craving. > ..... > This is a little unclear, I think. Craving or attachment (tanha) is the > cause of suffering. Kamma arises on account of attachment and the other > defilements. N: When we look at the four analytical knowledges we see how complicated it all is, and depending on the aspect what is cause under one heading may be effect on another heading. See Budhist dictionary about this subject. Also: the Netti (Guide), at the beginning. I find this subject very difficult and I cannot go into it now. However, this does not mean that there are contradictions. When there are seemingly contradictions we should go more deeply into the material that is more complex than we thought at first sight. I had a lot of trouble with the Way: just before the repulsiveness, Way 74 at end: truth of suffering is mindfulness, truth of origination is precraving (we talked of that), which originates that mindfulness. I think Kom said something about this but I still find it difficult. Could Kom perhaps explain again? Also now, Way 76: It shows that there are many aspects. Nina. 21352 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams To Dave In a message dated 4/16/03 8:07:38 AM, dwlemen@y... writes: DAVE: Do you consider the effort you have put into OOB to be beneficial towards the relief of suffering? How did/does this effort help you towards enlightenment? &&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&& Jeff: I believe you have completely misunderstood my message. In fact I'm not sure if you read the original message I posted on this subject, but I will just clarify for you that I began to have these experiences when I was an adolescent in the late 60s and early 70s far before I had any idea that OOB experiences were possible. In fact I was quite sure I was going insane. I spoke to a few psychologists about my experiences and their assessment was the experiences were symptomatic of psychological problems that they were sure, through lots of medication and regular treatment, they could eradicate for me. When I began a daily meditation practice in 1973 the OOB experiences immediately became more frequent and more intense. It wasn't until an old lady (an old friend); who happened to be a crypto-Coptic mystic, gave me a context for the experiences and provided me with some training; that I gained control over the experiences. So, yes I think my experiences with OOB would be helpful to anyone in the dharma who, like me, began to have OOBs spontaneously some point in their meditation practice. While your humorous Donald Duck story was probably intended to trivialize this conversation, I have a perfectly functional model within which even the silly dreams of a child can conform to the OOB model, which is the central requisite of lucidity, which states: if the experience is lucid, then it falls into the necessary parameters of this inquiry. Just because your child's mind attempted to construct a rational for the experience by constructing cartoon characters out of all of the "characters" in your lucid dream, does not mean you did not have an OOB, which may have been an encounter with hungry ghosts. As for you assertion that dreams are only the subconscious mind trying to make sense out of randomly firing neurons, perhaps your dreams are just that. But, as you deepen your practice to the point that you maintain mindfulness even in deep sleep, I assure you, your dreams will stop being "random firing" of neurons. Best to you layman Jeff 21353 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Re: Fw: Hello!!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > wow, I really didn't know that there are so many > things behind the Buddhist religion. > Everything has a story or meaning. I really > appreciated the answers and I learned a lot. > > I am quite interested to know more. > Could, you please write some rules or details about > how the monks use the 'Alms Bowl' !! Hi Star Kid Anne-Catherine! You are very welcome for the answers and thank you for expressing your gratitude so nicely; you must be a very respectful and proper young lady, someone your parents must be proud of. Yes, there are a lot of things behind the Buddhist religion…a lot more than most think. You ask a lot of different questions about the Alms bowls and eating, and I am glad that you are so interested. Many people consider Buddhism a philosophy because they tend to forget that Buddhism requires people to `do' a lot of things, rather than just `think' a lot of things. Dietary rules, restrictions, and guidelines are, what I consider, the most forgotten and overlooked aspect of Buddhism, even by Buddhists; and yet it is one of the most important aspects of Buddhism. I am going to lump all of your questions about food together and just write some about Buddhism and eating. Buddhist monks have 227 different rules (precepts) that they must follow (Buddhist nuns have 250 precepts). Of those precepts, the majority of them concern food and eating! Why all the important emphasis on eating? Because it is through food, and how it is approached, that lays the groundwork for most of our thinking about the world and our ability to control desire. When people are able to eat whatever they want whenever they want, they usually make all the wrong choices. One place I really hate to go to is a grocery store in the USA! They are usually so flashy, overloaded with food choices, unnatural, and decadent that I feel like I have just walked into a Casino! The food in a grocery store isn't usually what is healthy for people, it is what appeals to their most basic desires and intensifies their instinctual fears. The end result is that most of the American population is overweight and suffering from various nutrition-based illnesses. The major thing is that Buddhist monks are supposed to eat only one meal a day…which is usually done before noon. This sounds brutal and difficult to most people, but it really isn't. I have done it for 10 days during meditation retreats and I actually like the practice. If the food during the one meal is nutritionally balanced and natural, that is all a person needs for the entire day…even if doing a lot of physical activity (I also help clean the temple everyday, for about two hours, during retreats...and one meal is enough and I don't get hungry). As far as the alms bowl, there are a few specific rules I can mention: Monks are to focus on the bowl itself while receiving food, and monks are not supposed to hide curry or other foods under rice so that they will receive more. And everything that the monks eat goes into the bowl, there are no compartments to keep food separated like we do on plates. That is because the food is supposed to be eaten to help the body live and that is it; it isn't supposed to be eaten for pleasure, taste, etc. Anne-Catherine, you ask some other questions in this letter, but I am going to answer them in an additional letter. I don't like my letters to be too long (Don't laugh! ;-). Let me end with some of the actual rules for monks while eating, so that you can get an idea of how important the act of eating is, and how we all should be more mindful of it: 27. I will receive almsfood appreciatively: a training to be observed. 28. I will receive almsfood with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed. 29. I will receive almsfood with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed. 30. I will receive almsfood level with the edge (of the bowl): a training to be observed. 31. I will eat almsfood appreciatively: a training to be observed. 32. I will eat almsfood with attention focused on the bowl: a training to be observed. 33. I will eat almsfood methodically: a training to be observed. 34. I will eat almsfood with bean curry in proper proportion: a training to be observed. 35. I will not eat almsfood taking mouthfuls from a heap: a training to be observed. 36. I will not hide bean curry and foods with rice out of a desire to get more: a training to be observed. 37. Not being ill, I will not eat rice or bean curry that I have requested for my own sake: a training to be observed. 38. I will not look at another's bowl intent on finding fault: a training to be observed. 39. I will not take an extra-large mouthful: a training to be observed. 40. I will make a rounded mouthful: a training to be observed. 41. I will not open the mouth when the mouthful has yet to be brought to it: a training to be observed. 42. I will not put the whole hand into the mouth while eating: a training to be observed. 43. I will not speak with the mouth full of food: a training to be observed. 44. I will not eat from lifted balls of food: a training to be observed. 45. I will not eat nibbling at mouthfuls of food: a training to be observed. 46. I will not eat stuffing out the cheeks: a training to be observed. 47. I will not eat shaking (food off) the hand: a training to be observed. 48. I will not eat scattering rice about: a training to be observed. 49. I will not eat sticking out the tongue: a training to be observed. 50. I will not eat smacking the lips: a training to be observed. 51. I will not eat making a slurping noise: a training to be observed. 52. I will not eat licking the hands: a training to be observed. 53. I will not eat licking the bowl: a training to be observed. 54. I will not eat licking the lips: a training to be observed. 55. I will not accept a water vessel with a hand soiled by food: a training to be observed. 56. I will not, in an inhabited area, throw away bowl-rinsing water that has grains of rice in it: a training to be observed. Metta, James Ps. No, it isn't really that hard to write poetry. If you were in my English class, I would teach you to write poetry with no problems at all ;-). 21354 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi, Larry - In a message dated 4/16/03 7:37:20 PM Eastern Daylight Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Sarah, > > Your example of different cetasikas arising when citta contacts rupa is > different from what I had in mind but probably better. I was thinking, > in experience, there is no rupa without consciousness so, at the very > least, it takes two to make an experience. I believe Howard is saying > any conglomeration of two or more of anything is a concept. Possibly > this is because of the appearance of being a compact whole. [waiting to > hear from Howard on this] It's very difficult to find a satisfactory > answer here. I don't like anyone's position, even my own. > > Larry > ============================= You're right! All positions are just opinions, and even when they are right, they're restrictions of the full story, and mere reflections of reality to begin with, not the thing itself. We really ought to give our own positions and postures and suppositions a rest, and just study what the Buddha said and follow his teachings as best we can, and maybe finally get to the point where we won't need positions, because we'll see directly exactly what is what! 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) 21355 From: Date: Wed Apr 16, 2003 7:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/16/03 8:16:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > Well, perhaps you are trying to explain what is going on with you > but not Jon. If he likes, Jon will speak for himself. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: If I have misrepresented Jon's position (due to my misunderstanding it, of course, and not intentionally), Jon certainly has my apology. It seemed to me that he and I were "on the same page" in this matter, but I could of course be mistaken. -------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > > P.S. I see that the discussion is leaning toward talk on whether > computers exist or not. I am not interested and would not engage in > that kind of discussion. > > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: As you wish, Victor. It seemed to me that that was the crux of the matter. But be that as it may, you are of course free to engage or not engage in a discussion of that or any other topic as you see fit. ========================= 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) 21356 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, Just to follow this a little further - --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, >I was thinking, > in experience, there is no rupa without consciousness so, at the very > least, it takes two to make an experience. I believe Howard is saying > any conglomeration of two or more of anything is a concept. ..... Absolute realities (paramattha dhammas) remain as such regardless of what other paramattha dhammas arise with them, experience them and so on. As you rightly say, rupa can only be experienced by consciousness. A concept (pannati)is not defined as a ‘conglomeration’ in this sense of two or more and I don’t think Howard suggested this (but I’ll leave him out of this in case I get into trouble as he just did with Victor;-)). A concept is that which is thought about or imagined either based on the actual or not. In other words, the rupa such as sound can be directly known even though it is always experienced as the object of a citta such as hearing consciousness and cetasikas. When the same sound is experienced repeatedly through the mind door, it is marked and embellished or proliferated about. In other words, it is a concept of ‘sound’ or ‘bird’ or ‘loud’ that is now the object. The experiencing of concept is not necessarily at all in words as I think you may have suggested. In one of your posts to Howard (21195) you made some good points and gave very useful quotes from Way. You said rightly I think: “The main point is that there is some kind of reaction to the object in 5 door process and the reaction is conditioned most immediately by accumulations....”. This is true even for a baby with no words. I liked the quote you gave very much which showed how there is no extreme lobha, dosa or moha with strong kammic results in the sense-door process on account of “the brevity of the same impulsion”, but these arise in the following mind-door processes. Still, the “impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition.” So the strongest kilesa arise with concepts as object. It helps to understand a little about processes, but understanding the difference between concepts and realities is, I think, even more important for the development of satipatthana. As you correctly summarised: “So the mind door process is the most immediate kamma producer and therefor the seat of self-view ....” >Possibly > this is because of the appearance of being a compact whole. [waiting to > hear from Howard on this] It's very difficult to find a satisfactory > answer here. I don't like anyone's position, even my own. ..... ;-) When there is “the appearance of being a compact whole”, we can be sure that there is no awareness or understanding but thinking of concepts again. If there is awareness of sound or hardness or other rupas, this doesn’t mean there is or should be no thinking of wholes such as computers and chariots. It just depends whether there is any wrong view at such moments of thinking or not. In a different thread to Nina, you mentioned that a king and his servant may experience similar kamma results (vipaka cittas) and I thought it was a good comment. The sound or visible object experienced by consciousness at this moment may be good or bad kamma results for either. It’s very helpful to appreciate, as you do, the distinction between kamma results and defilements (kilesa) arising on account of those experiences in the following mind-door processes in particular. Appreciating your reflections and Howard’s too. I think they're important points you are both addressing. Metta, Sarah ====== 21357 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dreams Hi Paul. --- ajahn_paul wrote: > actually, i come visit everyday,, but may not have time to read all > the messages! ^_~ ..... ^_~ In that case you may have skipped the quote I gave recently with reference to arahants not dreaming. I’ll requote the relevant few lines again below. ..... > i'd read some books saying that arahats dreams, and differnt kinds of > desire may raise in their dreams... also...mmm.... arahats will have > sex dreams and will...COME! @.@ the books i read is some discussion > on--- if arahats COME in dreams, r they breaking the sila! ..... @.@ I am really SURE you won’t find anything to support this is any of the Pali texts or commentaries so I’d take ‘some books’ with a pinch of salt. Others may have the same question, so let me try to add quotes from texts. This is from the extract I quoted the other day about the 4 kinds of dreams from an ancient Abhidhamma commentary. Sammohavinodani (dispeller of Delusion), comy to Vibhanga, PTS, 2051ff: ********** “BUT ONLY TRAINERS AND ORDINARY MEN SEE THESE FOUR KINDS OF DREAMS OWING TO NON-ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS. NON-TRAINERS DO NOT SEE THEM OWING TO THE ABANDONMENT OF THE PERVERSIONS.” ********** Non-trainers are arahants who have eradicated all defilements and abandoned all perversions. Therefore they don’t dream. Furthermore, in the Kathavatthu(Points of Controversy), which is another Abhidhamma text, various issues or controversies concerning arahants which arose after the Buddha passed away are raised. The first one relates to your question. The controverted point is “that an arahant has impure discharge”. The commentary to the Kathavatthu gives a clear summary and I’ll quote the first part here (ch 11,1): “Whether there can be impure discharge from an arahan? is asked by the Sakavadin concerning a notion now entertained by some, for instance, by the Pubbaseliyas and Aparaseliyas. these have noted seminal discharge among those who profess arahanship, in the belief that they have won that which is not won, or among those who profess arahanship, yet are over-confident and deceitful. And they wrongly attribute to devas of the Mara group the conveyance hereof, to such. The opponent affirms it. Now the question: “Has an arahan lust?” is asked, because seminal discharge is caused by lust, and its meaning is clear......” ****** And to read more, you’ll all have to buy or borrow these Abhidhamma texts ^_~ No attachment = No dreams and No ‘impure discharge’. Metta, Sarah ====== 21358 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:40am Subject: Re: FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > Your remarks are really good for everybody here, so I answer now on dsg. On > this forum we can also write very personal letters, we can share these with > others because it is about Dhamma. Are you from Sri Lanka? And whereabouts? > See below. > ---------- > Van: "yasalalaka" > Datum: Mon, 14 Apr 2003 18:54:22 -0000 > Aan: nilo@e... > Onderwerp: Abhidhamma and Meditation > > I presume this e-mail is being directed to Ms.Nina Van Gorkom. I > read with interest your letters and am reading the Abhidhamma in > Daily Life. You write on Nama-rupa and how to see it in meditation > to understand the ultimate reality and no-self. There is not much > problem in noting the nama and rupa in hearing , seeing,tasting, > smelling,feeling and thinking. Problem is doing actions... there is > the causal aspect along with the nama and rupa. When walking for > instance how should one note nama rupa, or when cutting, cooking etc. > > Nina: As Howard explained, all this is not a matter of taking the book in > hand and then pinpoint this is such, that is such. We should see the > Abhidhamma as a foundation knowledge and let it sink in. It helps you to see > that whatever happens in your life is only conditioned realities. You do not > have to try to catch realities. > I take a momentary approach to samatha and to vipassana. There is no need to > try to do anything, let cittas arise by conditions. Otherwise the idea of > self becomes so strong, but the aim is less clinging to self. > Samatha: this means a moment of kusala citta. Vipassana: this means > beginning to develop understanding of the present reality, whatever it may > be, as non-self. There is no rule that you have to do this first, then that, > just let it arise naturally. Then there is no obstacle, no idea of I have to > sit, or, I am distracted by daily activities. As you could read in my post > about attending to the sick, such activities do not distract. We can think > with confidence of the Buddha, a moment of samatha. Then sometimes, but not > often, we can remember that the Buddha's teaching is mindfulness and > developing understanding of the present reality, and that this is the > highest respect to him. There is sound, there is hardness, we do not have to > sit somewhere else to experience them. They can be objects of the > development of understanding. I say, development, because we should not > expect clear understanding yet of: hearing is nama, sound is rupa. > In theory we learn that nama experiences and that rupa does not experience > anything. It is an extremely slow process to learn their characteristics > when they appear in daily life, for example, when hearing now. This is not > just noting, it is understanding of those characteristics which develops, > not you who notices them. We cannot force the growth of understanding. We > should have confidence that listening to the Dhamma, intellectual > understanding of it, considering thoroughly what we heard are the conditions > for direct awareness and understanding. The Abhidhamma helps us to > understand that awareness and understanding arise when there are the > appropriate conditions, not because of "I" who try to have them. > I appreciate very much what the subcommentary to the Satipatthana sutta > states about four meditation subjects for every occasion: > the Buddha, loving-kindness, mindfulness of death, and meditation of > foulness.> > Don't we have many opportunities to recollect them in the midst of our > activities? > We have to know that we cling immediately to kusala citta, or to the > pleasant feeling that may accompany it. Without the Abhidhamma we would not > know this. > There are many citttas with attachment in a day. I was having some > correspondance with someone about lobha arising because of another person's > kind words, and I said we are such a mixture of kusala and akusala. But more > important than pointing out the lobha, attachment, is understanding that it > is conditioned. Otherwise we may try not to have it and in that way we are > deluding ourselves. We should not try not to laugh, being afraid of lobha, > because such trying is again motivated by lobha. Behaving in a unnatural > way, suppressing laughing (I could not anyway, I like laughing), is not the > Middle way and then we are on the wrong Path. > I cannot explain all in one mail, so, do not hesitate to bring up your > questions, > with appreciation, > Nina. Nina, It was indeed a great pleasure (a little attacment, perhaps) to read your reply to my querry. I am from Kandy in Sri Lanka and living in France for nearly forty years now. I meditated with, Godwin Samararatne and Ven. Amata Gavesi. I am now trying to make the best of my "after retirment" in the Dhamma. Your writing on the Abhidhama is really appreciated. As you had pointed out nama-rupa is a very beneficial way to be with the Dhamma in our daily life. This is also a vipassana experience in our daily living, as an extension of sitting meditation. In being aware of the arammana in a sedentary state, without the 'disturbance' of activities outside it, I find is very profitable. But watching or being aware of, conditional dependance in sitting meditation becomes complex. For instance when you hear( nama) a sound, you can merely be aware of it as a sound (rupa). There is nama and rupa, and that is it. But when you 'direct' the mind to listen to the sound (hetu), you hear(phala). If you get a smell, you be aware(nama) of it as a smell(rupa). If you do not rest at that, but wants to know what the semell is (hetu) you smell it (phala). In meditation, awareness does not go beyond the contact of the arammana. But in daily activity, differentiate nama and rupa from hetu -phala , becomes complex due to there being so many nama rupa playing their part in the same activity......... That is why I pose you that question for clarification. I understand that conditional dependance is a different aspect of the Buddhas teaching, some even say it is another name for the teachings of the Buddha, and different from the Abhidhamma-which is all about citta-cetasika. I hope that you would go into this aspect of the dhamma and write about the application of it in daily life. with metta, yasalalaka 21359 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 2:16am Subject: Re: FW: Abhidhamma and Meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" < I am from Kandy in Sri Lanka and living in > France for nearly forty years now. I meditated with, Godwin > Samararatne and Ven. Amata Gavesi. I understand that > conditional dependance is a different aspect of the Buddhas teaching, > some even say it is another name for the teachings of the Buddha, and > different from the Abhidhamma-which is all about citta-cetasika. > I hope that you would go into this aspect of the dhamma and write > about the application of it in daily life. > > with metta, > yasalalaka ________ Dear Yasalalaka, It is good to have another member from Sri lanka here, there are a few already. I knew Godwin and stayed at his lovely place above the tea plantation for 3 weeks in 1989. In the Vibhanga , the second book of the Abhidhamma, the Paticcasamuppada(dependent origniation) is given a large chapter. And in fact much of the Abhidhamma is about conditionality. Citta, cetasika and rupa are defined so that they can be seen and their conditional nature understood. It is a good topic, we can lean alot by discusiing this. RobertK 21360 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, No, whether computers exist or not was not the crux of the matter. In fact, whether things exist or not is not the crux of the Buddha's teaching. Talk on such topic springs from complication in thought and leads to complication in thought and speculative views. Regarding your previous message,* here is a list of assumption that you made. 1. Most people presuppose that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers". 2. The presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers" is false. 3. If the statement "A computer is impermanent" is taken literally, it carries the presupposition that there actually are entities "out there" called "computers". Those assumptions in and of themselves have nothing to do with the question "Is a computer permanent or impermanent?". Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is the following quote: Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that computers exist, but literally it is false. What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth and falsehood. Regards, Victor * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21345 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > If I have misrepresented Jon's position (due to my misunderstanding > it, of course, and not intentionally), Jon certainly has my apology. It > seemed to me that he and I were "on the same page" in this matter, but I > could of course be mistaken. [snip] > As you wish, Victor. It seemed to me that that was the crux of the > matter. But be that as it may, you are of course free to engage or not engage > in a discussion of that or any other topic as you see fit. > ========================= > With metta, > Howard 21361 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma > discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. I am interested in the quotes from the Vinaya Pitaka that says this. I can't seem to find it at AccessToInsight. Your help is appreciated. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21362 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:30am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, The discourses you quoted do not support the view that there is no self. Seeing each and every aggregate being not self does not lead to the view "there is no self." The view "there is no self" is a speculative view. Regards, Victor P.S. The statement "self is not-self" is a contradiction like the statement "self is not self". --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > Where did you get the idea that there is no self? > > The understanding of not-self leads to the understanding of no self. > > But the Buddha did not say this outright for fear of (1) bewilderment > and (2) annihilation view to arise in others. > > Then the wanderer Vacchagotta went to the Blessed One and, on > arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange > of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat down to one side. As he > was sitting there he asked the Blessed One: "Now then, Venerable > Gotama, is there a self?" > > When this was said, the Blessed One was silent. > > "Then is there no self?" > > A second time, the Blessed One was silent. > > Then Vacchagotta the wanderer got up from his seat and left. > > Then, not long after Vacchagotta the wanderer had left, Ven. Ananda > said to the Blessed One, "Why, lord, did the Blessed One not answer > when asked a question by Vacchagotta the wanderer?" > > "Ananda, if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is > a self -- were to answer that there is a self, that would be > conforming with those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of > eternalism [the view that there is an eternal, unchanging soul]. If > I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no self -- > were to answer that there is no self, that would be conforming with > those priests & contemplatives who are exponents of annihilationism > [the view that death is the annihilation of consciousness]. If I -- > being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is a self -- were > to answer that there is a self, would that be in keeping with the > arising of knowledge that all phenomena are not-self?" > > "No, lord." > > "And if I -- being asked by Vacchagotta the wanderer if there is no > self -- were to answer that there is no self, the bewildered > Vacchagotta would become even more bewildered: 'Does the self I used > to have now not exist?'" > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html > > > Now at that moment this line of thinking appeared in the awareness of > a certain monk: "So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, > perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is > not-self. Then what self will be touched by the actions done by what > is not-self?" > > Then the Blessed One, realizing with his awareness the line of > thinking in that monk's awareness, addressed the monks: "It's possible > that a senseless person -- immersed in ignorance, overcome with > craving -- might think that he could outsmart the Teacher's message in > this way: 'So -- form is not-self, feeling is not-self, perception is > not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. Then > what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' > Now, monks, haven't I trained you in counter-questioning with regard > to this & that topic here & there? What do you think -- Is form > constant or inconstant?" "Inconstant, lord." "And is that which is > inconstant easeful or stressful?" "Stressful, lord." "And is it > fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: > 'This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am'?" > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn109.html > > > The fact that the Buddha employed the technique of counter- questioning > the silly monk's thinking "what self will be touched by the actions > done by what is not-self" implies that there is no self. It requires > some intelligence to figure this out. The meaning is hidden. > > > > P.S. The statement "A book is not a book" is a statement of > > contradiction. So is the statement "Self is not self." > > The statement "self is not-self" is different from the statement "self > is not self". > > Not-self is a term in itself. And self is a term in itself. > > In the latter statement, "self" implies a concrete entity called the > "self" that exists. The term "self" is a noun. > > In the former statement, "not-self" is not a noun. It doesn't imply a > concrete entity called the "self". It has no allusions to that. > > I think your difficulty in understanding this stems from the lack of > knowledge that there is no self. > > The knowledge of not-self leads to the knowledge of no self. How can > it be otherwise? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21363 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:35am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > The discourses you quoted do not support the view that there is no > self. > > Seeing each and every aggregate being not self does not lead to the > view "there is no self." > > The view "there is no self" is a speculative view. So be it. I tried, and that's good enough. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21364 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:09am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Ok. That is fine. Not seeing the contradiction in the statement "Self is not-self" won't get anyone too far in rational reasoning, let alone clearly understanding the Buddha's teaching. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > So be it. I tried, and that's good enough. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21365 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:39am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Ok. That is fine. Not seeing the contradiction in the > statement "Self is not-self" won't get anyone too far in rational > reasoning, let alone clearly understanding the Buddha's teaching. I would not accept such an accusation. (a) (assumption of) self is a fabrication (b) fabrication arises and falls away (c) fabrication is not-self (d) (assumption of) self is not-self If the (assumption of) self is a fabrication, then it implies that there is no concrete entity called a self that exists. It is merely a mental fabrication. "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a fabrication. "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self as possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21366 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/17/03 10:31:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is > the following quote: ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry you feel disturbed, Victor. ----------------------------------------------------- > > > Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that > computers exist, but literally it is false. > > > What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be > determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" > and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth > and falsehood. > ====================== Manipulatively ;-), but 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) 21367 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, What you wrote is disturbing. Where did you get the idea that I feel disturbed? And, are you really sorry? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/17/03 10:31:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is > > the following quote: > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sorry you feel disturbed, Victor. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that > > computers exist, but literally it is false. > > > > > > What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be > > determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" > > and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth > > and falsehood. > > > ====================== > Manipulatively ;-), but with metta, > Howard 21368 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: productive and supporting kamma Dear Larry and all, As promised here are some texts about kamma: Summary of Topics of Abh and Commentary, Ch 5, Process Free, Commentary (p. 174, the new edition of Abhidhammata Sangaha and Co): N: You remember the Siivaka sutta and Co? We see the intricate manner of the working of different kammas and other conditions as well. Another text about kamma: seed and sprout, in Ch 8, Causal Condition (Dependent Origination), Commentary (p. 292): N: When we study the Dependent Origination, one of the factors is becoming, bhava. This has two aspects: as cause: kamma bhava, and as result: rebirth process, uppatti bhava. Here we return to Dave's question about hetu and phala. Again an example that there are two aspects, and it depends on what heading we consider them. Here is no contradiction. We have to consider deeply the Dependent Origination. It is not a theory but pertains to our life. Nina. Nina. 21369 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, truthfulness, no. 18 Perfections, Ch 8, truthfulness, no. 18 We read in the ³Basket of Conduct² III, 11, Conduct of Kanhadípåyana [13] : And again, when I was Kanhadípåyana [14] , a seer, I fared dissatisfied for more than fifty years. No one knew of this dissatisfied mind of mine for I told no one; the dissatisfaction went on in my mind. A fellow Brahma-farer, Mandavya, a friend of mine, a great seer, in connexion with a former deed, acquired impalement on a stake. I, after attending to him, restored him to health. Having asked permission I went back to what was my own hermitage. A brahman friend of mine, bringing his wife and little son- the three people, coming together, approached as guests. While I was exchanging greetings with them, seated in my own hermitage, the youth threw a ball along (and) angered a poisonous snake. Then that little boy, looking for the way by which the ball had gone, touched the head of the poisoned snake with his hand. At his touch, the snake, angered, relying on its strong venom, angry with utmost anger, instantly bit the youth. As he was bitten by the poisonous snake the youth fell to the ground, whereby afflicted was I; that sorrow (of the parents) worked on mine. Comforting them that were afflicted, shaken by grief, first of all I made the highest, supremely glorious asseveration of truth: ³For just seven days, I, with a mind of faith, desiring merit, fared the Brahma-faring. Until that time, my faring for more than fifty years I fared unwillingly. By this truth may there be well-being, the poison destroyed, may Yaññadatta live.² With this (asseveration of) truth made by me, the brahman youth who had trembled with the strength of poison, rousing himself, stood up and was well. There was no one equal to me in truth- this was my perfection of Truth. Footnotes: 13. See also Kanhadípåyana Jåtaka, no. 444. 14. Kanha means black. His body became stained when he sat under his friend Mandavya¹s body who was impaled on a stake and dripping with blood. 21370 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 0:43pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Please clarify what you wrote "(assumption of) self is a fabrication." Are you saying the the statement "self is a fabrication" is an assumption? Or, are you saying that the assumption of self is a fabrication? I am not quite sure what you are trying to say with "(assumption of) self is a fabrication." Thanks. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > I would not accept such an accusation. > > (a) (assumption of) self is a fabrication > (b) fabrication arises and falls away > (c) fabrication is not-self > (d) (assumption of) self is not-self > > If the (assumption of) self is a fabrication, then it implies that > there is no concrete entity called a self that exists. It is merely a > mental fabrication. > > "There is the case where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person... > assumes form (the body) to be the self. That assumption is a > fabrication. > > "Or he doesn't assume form to be the self, but he assumes the self > as possessing form... form as in the self... self as in form. > > "Now that assumption is a fabrication. ... > > (Similarly with feeling, perception, fabrications, & consciousness.) > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-081.html > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21371 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 1:46pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor, Sarah, Mike, Jeff and All, My thinking over impermanence, change (anicca) began when I was wondering about how all of us, blinded by Wrong View, could ever understand what Right View really is. I intellectually understand that Right View means to "see" things in their real nature as marked with the Three Characteristics of Suffering (dukkha or "unsatisfactoriness"), Impermanence and Not-Self; that all phenomenal existence without exception is intrinsically unsatisfactory in that there is no "thing" which can yield lasting happiness; that this is in large part because of the second characteristic - Impermanence. Everything which comes into existence passes away eventually; there is no stability or permanence anywhere to be found. Reading further on Impermanence, I came across Bhikkhu Bodhi's teaching on Anicca: "According to the Buddha all momentary happenings go through three stages, three submoments: a moment of arising, finally a moment of perishing, and between the two "a transformation of that which stands". This intermediate stage means that even in the brief moment that a thing exists it isn't static but changing, a process, a flux of becoming. The stable entities that we see are really bundles of events, "packages" of momentary flashings strung together by laws of conditionality. http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/threeStages.htm I feel a little uncomfortable with this 'flux of becoming' - ( :-) though I don't imagine Bhikku Bodhi would feel at all rattled by that remark :-)) 'Flux' means "The act of flowing; a continuous moving on or passing by, as a flowing stream; constant succession; change." This doesn't mirror what I experience as happening to everything in daily life. My experience is that change, though relentless, doesn't happen at a constant rate with all things. It is discontinuous. Sarah asked: Do we (or panna) even see this `everything' changing in `fits and starts'? CJF: No, I don't, always see the changing - I notice that 'how things are' has changed. But I don't think that is necessarily an indicator that there is continuous imperceptible changes occuring in every moment or sub-moment. I think everything is subject to change, and could change at any time, and must change sooner or later, yet also things endure for varying periods. At some times they change and at other times they don't. It seems to me somehow that the idea/belief of "continuous imperceptible changes" could be the result of people seeking a type of defense or barrier against sudden chaotic happenings, against dukkha. *Everything* changes *all the time* is predictable and comforting in some way. Could it be a search for a type of certainty? Variable unpredictable change is more frightening than the smooth certainty of flux. I am reminded of a common reaction in those facing unresolvable uncertainty - build barriers of mental and physical busy-ness - the 'workaholic' syndrome, "I'm busy and have goals to be met, reports to be written, meetings to attend - therefore I exist and I'm safe". Bhikkhu Bodhi says "according to the Buddha" - can someone point me to Suttas that teach a doctrine of constant flux? I've found a few that indicate while things arise and pass away, they also endure. metta, Christine 21372 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Victor - In a message dated 4/17/03 1:19:59 PM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > What you wrote is disturbing. Where did you get the idea that I > feel disturbed? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: 'Disturbing' means disturbing to someone. I'm not disturrbed by what I wrote. I presume that you were, or, if not, then you thought that someone is disturbed by it, or should be. ---------------------------------------------------- > > And, are you really sorry? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I am. I am really sorry that you wrote an "attack piece" to me, describing my ideas (ideas!) as disturbing, and, especially, suggesting an attempt at manipulation of truth on my part. I had written to you honestly, expressing my perspective, and you responded in what I consider to be an unkind way. But you caught me, Victor. You definitely caught me at being annoyed. I found your post to be unfriendly, as I also find the post of yours to which I'm currently replying. But I am happy for the opportunity to look at and let go of the anger arising in me. I see it clearly. Mild as it is, it is definitely a disturbance of the mind, definitely dukkha. I also know that you did not cause that anger. I can see its sources in myself, and I know that my anger is my problem, and not yours. By attending to the anger, and seeing how it is nothing but painful and useless, I am managing to let it go. (It is actually subsiding quite quickly! :-) --------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== With metta, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/17/03 10:31:51 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Besides the assumptions that you made, perhaps more disturbing is > > the following quote: > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Sorry you feel disturbed, Victor. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > Conventionally, as a shorthand, it is both meaningful and true that > > computers exist, but literally it is false. > > > > > > What is true and what is false? How is truth and falsehood to be > > determined and distinguished? The words "conventionally" > > and "literally" have become a convenient tool to manipulate truth > > and falsehood. > > > ====================== > Manipulatively ;-), but 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) 21373 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Way 77, Cemetary Contemplations Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section on the Nine Cemetery Contemplations After explaining body-contemplation in the form of the modes of materiality, the Master said, "And further," in order to explain body-contemplation through the nine cemetery contemplations. Uddhumatam = "Swollen". By reason of the swelled state of the corpse comparable to a pair of wind-filled bellows owing to the gradually uprising bloattedness after death. Vinilakam = "Blue" is stated to be the color of fully differing shades [viparibhinnavannam]. Blue is that corpse which is reddish in the protuberantly fleshy parts, and whitish in the purulent parts, while, in those parts which are predominantly blue it seems to be as though covered with a blue mantle. This is the descriptive statement of the "blue" corpse. Vipubbakajatam = "Festering" is the corpse that is full of pus flowing from the broken parts or from the nine openings of the body. So imameva kayam upasamharati ayampi kho kayo evam dhammo evam bhavi evam anatitoti = "He thinks of his own body thus: 'This body of mine, too, is of the same nature as that (dead) body, is going to be like that body, and has not got past the condition of becoming like that body.'" This has been stated: By the existence of these three: life [ayu], warmth [usma], consciousness [viññanam], this body can endure to stand, to walk, and do other things; by the separation of these three however this body is indeed a thing like that corpse, is possessed of the nature of corruption, is going to become like that, will become swollen, blue and festering and cannot escape the state of being like that, cannot transcend the condition of swelling up, become blue and festering. Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally." Thus by laying hold of the state of swelling and so forth, in regard to one's own body or another's, or at one time in regard to one's own and at another in regard to another's, one dwells contemplating the body in the body. Khajjamanam = "Whilst it is being eaten": When crows and other creatures after sitting on the belly or another part of the corpse are eating the carcass by picking the flesh of the belly, of the lips, the corners of the eye and so forth. Samamsalohitam = "Together with (some) flesh and blood": With the flesh and blood still remaining. Nimmamsalohitam = "Blood-besmeared (skeleton) without flesh": When, though rid of flesh, the blood is still not dry. Aññena = "In a different place": In a different direction. Hatthatthikam = "Bone of the hand": the sixty-four kinds of bones of the hand; when these are lying in different places separate from one another. In the explanation of the bone of the foot and so forth, the method is the same as this. Terovassikani = "More than a year old": beyond a year in a state of exposure. Putini = "Rotten": just those in the open become rotten by being exposed to wind, sun and rain for over a year. Bones buried in the earth last longer. Cunnakajatani = "Become dust": scattered in the form of powder. 21374 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] productive and supporting kamma Hi Nina, Thanks for all this info. My main interest in productive and supportive kamma is can a so called 'compact whole' be the result of kamma. In other words, is the assembly of rupas called 'Rob's computer' a result of kamma? How do you understand this? Larry 21375 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Dear KKT, Firstly, I've been most impressed by your careful consideration of the Theravada teachings and Abhidhamma here, even though I know you are well-versed in other traditions. I think it's a good example of what Nina was referring to as listening to the message before shooting down the messenger;-) KKT: I study Buddhism as a << whole >> ie. all different traditions without distinction. Such approach helps me alot to deepen my understanding. The teaching of the Buddha is like a diamond and we have different interpretations because people have different visions of the diamond from different angles. I have a question: Sujin insists on the importance of making the distinction between concepts and paramattha dhammas. I agree that this is a very important point. My question is that this insistence is proper to Sujin's teachings or of Abhidhamma in general? Metta, KKT 21376 From: nidive Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 5:40pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Please clarify what you wrote "(assumption of) self is a > fabrication." > > Are you saying the the statement "self is a fabrication" is an > assumption? > Or, are you saying that the assumption of self is a fabrication? > > I am not quite sure what you are trying to say with "(assumption of) > self is a fabrication." The assumption of self is a fabrication. If self is merely an assumption, then it implies that self as a concrete entity does not exist. It implies that there is no self. It then follows that self is a fabricated thing. Is it possible to separate fabrication from the fabricated thing? No. Because fabrications fabricate fabricated things. That is what they do. Without fabrications, there are no fabricated things. Therefore, self, a fabricated thing that arises out of an assumption that is a fabrication, is not-self. "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood... From fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21377 From: connie Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 7:42pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Friends. Thank you again to everyone who helped me with today's talk. Especially, Sarah, your reminder of metta... I had a great time. I ended up inspired (if I can claim that) by the Samanera Pañha -- Questions to be Answered by a Novice: One is what? All beings subsist on food. Two is what? Name and form (mind and matter). Three is what? Three kinds of feeling. Four is what? Four Noble Truths. Five is what? Five aggregates subject to grasping. Six is what? Internal six-fold base. Seven is what? Seven Factors of Enlightenment. Eight is what? The Noble Eightfold Path. Nine is what? Nine abodes of beings. Ten is what? He that is endowed with ten attributes is called an Arahant. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/khp/khp-b.html Mine was something like: 1. Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of Dukkha and cessation of Dukkha... Anuradha Sutta 2. samutta & paramattha (nama & rupa) truths 3. anicca, dukkha, anatta & Tipitaka 4. 4 realities & 4 Noble Truths 5. different niyamas or 'natural laws of order' ...etc. through 14 with some numbers looking like multiple choice, just in case. I told them to go ahead and interrupt any time they wanted and it was over in no time even though it went longer than it was supposed to and I'd've been happy to keep going. peace, connie 21378 From: Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 8:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, Thanks for the well ordered and comprehensive analysis. I didn't have a problem wth any of it. It occurred to me that an interesting arena in which to discriminate between concept and reality is in a conversation. Concept is the words and reality is the emotional reactions to the words. A more subtle analysis could occur using the discursive thinking process. Would it be correct to say concept can only be an object in citta process? I assume vittaka and vicara (thinking) would accompany a root citta in the javana (reaction) series. Similarly for sati and ditthi (views). So in order to make this distinction one would have to discriminate between words and thinking as concept and reality. Correct? Larry 21379 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, Is the statement "not getting what is wanted is dukkha" conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and literally true? Is the statement "separation from the loved is dukkha" conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and literally true? Is the statement "association with the unbeloved is dukkha" conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and literally true? How would one determine and/or distinguish whether a statement is conventionally true but literally false? Or conventionally false but literally true? Or conventionally true and literally true? Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionlly" and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis for sophistry. It allows what is true to be seen as false and what is false to be seen as true. And this, the double speak and duplicity, is what I found disturbing You said that you are sorry that I wrote an "attack piece" to you. The post was a reaction to the assumption that you made and the duplicity in what you wrote. It was not friendly, and it was not intended to be. Regard, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Dear Victor - > [snip] > 'Disturbing' means disturbing to someone. I'm not disturrbed by what I > wrote. I presume that you were, or, if not, then you thought that someone is > disturbed by it, or should be. [snip] > Actually, I am. I am really sorry that you wrote an "attack piece" to > me, describing my ideas (ideas!) as disturbing, and, especially, suggesting > an attempt at manipulation of truth on my part. I had written to you > honestly, expressing my perspective, and you responded in what I consider to > be an unkind way. > But you caught me, Victor. You definitely caught me at being annoyed. > I found your post to be unfriendly, as I also find the post of yours to which > I'm currently replying. > But I am happy for the opportunity to look at and let go of the anger > arising in me. I see it clearly. Mild as it is, it is definitely a > disturbance of the mind, definitely dukkha. I also know that you did not > cause that anger. I can see its sources in myself, and I know that my anger > is my problem, and not yours. By attending to the anger, and seeing how it is > nothing but painful and useless, I am managing to let it go. (It is actually > subsiding quite quickly! :-) [snip] > With metta, > Howard 21380 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:49pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Ok, now I see what you are saying. Please also clarify this for me. When you say assumption of self, are you talking about the assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates)? Thanks. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > The assumption of self is a fabrication. If self is merely an > assumption, then it implies that self as a concrete entity does not > exist. It implies that there is no self. > > It then follows that self is a fabricated thing. > > Is it possible to separate fabrication from the fabricated thing? No. > Because fabrications fabricate fabricated things. That is what they > do. Without fabrications, there are no fabricated things. > > Therefore, self, a fabricated thing that arises out of an assumption > that is a fabrication, is not-self. > > > "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate > fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do > they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate > form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling > into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood... From > fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate > consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate > fabricated things, they are called fabrications. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-079.html > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21381 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Congratulations on your successful talk. The approach of "Buddhism by the Numbers" sounds like a very interesting way of introducing Buddhism. I am thinking that it might make a good magazine article. I note that the Anguttara Nikakaya only goes up to 11, yet you went to 14. You have obviously added some material. I would be interested in getting more details from you on your groupings and classifications. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Hi, Friends. > Thank you again to everyone who helped me with today's talk. > Especially, Sarah, your reminder of metta... I had a great time. I > ended up inspired (if I can claim that) by the Samanera Pañha -- > Questions to be Answered by a Novice: > One is what? All beings subsist on food. > Two is what? Name and form (mind and matter). > Three is what? Three kinds of feeling. > Four is what? Four Noble Truths. > Five is what? Five aggregates subject to grasping. > Six is what? Internal six-fold base. > Seven is what? Seven Factors of Enlightenment. > Eight is what? The Noble Eightfold Path. > Nine is what? Nine abodes of beings. > Ten is what? He that is endowed with ten attributes is called an > Arahant. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/khp/khp-b.html > > Mine was something like: > 1. Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of > Dukkha and cessation of Dukkha... Anuradha Sutta > 2. samutta & paramattha (nama & rupa) truths > 3. anicca, dukkha, anatta & Tipitaka > 4. 4 realities & 4 Noble Truths > 5. different niyamas or 'natural laws of order' > ...etc. through 14 with some numbers looking like multiple choice, just > in case. I told them to go ahead and interrupt any time they wanted and > it was over in no time even though it went longer than it was supposed > to and I'd've been happy to keep going. > > peace, > connie 21382 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 9:57pm Subject: Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi James, > > You know the war now between America and Iraq. I > absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my > family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big > drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I > mean a real scream. > > Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war > against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about > anti-war? > > If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will > they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, > if yes, most likely into what? > Metta, > > Hilary Hi Star Kid Hilary! Gosh, I am so sorry to hear that the war coverage on TV upset you. I didn't see anything on TV news coverage with blood going across the camera lens like you describe, but I probably would have been rather upset also. I hope that you are better now. Hilary, I'm sorry, but I am not going to answer any of your questions about war, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This is a very volatile subject and my answers are incorrectly viewed as me pushing a personal agenda. Frankly, I don't feel safe or accepted in this group discussing this subject. I wish I could help you, but I can't. I hope you can understand. If I ever meet you face-to-face, I will then answer your questions about war. Metta, James 21383 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 17, 2003 11:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi James, > > > ps. Monks break their precepts by participating in online dhamma > > discussions. Check the Vinaya Pitaka for details. > > I am interested in the quotes from the Vinaya Pitaka that says this. I > can't seem to find it at AccessToInsight. > > Your help is appreciated. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, You actually looked for a quote from the Buddha about Internet usage for monks? Are you serious? You aren't going to find any such quote; the Buddha didn't have a computer or the Internet. Read the Vinaya about how and when monks are supposed to teach the dharma and you will get the picture. Metta, James 21384 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 1:51am Subject: Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? > > Hi Star Kid Hilary! > > Gosh, I am so sorry to hear that the war coverage on TV upset you. I > didn't see anything on TV news coverage with blood going across the > camera lens like you describe, but I probably would have been rather > upset also. I hope that you are better now. > > Hilary, I'm sorry, but I am not going to answer any of your questions > about war, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This is a very > volatile subject and my answers are incorrectly viewed as me pushing > a personal agenda. Frankly, I don't feel safe or accepted in this > group discussing this subject. I wish I could help you, but I > can't. I hope you can understand. If I ever meet you face-to- face, > I will then answer your questions about war. > > Metta, James Dear Hillary The Sakya and the Koluiya Clans had a dispute over the sharing of the waters of the river Rohini. They were about to start a war. The Lord Buddha appeared between the warring parties and asked them, what was more important, water or human blood. They agreed that human blood was more important . The Buddha then spoke to them and the warring parties dispersed peacefully. Buddha was for peace and non-violence. He is known as the one who has given up the punishing rod (nihita-danda). Only weapon he used was love and compassion. Angulimala , way laid people and killed them to take their thumb to make a garland of thousand fingers. Lord Buddha, met him and tamed him by words spoken to him. He later became an Arahat. Some are tamed by cudgels, Some by goads and some by whips. With neither club nor weapon, I by the steadfast one was tamed. So did Buddha tame much feared Alavaka, and even a drunken Elelphant Nalagiri. Buddha's compassion had no limit. He extended it to the smallest animal . He made no distinction, between, men or women, high and low, rich and poor. His boundless love had no religious or class barriers. The well known King Asoka the Great of India was a cruel monarc he was ambitious and wanted to annex the kingdom of Kalinga and in this war thousands were killed and many more wounded and disabled or taken prisnors. He came accross Buddha's teaching and was touched by his great spirit of love and compassion. He became a Buddhist and became the great Buddhist Emperor of India in the third century B.C. "...when he followed the Buddh's creed of compassion he realised the folly of killing. He felt very sad when he thought of the great slaughter( in the Kalinga war), and gave up warfare. He is the only military monarch on record who after victory gave up conquest by war( dig-vijaya) and inaugurated conquest by righteousness (dharma- vijaya). As his rock Edict XIII says, " he sheathed the sword never to unsheath it, and wished no harm to living beings"..The Buddha's Ancient Path by Thera Piyadassi. Yasalalaka 21385 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, Victor and all, > > Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer > conditioned?" > > smallchap Thanks for this suggestion. Yes, it's a good question. OK, I give up. What's the answer? ;-)) Jon 21386 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhammas as 'not-self' (was, Computer as dukkha) KKT --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: So your definition of sabhava is > << having its own individual, unique characteristic >> > but not necessarily << unconditioned >> ? > (and therefore not << independent, self-existing >>) > > And each paramattha dhamma has its own > sabhava (intrinsic nature/individual essence) > Is this correct? > > > The reason I ask you is > because this notion of sabhava > (Sanskrit: svabhava = self-nature) > is very important in Mahayana. > > But in Mahayana, svabhava means > self-sufficient, independent existence > & lasting substance. > > Therefore according to Mahayana, > because the paramattha dhammas > arise and fall away because of > << conditions >>, thus they are not > self-existing, independent, permanent. > In other words, they are EMPTY or > << devoid of self-nature (svabhava) >> > > This is the definition of Emptiness. > > Emptiness = empty of self-nature (svabhava) > ----------------- Thanks for this very clear explanation of the Mahayana teaching on 'sabhava'. From the Theravada perspective (on my reading): (a) The attributes you describe as ‘arising and falling away because of conditions’, ‘not self-existing’, ‘not independent’ and ‘not permanent’ are all encompassed by the twin attributes of ‘conditioned’ and ‘impermanent’. (b) The attribute you describe as ‘devoid of self-nature’ (also referred to as ‘empty/emptiness’) is not found. Only ‘not-self’ (also referred to as ‘empty of self’) is found. The attribute of ‘individual essence' is a vital component of the scheme of things generally. It is the irreducible aspect of dhammas that (partly) earns them the description of ‘ultimate’ (‘paramattha’). To my understanding, ‘sabhava’ has no relation to the ‘conditioned/unconditioned’ issue. I hope this answers your specific questions above. Jon PS I will respond to the other part of you post separately. 21387 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:18am Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > You actually looked for a quote from the Buddha about Internet usage > for monks? Are you serious? You aren't going to find any such > quote; the Buddha didn't have a computer or the Internet. Read the > Vinaya about how and when monks are supposed to teach the dharma and > you will get the picture. James, I didn't say anything about Internet usage. I meant where is the quote that says that monks should not teach laypeople about the Dhamma 'proactively' as in participating in this forum. Your humour is sarcastic. The best I could find at AccessToInsight is: Part Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma [go to top] 57. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 58. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 59. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 60. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 61. [62] I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather [leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed. 63. I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 64. I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a training to be observed. 65. I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits holding up his knees and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 66. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not ill: a training to be observed. 67. I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed. 68. Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. 69. Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. 70. Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not ill: a training to be observed. 71. Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead who is not ill: a training to be observed. 72. Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking on the path and who is not ill: a training to be observed. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhu-pati.html#18 Now, out of this 16 rules, which one is the one you are talking about? Please explain. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21388 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:27am Subject: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? KKT --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > __Now if you turn your back > to the 'monitor', ie. there are > no more visible data and tangible data > to be experienced at your sense-doors, > then you don't know whether those datas > << still exist >> independently of you? > > (even if, for example, Sarah who sits next > to you, continues to experience those datas) > > > To sum up and make more clearly, > I want to know whether the exterior > world exists << independently >> > of an observer/experiencer? > > But I think your answer is negative > since you wrote: > > << > As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing > independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be > speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that > question would be of any value. > >> > > I agree that the answer to such > question should be purely speculative > (only for the sake of speculative > philosophic pleasures :-)) > and useless for the practice. I am familiar with the theory that 'rupas do not exist independently of our experience of them'. Stated like this I think it contains some questionable or at least imprecise underlying assumptions ('rupas existing', for example -- does 'existing' here mean the same as 'continuing to arise and fall away'?). However, putting these considerations aside for the moment, I have a few observations: (a) There is no passage in the suttas directly addressing this question. (b) The theory seems to be contradicted by the Abhidhamma. For example, according to the Abhidhamma: - All rupas are conditioned by 1 of 4 different factors (kamma, citta, nutrition and temperature), and the rupas that the inanimate things such as mountains are conditioned by temperature alone (consciousness has nothing to do with it). - Only a rupa that has already arisen can be the object of consciousness. (c) Any personal view held on this question must by definition be based on deduction or be otherwise speculative, since it concerns something not currently being experienced. I must admit there are some aspects of the theory I have difficulty grasping or taking seriously. For example: (a) It seems to imply that those parts of our body that are not at this moment the object of our (or someone else's) consciousness would not be 'existing'. (b) The frequently-posed question about the sound of the falling tree in the forest could not arise because there could be no 'tree' in the first place, if the '[visible object that is] tree' was not the object of someone's experience at that moment. I hope this clarifies my earlier post. Jon 21389 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as computer Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear KKT, ... > I suppose your question is directed at me. This is a tough one. > Nevertheless, I will make an attempt at it. > > Is computer computer? > > From a puthujjana's point of view, yes, if it works as I intended > it > to. No, if it is otherwise. > > > smallchap This would be my answer, too! If it doesn't work as it should (i.e., according to my idea of how it should), then what's the use? Jon 21390 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:31am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > When you say assumption of self, are you talking about the > assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in > self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates)? Yes. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21391 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > A computer is impermanent. The question "Is a computer permanent > or > impermanent?" is not misconceived, nor is the answer "A computer is > impermanent." I note your assertion that 'a computer is impermanent'. However, I'm not sure what significance you attach to it, in terms of the teachings. Would you care to elaborate? > In one of the post you said that concepts are simply assembled > ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door > impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously > assembled concepts). > > Now you are saying that there is no such thing as concept. Yes, that's right. A concept, by definition, is simply a means of referring to/pointing at something. There is no such 'thing' as concept. That's why it doesn't make any sense to talk about a concept as being impermanent or as arising and falling away. I think a problem can arise for some from the fact that concept is said to be the 'object' of the consciousness that thinks. Perhaps we think of sense-door consciousness and its object which, as we know, is a rupa (i.e., a separate dhamma). But it seems to me that the moment of consciousness with concept as 'object' is different; the only thing 'existing' at such moment is the consciousness itself. Jon 21392 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 4/16/03 8:16:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > Well, perhaps you are trying to explain what is going on with you > > > but not Jon. If he likes, Jon will speak for himself. > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If I have misrepresented Jon's position (due to my > misunderstanding > it, of course, and not intentionally), Jon certainly has my > apology. It > seemed to me that he and I were "on the same page" in this matter, > but I > could of course be mistaken. > -------------------------------------------------- I can assure you you have not misrepresented my position in the slightest. I thought your post to Victor was spot on. We are indeed very much on the same page here, Howard (and may I say what a delight it is ;-)). Jon 21393 From: Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 4/18/03 12:30:26 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Is the statement "not getting what is wanted is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > Is the statement "separation from the loved is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > Is the statement "association with the unbeloved is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > How would one determine and/or distinguish whether a statement is > conventionally true but literally false? Or conventionally false > but literally true? Or conventionally true and literally true? > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Because of what follows, Victor, I've decided no to respond to issues such as you raise in the foregoing. Please do not continue attempting to discuss these matters with me. ------------------------------------------------------- > > Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionlly" > and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis > for sophistry. It allows what is true to be seen as false and what > is false to be seen as true. And this, the double speak and > duplicity, is what I found disturbing > > You said that you are sorry that I wrote an "attack piece" to you. > The post was a reaction to the assumption that you made and the > duplicity in what you wrote. It was not friendly, and it was not > intended to be. -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: You have my respect for speaking truly and directly in these last two paragraphs. That aside, what you say there is reason for me to longer discuss any of these issues with you. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Regard, > Victor > ========================== 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) 21394 From: m. nease Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 6:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Dear Swee Boon, Thank you, Sir. When there is disagreement between my opinions and Dhamma/Vinaya, I think it's a good idea discard the opinion in favor of one in keeping with Buddhadhamma. Some don't agree. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: nidive To: > Hi James, > > > You actually looked for a quote from the Buddha about Internet usage > > for monks? Are you serious? You aren't going to find any such > > quote; the Buddha didn't have a computer or the Internet. Read the > > Vinaya about how and when monks are supposed to teach the dharma and > > you will get the picture. > > James, I didn't say anything about Internet usage. I meant where is > the quote that says that monks should not teach laypeople about the > Dhamma 'proactively' as in participating in this forum. > > Your humour is sarcastic. > > The best I could find at AccessToInsight is: > > Part Three: The 16 Dealing with Teaching Dhamma [go to top] > > 57. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with an umbrella in his hand > and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 58. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a staff in his hand and > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 59. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a knife in his hand and > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 60. I will not teach Dhamma to a person with a weapon in his hand and > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 61. [62] I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing non-leather > [leather] footwear who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 63. I will not teach Dhamma to a person in a vehicle and who is not > ill: a training to be observed. > > 64. I will not teach Dhamma to a person lying down who is not ill: a > training to be observed. > > 65. I will not teach Dhamma to a person who sits holding up his knees > and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 66. I will not teach Dhamma to a person wearing headgear who is not > ill: a training to be observed. > > 67. I will not teach Dhamma to a person whose head is covered (with a > robe or scarf) and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 68. Sitting on the ground, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting > on a seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 69. Sitting on a low seat, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting > on a high seat who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 70. Standing, I will not teach Dhamma to a person sitting who is not > ill: a training to be observed. > > 71. Walking behind, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking ahead > who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > 72. Walking beside a path, I will not teach Dhamma to a person walking > on the path and who is not ill: a training to be observed. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/vinaya/bhikkhu-pati.html#18 > > Now, out of this 16 rules, which one is the one you are talking about? > Please explain. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21395 From: smallchap Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > S: Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer conditioned?" J: Thanks for this suggestion. Yes, it's a good question. OK, I give up. What's the answer? ;-)) S: Yes. Smallchap 21396 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:12am Subject: Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Buddhaghosa said in Section 57, Anangana Suttavannanaa, Mulapannaasa, Majjimanikaaya Atthakathaa. "The Buddha Bhagavaa's way of teaching is twofold in terms of the conventional way of teaching (sammutidesanaa) and the ultimate way of teaching (paramatthadesanaa). There, such way of teaching as person, sentient being, woman, man, Royals, Brahmin, gods, and maaro is the conventional way of teaching. Such way of teaching as impermanence, misery, selflessness, aggregates, elements, venues, and Establishment of Recollection (Satipatthaana) is the ultimate way of teaching. There, the Buddha Bhagavaa delivers the conventional way of teaching to those who are capable of gaining unique insight by hearing the teaching in conventional terms, penetrating the meaning, and removing ignorance. On the other hand, the Buddha delivers the ultimate way of teaching to those who are capable of gaining unique insight by hearing the teachings in ultimate terms, penetating the meaning, and removing ignorance." Buddhaghosa also made the following statement in Atthasaalinii, page 223, in Roman edition. "Abhidhamma is the ultimate way of teaching." http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12867 Which means that there is no contradiction between both types of teaching. Which means whether one contemplates on concepts or ultimate realities makes no difference. Which means that mere insight into what is concepts and what is ultimate realities would not get anyone near the Gates of Liberation. Which means that vipassana is not the mere development of insight into what is concepts and what is ultimate realities. Of course, I stand corrected if necessary. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21397 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 10:48am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick. Dear friends, Lodewijk said again that he has no difficulty understanding the text about attending to the sick. He finds it a powerful message. When I help my father to drink he reminds me that I attend to the Buddha. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 10:08:12 +0200 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: Vinaya Pitaka Translation attending to the sick. Dear Eltopo, op 16-04-2003 21:42 schreef eltopo1uk op eltopo_@h...: > Can I just ask when you say that in attending > your father, you attend to the Buddha, does this mean the historical > Buddha who lived many centuries ago or a kind of timeless Buddha? If > the latter, I can understand this in a Mahayana sense, but is it ok > in a non-Mahayana sense? I agree with what you say about your father > and this is how it seems to me... N: The Buddha passed away completely: anupaadisesa nibbaana. He left us the Dhamma. Now the Dhamma is our teacher in his stead. That is the meaning of, who sees the Dhamma, sees me. Do you pay respect to the Triple Gem? We can still pay respect and think with confidence and gratefulness of the Buddha, also now. When we do this with kusala citta, not expecting any gain for ourselves, it is a moment of samatha, calm. We do not have to select a specific time for this, we can do it many times a day, amidst our activities. I read in the subcommentary to the Satipa.t.thaanasutta, that there four four meditation subjects for all occasions: These are very daily, like metta, it is the practice. The Buddha's message dating from 600 B.C. contained in the Tipi.taka, is most powerful, it comes through the centuries directly to us, and it is meant for each one of us personally. We also need the Abhidhamma, because without it we would not know that happy feeling does not only arise with kusala citta, when paying respect, but also with clinging, the citta with lobha. We like happy feeling, or we may look for protection outside ourselves with clinging. The Abhidhamma teaches us to scrutinize ourselves. We should know that the Buddha said, be your own refuge, and that is, through satipa.t.thaana. This is a very rare teaching, only Buddhas teach satipa.t.thaana; it is the way to understand the truth of non-self. As we read in the text given by John: In each sutta we are reminded not to be neglectful, to have the full benefit of the rare occasion to hear true Dhamma. Thus, when attending to my father there are many different types of cittas, akusala cittas, with clinging or aversion, and kusala cittas. Sometimes, but not often, we can remember that the Buddha's teaching is mindfulness and the development of understanding of the present reality, and that this is the highest respect to him. We should remember what the Buddha taught Rahula: different physical phenomena and mental phenomena. These have characteristics, they appear now. Nina. 21398 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:02am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, Ok, I see what you mean now. So when you say "assumption of self is a fabrication," do you mean that the assumption is a fabrication, where the assumption is the assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" and so on for the other four aggregates? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > When you say assumption of self, are you talking about the > > assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in > > self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates)? > > Yes. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21400 From: connie Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 2:10pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Thanks, Rob M ~ I'll send you my endlessly rambling count off-list and if you want to talk about it here or off-list, ok. It just seems a little long to post here... just like it was it too long to talk off of yesterday, but I like paper. To tell you the truth, I probably would've stopped at 12/Dependent Origination, but was having a hard time coming up with anything for 9 and 11... no doubt that'll be fairly obvious when you read my 11 as 2 ones being life as a mirror. Really, it seems like no matter how high a person wanted to count up, it all comes back down to one, letting go, remainderless. peace, connie Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 04:50:23 -0000 From: "robmoult" Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Congratulations on your successful talk. The approach of "Buddhism by the Numbers" sounds like a very interesting way of introducing Buddhism. I am thinking that it might make a good magazine article. I note that the Anguttara Nikakaya only goes up to 11, yet you went to 14. You have obviously added some material. I would be interested in getting more details from you on your groupings and classifications. Metta, Rob M :-) 21401 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 4:39pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, Got it! Looks good. I am going to expand on it and re-work it into an article. It will take a couple of weeks. I will send you what I come up with. As for 11: I am going to add in the 11 benefits of loving-kindness: - Sleep peacefully - He awakes fresh, like a flower opening - No bad dreams - One is dear to human beings - One is dear to non-human beings - One is protected by Devas - Fire, poison and weapons cannot injure one - One'e mind becomes easily concentrated - One's complexion becomes serene - One will die unconfused - One will be reborn in bhahma plane (or higher) (Taken from Anguttara Nikaya XI, 16) Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Thanks, Rob M ~ > I'll send you my endlessly rambling count off-list and if you want to > talk about it here or off-list, ok. It just seems a little long to post > here... just like it was it too long to talk off of yesterday, but I > like paper. To tell you the truth, I probably would've stopped at > 12/Dependent Origination, but was having a hard time coming up with > anything for 9 and 11... no doubt that'll be fairly obvious when you > read my 11 as 2 ones being life as a mirror. Really, it seems like no > matter how high a person wanted to count up, it all comes back down to > one, letting go, remainderless. > peace, > connie 21402 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:01pm Subject: Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Hi Jon, As you know, I have had this discussion on the DSG at least twice. Rather than focus on "existence" or "non-existence" (which raises the issues you list below), perhaps we should ask, "are rupas which are independent of consciousness part of the scope of the Buddha's teachings?" My answer is that these rupas are only part of the Buddha's teachings in an extremely limited way. In what extremely limited way? I believe that there are Sutta references that identify "external rupas" as being anicca, dukkha and anatta. I do not believe that there are any Sutta references that extend the analysis any deeper. In the Simsapa Sutta, the Buddha made it clear that he only taught a small fraction of what he knew (leaves in hand vs. leaves in forest). The criteria used by the Buddha was "what is conducive to the holy life..." and "what leads to Nibbana". Clearly, any analysis of external rupas that goes deeper than anicca, dukkha, anatta would not be included. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > KKT > > --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, > ... > > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > > > __Now if you turn your back > > to the 'monitor', ie. there are > > no more visible data and tangible data > > to be experienced at your sense-doors, > > then you don't know whether those datas > > << still exist >> independently of you? > > > > (even if, for example, Sarah who sits next > > to you, continues to experience those datas) > > > > > > To sum up and make more clearly, > > I want to know whether the exterior > > world exists << independently >> > > of an observer/experiencer? > > > > But I think your answer is negative > > since you wrote: > > > > << > > As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing > > independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be > > speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that > > question would be of any value. > > >> > > > > I agree that the answer to such > > question should be purely speculative > > (only for the sake of speculative > > philosophic pleasures :-)) > > and useless for the practice. > > I am familiar with the theory that 'rupas do not exist independently > of our experience of them'. Stated like this I think it contains > some questionable or at least imprecise underlying assumptions > ('rupas existing', for example -- does 'existing' here mean the same > as 'continuing to arise and fall away'?). > > However, putting these considerations aside for the moment, I have a > few observations: > (a) There is no passage in the suttas directly addressing this > question. > (b) The theory seems to be contradicted by the Abhidhamma. For > example, according to the Abhidhamma: > - All rupas are conditioned by 1 of 4 different factors (kamma, > citta, nutrition and temperature), and the rupas that the inanimate > things such as mountains are conditioned by temperature alone > (consciousness has nothing to do with it). > - Only a rupa that has already arisen can be the object of > consciousness. > (c) Any personal view held on this question must by definition be > based on deduction or be otherwise speculative, since it concerns > something not currently being experienced. > > I must admit there are some aspects of the theory I have difficulty > grasping or taking seriously. For example: > (a) It seems to imply that those parts of our body that are not at > this moment the object of our (or someone else's) consciousness would > not be 'existing'. > (b) The frequently-posed question about the sound of the falling > tree in the forest could not arise because there could be no 'tree' > in the first place, if the '[visible object that is] tree' was not > the object of someone's experience at that moment. > > I hope this clarifies my earlier post. > > Jon 21403 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Victor, > Ok, I see what you mean now. So when you say "assumption of self is > a fabrication," do you mean that the assumption is a fabrication, > where the assumption is the assumption "form is self" or "self > possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" and so on > for the other four aggregates? What are you driving at? That the "assumption of self" is different from the "assumption of form is self"? Out of all the possible permutations of blending self with form, which one is missed out by the Buddha? If there is no possible permutation that is missed out by the Buddha, then it implies that self is an assumption. It invalidates all the possible permutations of blending self with form. It implies that self cannot be blended with form. It implies that there is no concrete entity called a self that can be blended with form. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21404 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 8:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence > Sujin insists on the importance > of making the distinction between > concepts and paramattha dhammas. > I agree that this is a very important point. > My question is that this insistence > is proper to Sujin's teachings > or of Abhidhamma in general? Hi KKT, In case you are confusing between Sujin and Sukin, I just want to clarify that the stress on the distinction between concept and reality was made by me, Sukin, on dsg in a couple or more of my posts. Even this it seems has been taken out of context to mean something other than what I intended. I stated this under two different contexts, the first was that any 'progress' along the path of Buddhadhamma must depend on this distinction being made. This is on the intellectual level. The other context was in reference to claims of enlightenment in other traditions. Here I spoke of making this distinction on the experiential level, that if one does not know the difference, then it can be assumed that no enlightenment took place. How anyone else sees it, I don't know. But I personaly haven't read or heard K. Sujin say anything directly about this in the way that I have. BTW, recently even I have come to see the need to explore other view points i.e. those of traditions outside of Buddhadhamma. But my reason is that they not being dictated by Buddhist concepts can show my own clinging and limitation of perception. However I certainly do not see them as having a proper vision of the same "Diamond" as you seem to suggest. The concept of Nirvana, Eightfold path, Enlightenment, even though the same words are used, doesn't mean that the understanding is the same.... Peace, Sukin. 21405 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 3:24pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi James, > > Now, out of this 16 rules, which one is the one you are talking about? > Please explain. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, I don't feel like explaining anything to you; I don't like the spirit in which you ask. Metta, James 21406 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Connie Congratulations on what sounds like a very successful talk. --- connie wrote: > Thanks, Rob M ~ > I'll send you my endlessly rambling count off-list and if you want > to > talk about it here or off-list, ok. It just seems a little long to > post here... I'm afraid such excuses do not wash here! We'd all like to see it (after all, it was a 'joint effort', no? ;-)). Why not post it in sections? Jon 21407 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 9:53pm Subject: Pali Pronounciation Dear Group, Just a quick question: I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's starting a word, or something else? Susukham vata jivama Happy indeed we live verinesu averino friendly amidst the hostile verinesu manussesu amidst hostile men viharama averino we dwell free from hatred metta, Christine 21408 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 18, 2003 11:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali Pronounciation Hi Chris, Just a quick (possibly ignorant) answer: --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? .... I learnt in Sri Lanka to pronounce all 'v's as 'v's. I just pulled out Narada Thera's transl of Dhammapada and at the beginning in a very simple pronounciation key he confirms this. In Thailand, the 'v's are often/usually (?) pronounced as 'w's as there is no exact 'v' sound I believe and thus there are some differences in Pali pronounciation amongst different groups and countries. I couldn't say what is strictly accurate. Maybe Suan or Jim or someone else may. I like your verses, maybe I'll also try to learn them as I head off to the pool. Perhaps you can give me some simple ones every Sunday and then when we meet we can recite together on buses or boats;-) Susukham vata jivama.... Metta, Sarah ====== > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred 21409 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor I hope you don't mind if I come in on this exchange between you and Howard. The 3 statements you cite here are instances of the same absolute truth being expressed in conventional terms (or, more accurately perhaps, in a combination of conventional and absolute terms). The statement "The five aggregates of clinging are dukkha" expresses the same truth in purely absolute terms. There is no simple 'test' for determining whether something is a truth or not (except that it is said that everything spoken by the Buddha was true). The distinction between 'conventional' and 'absolute' (or 'ultimate') is to be understood in the sense mentioned in the passage from the Majjhima commentary quoted by Swee Boon in his post at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21396. Your statement: "Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionally" and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis for sophistry." is a statement of opinion. In my own view, however, any suggestion (whether or not intended) of there being any double speak or duplicity in Howard's post, or of it being motivated by thoughts of sophistry, are entirely unfounded. Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard, > > Is the statement "not getting what is wanted is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > Is the statement "separation from the loved is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > Is the statement "association with the unbeloved is dukkha" > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > literally true? > > How would one determine and/or distinguish whether a statement is > conventionally true but literally false? Or conventionally false > but literally true? Or conventionally true and literally true? > > Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionlly" > and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis > for sophistry. It allows what is true to be seen as false and what > > is false to be seen as true. And this, the double speak and > duplicity, is what I found disturbing > > You said that you are sorry that I wrote an "attack piece" to you. > > The post was a reaction to the assumption that you made and the > duplicity in what you wrote. It was not friendly, and it was not > intended to be. > > Regard, > Victor 21410 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > KKT > > --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, > ... > > KKT: If I understand you correctly then: > > > > __Now if you turn your back > > to the 'monitor', ie. there are > > no more visible data and tangible data > > to be experienced at your sense-doors, > > then you don't know whether those datas > > << still exist >> independently of you? > > > > (even if, for example, Sarah who sits next > > to you, continues to experience those datas) > > > > > > To sum up and make more clearly, > > I want to know whether the exterior > > world exists << independently >> > > of an observer/experiencer? > > > > But I think your answer is negative > > since you wrote: > > > > << > > As far as I know, the Buddha did not teach about things existing > > independently as a series of paramattha dhammas. This would be > > speculative anyway, don't you think? I doubt that an answer to that > > question would be of any value. > > >> > > > > I agree that the answer to such > > question should be purely speculative > > (only for the sake of speculative > > philosophic pleasures :-)) > > and useless for the practice. > > I am familiar with the theory that 'rupas do not exist independently > of our experience of them'. Stated like this I think it contains > some questionable or at least imprecise underlying assumptions > ('rupas existing', for example -- does 'existing' here mean the same > as 'continuing to arise and fall away'?). > > However, putting these considerations aside for the moment, I have a > few observations: > (a) There is no passage in the suttas directly addressing this > question. > (b) The theory seems to be contradicted by the Abhidhamma. For > example, according to the Abhidhamma: > - All rupas are conditioned by 1 of 4 different factors (kamma, > citta, nutrition and temperature), and the rupas that the inanimate > things such as mountains are conditioned by temperature alone > (consciousness has nothing to do with it). > - Only a rupa that has already arisen can be the object of > consciousness. > (c) Any personal view held on this question must by definition be > based on deduction or be otherwise speculative, since it concerns > something not currently being experienced. > > I must admit there are some aspects of the theory I have difficulty > grasping or taking seriously. For example: > (a) It seems to imply that those parts of our body that are not at > this moment the object of our (or someone else's) consciousness would > not be 'existing'. > (b) The frequently-posed question about the sound of the falling > tree in the forest could not arise because there could be no 'tree' > in the first place, if the '[visible object that is] tree' was not > the object of someone's experience at that moment. > > I hope this clarifies my earlier post. > > Jon > >Jon, Do Rupas exist independantly of consciousness ? This I find is an interesting question, which can be put in several ways. In relation to nama rupa, do you think it would be the same question if I ask: Do things exist beyond our sense faculties ? This reminds me of the Cula Malunkya Sutta, where Munlankyaputta, asked several questions about the existance of the Universe and what happens to the Buddha after his death etc. The Buddha explained that knowing them does not help the spiritual life and irrelevant. Again when the Buddha was in the Simsapa forest, with the monks, he took a handful of leaves and said that what he did not tell is as much as the leaves in the forest and what he had told is as much as the leaves in his hand, and that which is essential to lead a holy life, to finally atain Nibbana . However, Abhidhamma, from the few chapters I was happy to read from Nina's Book, explains how to understand paramatta dhamma from what is happening now. We become aware of arammana through the six sense faculties. Looking for things beyond them would be getting away from the present moment. There is also the other aspect of conventional truth and the ultimate truth. The world does not exist in the sense of the ultimate truth-(paramatta -sacca), but conventianally it continues to exist. My family, that I have left behind in a distant Island, I do not see, but they exist. Therefore, I cannot deny their existance telling my-self that," in reality they do not exist". All this is carrying coal to New Castle. Because, you know all what I had written and perhaps more. Some times these questions prop up in the mind and we should perhaps, look at them as mind(nama) engaged in thinking(rupa). It was a pleasure reading you in the Forum. May you be happy, with metta, Yasalalaka > 21411 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > S: Perhaps the question should be phrased thus: "Is computer > conditioned?" > > J: Thanks for this suggestion. Yes, it's a good question. OK, I > give up. What's the answer? ;-)) > > S: Yes. > > Smallchap Thanks for this. So you are saying, 'computer is conditioned'. I would be interested to know what you understand by 'conditioned' here. Thanks. Jon 21412 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Swee Boon Thanks for bringing up this passage for discussion. I find this a very interesting area to discuss. I would just like to make one or two observations. To my understanding, the conventional way of teaching and the ultimate way of teaching are 2 ways of teaching the same truths. One way employs conventional language and analogies, while the other employs ultimate terms and descriptions. The truths in question are ultimate truths. Ultimate truths can be expressed in conventional terms or in absolute terms. At the time of the Buddha there were many disciples who were capable of understanding ultimate truths, and attaining enlightenment, on hearing the conventional way of teaching. There were others for whom hearing the ultimate way of teaching was the necessary condition for understanding the same truths and attaining the same enlightenment. The suttas contain numerous instances of both ways of teaching. The Abhidhamma is expressed mainly (but not entirely) in the ultimate way. As I see it, both the conventional way of teaching and the ultimate way of teaching teach the development of insight into the presently arising conditioned phenomena. It is the means to teaching that differs, not the matters taught. Jon --- nidive wrote: > Hi, > > Buddhaghosa said in Section 57, Anangana Suttavannanaa, > Mulapannaasa, Majjimanikaaya Atthakathaa. > > "The Buddha Bhagavaa's way of teaching is twofold in terms of the > conventional way of teaching (sammutidesanaa) and the ultimate way > of teaching (paramatthadesanaa). There, such way of teaching as > person, > sentient being, woman, man, Royals, Brahmin, gods, and maaro is the > conventional way of teaching. Such way of teaching as impermanence, > misery, selflessness, aggregates, elements, venues, and > Establishment > of Recollection (Satipatthaana) is the ultimate way of teaching. > > There, the Buddha Bhagavaa delivers the conventional way of > teaching > to those who are capable of gaining unique insight by hearing the > teaching in conventional terms, penetrating the meaning, and > removing > ignorance. On the other hand, the Buddha delivers the ultimate way > of teaching to those who are capable of gaining unique insight by > hearing the teachings in ultimate terms, penetating the meaning, > and removing ignorance." > > Buddhaghosa also made the following statement in Atthasaalinii, > page 223, in Roman edition. > > "Abhidhamma is the ultimate way of teaching." > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12867 > > Which means that there is no contradiction between both types of > teaching. > > Which means whether one contemplates on concepts or ultimate > realities makes no difference. > > Which means that mere insight into what is concepts and what is > ultimate realities would not get anyone near the Gates of > Liberation. > > Which means that vipassana is not the mere development of insight > into what is concepts and what is ultimate realities. > > Of course, I stand corrected if necessary. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21413 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Rob M Good to hear from you ;-)). Yes, we've been here before! To respond to your specific question, I think it depends very much on what you mean by 'rupas which are independent of consciousness'. Do the rupas that are the 5 sense-bases fall within this description? -- they are mentioned frequently in the suttas. I am still doubtful whether this line of enquiry is of any real value ;-)). Jon --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Jon, > > As you know, I have had this discussion on the DSG at least twice. > > Rather than focus on "existence" or "non-existence" (which raises > the issues you list below), perhaps we should ask, "are rupas which > are independent of consciousness part of the scope of the Buddha's > teachings?" > > My answer is that these rupas are only part of the Buddha's > teachings in an extremely limited way. In what extremely limited > way? I believe that there are Sutta references that > identify "external rupas" as being anicca, dukkha and anatta. I do > not believe that there are any Sutta references that extend the > analysis any deeper. > > In the Simsapa Sutta, the Buddha made it clear that he only taught > a small fraction of what he knew (leaves in hand vs. leaves in > forest). The criteria used by the Buddha was "what is conducive to > the holy life..." and "what leads to Nibbana". Clearly, any > analysis > of external rupas that goes deeper than anicca, dukkha, anatta > would not be included. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21414 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Christine, I really admire your initiative. I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD of the entire Dhammapada for you. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? > > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred > > metta, > Christine 21415 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:40am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma Hi All, I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that I created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each slide. Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. Metta, Rob M :-) 21416 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob M > > Good to hear from you ;-)). Yes, we've been here before! > > To respond to your specific question, I think it depends very much on > what you mean by 'rupas which are independent of consciousness'. Do > the rupas that are the 5 sense-bases fall within this description? -- > they are mentioned frequently in the suttas. ===== Good point. These rupas are not subjects of consciousness but are the base for consciousness (eye-consciousness has eye-base as base, etc.). Therefore, the Buddha's teaching are not purely phenomenological but still contrain themselves to "that which is conducive to the holy life" and "that which leads to Nibbana". ===== > > I am still doubtful whether this line of enquiry is of any real value > ;-)). ===== As Victor recently pointed out, the definition of "idle talk" does include "talk of what exists and what does not exist". Metta, Rob M :-) 21417 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:52am Subject: Re: Pali Pronounciation Rob, you lovely man! Thank you! They arrived safe and well and have been joyfully listened to. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I really admire your initiative. > > I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and > verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). > > If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows > Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these > verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. > > I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD > of the entire Dhammapada for you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21418 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:32am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Dear Rob M, Sorry to write this on list, I know the moderators won't mind just this once. I tried to download some e-books from Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada's website, ie. the ones in Burmese. I want to give them to some people here who can't read any other language. But I can't download a single of these books and I wrote to the venerable about it to ask for his advice. He wrote back suggesting where in Myanmar I can buy those books and that meanwhile he will ask someone to look up the problem. Since you are going to his Vihara, I wondered if you could get me some hard copies or even printouts, if they are available?! If you do get your hand on anything, could you keep it with you so that next time you come to Bkk, you could then give it to me? Thanks in advance. Metta, Sukin -----Original Message----- From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 4:25 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Christine, I really admire your initiative. I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD of the entire Dhammapada for you. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? > > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred > > metta, > Christine 21419 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma Rob Thanks for this. Unfortunately, the file requires PowerPoint for viewing, which most of our members probably don't have (and I will only have accesss to after the Easter break). If conversion to PDF or similar universal format is possible, you might like to consider this at some future date. Jon --- robmoult wrote: > Hi All, > > I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that > I > created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It > has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each > slide. > > Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21420 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I am not clear. Are you only interested in books in Burmese? Are there any particular books / topics of interest to you (he has written dozens of books on a wide variety of subjects). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal" wrote: > Dear Rob M, > > Sorry to write this on list, I know the moderators won't mind just this > once. > I tried to download some e-books from Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada's website, > ie. the ones in Burmese. > I want to give them to some people here who can't read any other > language. > But I can't download a single of these books and I wrote to the > venerable about it to ask for his advice. > He wrote back suggesting where in Myanmar I can buy those books and that > meanwhile he will ask > someone to look up the problem. > Since you are going to his Vihara, I wondered if you could get me some > hard copies or even printouts, > if they are available?! If you do get your hand on anything, could you > keep it with you so that next time > you come to Bkk, you could then give it to me? > > Thanks in advance. > > Metta, > Sukin > > -----Original Message----- > From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] > Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 4:25 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation > > > Hi Christine, > > I really admire your initiative. > > I have sent to you by email .WAV files for verse 197, verse 198 and > verse 199. They are quite large (about 750K each). > > If you detach these files and then double-click on them from Windows > Explorer, you should be able to hear the Pali recitation of these > verses as done by Dr. K. Sri Dhammanada. > > I am going to the Vihara tomorrow and will see if I can pick up a CD > of the entire Dhammapada for you. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > Just a quick question: > > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart > (197,198,199). > > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only > the 'v's > > starting a word, or something else? > > > > Susukham vata jivama > > Happy indeed we live > > > > verinesu averino > > friendly amidst the hostile > > > > verinesu manussesu > > amidst hostile men > > > > viharama averino > > we dwell free from hatred > > > > metta, > > Christine 21421 From: abhidhammika Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 6:41am Subject: Re: Pali Pronounciation Dear Christine, Sarah, Rob, Sukin, and All How are you, Dhamma friends? The letter 'v' in Pali should be pronounced exactly as the letter 'v' in English. Here is a quote from the traditional Pali grammar. "Vakaaro danto.t.thajo." "Va sound is dentally and labially produced." Section 2, Saññaavidhaana, Sandhika.n.da, Padaruupasiddhi By Buddhappiyo. Section 2, Terminology, Chapter on Sandhi, "Finished Forms" By Buddhappiyo. This work is a commentary on Kaccaayana's Grammar. Here is my commentary. "Va" sound is (danto.t.thajo) produced by pressing upper teeth on the lower lip. Myanmars pronounce "v" as "w" because Myanmar script "o" represents both "v" for Pali and "w" for Burmese sounds, which do not include the "v" sound. So when Myanmars, who do not check the Pali grammar texts, see the Myanmar script "o" for "v" in Pali texts, they pronounce it as though it were "w". With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just a quick question: > I'm learning a few verses of the Dhammapada by heart (197,198,199). > In verse 197 - are all the 'v's pronounced as 'w's, or only the 'v's > starting a word, or something else? > > Susukham vata jivama > Happy indeed we live > > verinesu averino > friendly amidst the hostile > > verinesu manussesu > amidst hostile men > > viharama averino > we dwell free from hatred > > metta, > Christine 21422 From: Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi, Suan - In a message dated 4/19/03 9:42:25 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > Dear Christine, Sarah, Rob, Sukin, and All > > How are you, Dhamma friends? > > The letter 'v' in Pali should be pronounced exactly as the letter 'v' > in English. > > Here is a quote from the traditional Pali grammar. > > "Vakaaro danto.t.thajo." > > "Va sound is dentally and labially produced." > > Section 2, Saññaavidhaana, Sandhika.n.da, Padaruupasiddhi By > Buddhappiyo. > > Section 2, Terminology, Chapter on Sandhi, "Finished Forms" By > Buddhappiyo. This work is a commentary on Kaccaayana's Grammar. > > Here is my commentary. > > "Va" sound is (danto.t.thajo) produced by pressing upper teeth on the > lower lip. > > Myanmars pronounce "v" as "w" because Myanmar script "o" represents > both "v" for Pali and "w" for Burmese sounds, which do not include > the "v" sound. > > So when Myanmars, who do not check the Pali grammar texts, see the > Myanmar script "o" for "v" in Pali texts, they pronounce it as though > it were "w". > > > With kind regards, > > Suan > ================================ This is very interesting to me. (I like the phonetics/phonemics of languages perhaps most of all language features.) I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say about syllable accenting. I've been *assuming* that long vowels get the accent, and when no vowel is long, if the word has at least three syllables, it is the third from last which gets the accent, and the next to last in two-syllable words. So, as a couple of examples, I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but vi~n~naana as vi~n~n-a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'-pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be? 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) 21423 From: smallchap Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 7:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > So you are saying, 'computer is conditioned'. > > I would be interested to know what you understand by > 'conditioned' > here. > S: Conditioned means depended on certain conditions (for it to arise). smallchap Ps. I hope you do not mind my dispensing with the usual formality and courtesy. :) 21424 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 7:50am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Rob, Yes I am interested only in the Burmese books. I am assuming that there may not be more than handful of these, but I may be wrong. Lets just say that about 5 different books will do. And I am going to be giving them to beginners of Buddhism. So if you will have to choose from a larger collection, I leave it to you to decide which ones to get. BTW I will have to pay for whatever the costs, if any. Thanks again. Sukin. 21425 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 8:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob > > Thanks for this. > > Unfortunately, the file requires PowerPoint for viewing, which most > of our members probably don't have (and I will only have accesss to > after the Easter break). > > If conversion to PDF or similar universal format is possible, you > might like to consider this at some future date. > > Jon Hi Rob and Jon, I converted this PowerPoint Presentation "Introduction to the Abhidhamma" to a PDF document with the Speaker Notes and uploaded it to the Files section. It is now available for viewing. For those who don't have the reader, it can be downloaded and installed for free at this link: http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html Metta, James ps. Rob, I found your presentation quite professional and thorough; you are a master at PowerPoint! ;-) I don't agree with all of it, but I appreciate your efforts. I am glad I could be of help in this regard. 21426 From: connie Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:09am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism OK, Jon, Rob M and All~ Sorry for the feeble excuse. I've added Rob M's 11 benefits of metta and look forward to reading the article. 1 through 4 below. peace, connie DHAMMA - law / reality / truth that upholds the universe "No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance like seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is fore-doomed at their birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. They come from nowhere, break up, nowhere go; Flash in and out, as lightning in the sky." Be ye a lamp/island (dîpa) unto yourselves; work out your own salvation with diligence. 1 freedom 'Birth is destroyed, I have lived the holy life and done what had to be done. There is no more birth for me.' Formerly and now also I expound and point out only the truth of Dukkha and cessation of Dukkha.' (Anuradha Sutta--Samyutta Nikaya.) Nibbana: metaphysical deliverance from suffering. psychological eradication of egoism. ethical destruction of lust, hatred and ignorance. Samyutta Nikaya IV: asankhata/the unconditioned, antam/the end, anasavam/without cankers, saccam/the truth, param/the ultimate, nipunam/the subtle, sududdasam/the very hard to see, ajaram/the no-decay, dhuvam/the stable, apalokitam/the taken leave of, anidassanam/the non-indicative, nippapam/the without impediment, santam/the peace, amatam/the deathless, panitam/the excellent, sivam/the fortunate, khemam/the security, tanhakkhaya/the destruction of tanha, acchariyam/the wonderful, abbhutam/the astonishing, anitikam/the freedom from harm, anitikadhammam/the state of freedom from harm, nibbanam, avyapajjho/the harmless, virago/non-attachment, suddhim/purity, mutti/the release, analayo/the done away with, dipam/the island, lena/ the cave, tanam/the shelter, saranam/the refuge, and parayanam/the ultimate goal. Non-Attachment. to not cling or attach to anything, even the religion itself 1 moment/3phases genesis(uppada), static (thiti), dissolution(bhanga) only pure nature (suddhidhamma pavattanti) exists; whatever is real can be proved. time & space / causes and conditions 2 phases - birth & death 2 truths (sacca)- insight(vipassana) conventional (samutta) / ultimate (paramattha): nama-rupa 2 Guardians of the World: a sense of shame and the fear of blame (hiri-ottappa) [Buddhaghosa's 2 iron balls. One is cold and covered with excrement. The other is burning hot] 3 Baskets (Tipitaka) Sutta -conventional teaching, Vinaya - disciplinary code, and Abhidhamma - moral psychology. 3 marks Anicca (transiency) Dukkha ('sorrow') anatta (soul-lessness) santana(flux/continuity) becoming(bhava) sunyata(void) jiva(empirical self) control 3 akusala (unwholesome, unskillful, evil) roots: moha(delusion), dosa(aversion), lobha (greed)/tahna(desire): [generosity (caga), loving-kindness (mettâ) and wisdom (vijjâ)] Abhijjhá (covetousness); Káma (lust); Raga (sensual passion). patigha (repugnance, anger); vyápáda (ill-will). avijjhá (ignorance), annana (not knowing) and adassana (not-seeing.) Shantideva:'There is no sin like anger, no virtue like patience'. one moment of anger can destroy eons of good merit. 3 levels of understanding: ditthi ("views"), nana ("science"), and bodhi ("wisdom"). 4 elements: earth/solidity , water/fluidity, cohesion, air/motion and fire/heat . 4 realities: 1.Citta, momentary states of mind or consciousness, 'that which knows or experiences' an object(arammana). 2.Cetasika, the mental factors that arise and occur along with the citta. 3.Rupa, physical phenomenon or material form. 4.Nibbana, the unconditioned state of bliss which is the final goal. 4 truths - application of the three basic laws to the human condition. found in one's body .Worldly cause-and-effect encompasses the first two noble truths 1)dukkha sacca - understand Suffering is actually an effect of living in time and space *impermanence, suffering, empty and not self 2)samudaya sacca - abandon origin: moha (ignorance), craving or desire (tanha or raga) sensual craving (kama-tanha) craving for existence (bhava tanha)[eternity-belief (sassata-ditthi)] craving for non-existence or self-annihilation (vibhava-tanha)[(Uccheda-ditthi) annihil.] *arising, appearance, cause, and condition .World-transcending cause-and-effect relates to the third and fourth noble truths 3)nirodha sacca - experience end: nibbana no more accumulation of karma *cessation, calm, excellent and definitive liberation 4)magga sacca - practice extinction of mental defilements (afflictions) from the sense organs. *true path, knowing, attaining, elimination (of delusion). 21427 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, Victor and Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott > In my own view, however, any suggestion > (whether or not intended) of there being any double speak or > duplicity in Howard's post, or of it being motivated by thoughts of > sophistry, are entirely unfounded. In my view, also. Fortunately I have enough faith in Howard's understanding not to worry too much... mike 21428 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma Hi Again Rob, This took too long to download. Do .ppt's zip well? If you can compress it enough to be practical, please zip it and send me a copy as an attachment--thanks. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2003 2:40 AM Subject: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma > Hi All, > > I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that I > created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It > has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each > slide. > > Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 21429 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 0:25pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha(larry) Hi Swee Boon, I have come to understand that when you say assumption of self, you are talking about the assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates). In my last message, I wanted to make sure that when you say that the assumption of self is a fabrication, you mean that the assumption "form is self" or "self possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" (likewise for the other four aggregates) is a fabrication. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > > Ok, I see what you mean now. So when you say "assumption of self is > > a fabrication," do you mean that the assumption is a fabrication, > > where the assumption is the assumption "form is self" or "self > > possesses form" or "form is in self" or "self is in form" and so on > > for the other four aggregates? > > What are you driving at? > > That the "assumption of self" is different from the "assumption of > form is self"? > > Out of all the possible permutations of blending self with form, which > one is missed out by the Buddha? > > If there is no possible permutation that is missed out by the Buddha, > then it implies that self is an assumption. It invalidates all the > possible permutations of blending self with form. It implies that self > cannot be blended with form. It implies that there is no concrete > entity called a self that can be blended with form. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 21430 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 0:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, Ok. Thank you for sharing how your see it. To me the dichotomy of absolute/conventional is unnecessary. Again, thanks for sharing. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > I hope you don't mind if I come in on this exchange between you and > Howard. > > The 3 statements you cite here are instances of the same absolute > truth being expressed in conventional terms (or, more accurately > perhaps, in a combination of conventional and absolute terms). > > The statement "The five aggregates of clinging are dukkha" expresses > the same truth in purely absolute terms. > > There is no simple 'test' for determining whether something is a > truth or not (except that it is said that everything spoken by the > Buddha was true). > > The distinction between 'conventional' and 'absolute' (or 'ultimate') > is to be understood in the sense mentioned in the passage from the > Majjhima commentary quoted by Swee Boon in his post at > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21396. > > Your statement: > "Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionally" > and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis for > sophistry." > is a statement of opinion. In my own view, however, any suggestion > (whether or not intended) of there being any double speak or > duplicity in Howard's post, or of it being motivated by thoughts of > sophistry, are entirely unfounded. > > Jon > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard, > > > > Is the statement "not getting what is wanted is dukkha" > > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > > literally true? > > > > Is the statement "separation from the loved is dukkha" > > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > > literally true? > > > > Is the statement "association with the unbeloved is dukkha" > > conventionally true but literally false? Or is it conventionally > > false but literally true? Or is it conventionally true and > > literally true? > > > > How would one determine and/or distinguish whether a statement is > > conventionally true but literally false? Or conventionally false > > but literally true? Or conventionally true and literally true? > > > > Qualifying a statement's truth value with words "conventionlly" > > and "literally" is double speak, if not duplicity. It is a basis > > for sophistry. It allows what is true to be seen as false and what > > > > is false to be seen as true. And this, the double speak and > > duplicity, is what I found disturbing > > > > You said that you are sorry that I wrote an "attack piece" to you. > > > > The post was a reaction to the assumption that you made and the > > duplicity in what you wrote. It was not friendly, and it was not > > intended to be. > > > > Regard, > > Victor 21431 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 1:19pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the statement. However, this is how I see it: A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes away. A concept is impermanent. It is fabricated, or in your words, assembled. Whatever is fabricated, assembled, passes away. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > [snip] > > I note your assertion that 'a computer is impermanent'. However, I'm > not sure what significance you attach to it, in terms of the > teachings. Would you care to elaborate? > > > In one of the post you said that concepts are simply assembled > > ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door > > impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously > > assembled concepts). > > > > Now you are saying that there is no such thing as concept. > > Yes, that's right. A concept, by definition, is simply a means of > referring to/pointing at something. There is no such 'thing' as > concept. That's why it doesn't make any sense to talk about a > concept as being impermanent or as arising and falling away. > > I think a problem can arise for some from the fact that concept is > said to be the 'object' of the consciousness that thinks. Perhaps we > think of sense-door consciousness and its object which, as we know, > is a rupa (i.e., a separate dhamma). But it seems to me that the > moment of consciousness with concept as 'object' is different; the > only thing 'existing' at such moment is the consciousness itself. > > Jon 21432 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 2:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma Hi James, I really appreciate what you have done. Thank you! I used to have the software necessary to create .PDF on my laptop, but my hard disk crashed and the original CD is in Hong Kong. I haven't visited Hong Kong in a while. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > I converted this PowerPoint Presentation "Introduction to the > Abhidhamma" to a PDF document with the Speaker Notes and uploaded it > to the Files section. It is now available for viewing. For those > who don't have the reader, it can be downloaded and installed for > free at this link: > > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html > > Metta, James > ps. Rob, I found your presentation quite professional and thorough; > you are a master at PowerPoint! ;-) I don't agree with all of it, > but I appreciate your efforts. I am glad I could be of help in this > regard. James, Are the parts that you don't agree with because I have misinterpreted the Tipitaka or because your view differs with the Tipitaka? In either case, I would be interested in hearing more. Metta, Rob M :-) 21433 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 3:51pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Nina & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:47 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala > > > Dear Sarah, > op 16-04-2003 10:37 schreef Sarah op > sarahdhhk@y...: > > >> > I had a lot of trouble with the Way: just before > the repulsiveness, Way 74 > at end: truth of suffering is mindfulness, truth > of origination is > precraving (we talked of that), which originates > that mindfulness. I think > Kom said something about this but I still find it > difficult. What we have discussed before ended up into 2 explanations: 1) Pre-craving results in rebirth of being which makes possible mindfulness. I think this is clear an uncontroversial. 2) Pre-craving results in mindfulness in this very life. I think this is somewhat controversial. I think we may be able to equate this to jhana meditation. One may want to attain the peaceful state or the brahma rebirth, but the jhana states are wholesome and free of such need. Pre-craving motivates one to develop jhana. I think this is the same as in mindfulness (and I know this point is controversial) of realities. I think the big difference is, with the most subtle attachment still abound, one may still reach the highest level of jhana. But for one to attain enlightenment itself, the pre-craving must be recognized as sankhara and abandoned... That doesn't mean that one needs to have attachment toward mindfulness in order to have mindfulness, but having one is perfectly normal even though it should be recognized as something that is not useful to the development of the path. kom 21434 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:34pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > > I really appreciate what you have done. Thank you! > > I used to have the software necessary to create .PDF on my laptop, > but my hard disk crashed and the original CD is in Hong Kong. I > haven't visited Hong Kong in a while. James, Are the parts that you don't agree with because I have > misinterpreted the Tipitaka or because your view differs with the > Tipitaka? In either case, I would be interested in hearing more. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob M.! You are very welcome for the conversion of the PowerPoint into PDF. If you would like, again, the software necessary to do this conversion, contact me off-list with your address and I will mail it to you (for your personal use and not to be sold to others for a profit, of course! ;-). Rob, as far as your other question, you should already know (and I believe you do) that I do not have any problems with your interpretations of the Tipitaka. If anything, I believe you are able to incorporate missing truths and to bridge differences that aren't present in the original texts…much to your credit. However, you are a special case, I believe, and not everyone is going to be so lucky as to be able to differentiate on the fly as you are able to do. Therefore, I make the case against the Abhidhamma Pitaka, without qualification, that I consistently do for a specific purpose (but my opposition doesn't relate or apply to your unique, consolatory, interpretation of the Abhidhamma). In summary, my problem is with the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, not with your interpretation of such… which I hope this makes some sense to you! ;-). Metta, James 21435 From: nidive Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 5:50pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > I don't feel like explaining anything to you; I don't like the spirit > in which you ask. As if I like your sarcastic humour. That's fine. A genuine appeal for help had been rejected and turned into sarcasm. I thought you had been a monk before and you should know this matter better than me. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21436 From: azita gill Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? --- yasalalaka wrote: > ...snip..... > Yasalalaka > > dear Yasalalaka, I liked what you wrote to Star Kid Hillary, about the warring clans etc. and I want to add to that. the 4 sublime states taught by Buddha: Metta; Karuna; Mudita; Upekkha; these four are said to be excellant or sublime because they are the right or ideal way of conduct towards living beings [sattesu samma patipatti]. They provide in fact, the answer to all situations arising from social contact. They are the great removers of tension, the great peace-makers in social conflict and the great healers of wounds suffered in the struggle of existence. They level social barriers, build harmonious communities, awaken slumbering magnamity long forgotten, revive joy and hope long abandoned, and promote human brotherhood against the forces of egotism. Not sure where this came from, I think I may have taken it from one of the letters from dsg. I kept thinking about this when Iraq was being invaded. Wouldn't it be wonderful if world leaders followed the above and guided their people accordingly. Wishful thinking on my part, but in reality 'our' world is in fact the 6 worlds of seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling and touching and the appropriate sense fields of visible object, sound, etc. War, warring states, prime ministers, presidents, soldiers, victims of war, all concepts, and cannot be experienced thro any of the sense doors. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer to develop the wisdom to truly know reality. Azita. > 21437 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 10:38pm Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi James, > > > I don't feel like explaining anything to you; I don't like the spirit > > in which you ask. > > As if I like your sarcastic humour. > > That's fine. A genuine appeal for help had been rejected and turned > into sarcasm. > > I thought you had been a monk before and you should know this matter > better than me. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, I only use sarcasm in response to hypocrisy. If you noticed, I did answer your question: It has to do with the rules for when and how monks are supposed to teach the dharma. I wasn't going to answer you specifically because you are looking for an argument. I know when people are sincere and when they aren't, and you are the latter. For example, if you were truly sincere you wouldn't be trying to play the victim now to drum up negative appraisal of me. Let's just drop this; it is very tired. Also, I haven't ever been a monk. I was going to be a monk but I discovered the institution nowadays is, for the most part, hypocritical as well. Metta, James 21438 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Sujin insists on the importance > of making the distinction between > concepts and paramattha dhammas. > I agree that this is a very important point. > My question is that this insistence > is proper to Sujin's teachings > or of Abhidhamma in general? Hi KKT, In case you are confusing between Sujin and Sukin, I just want to clarify that the stress on the distinction between concept and reality was made by me, Sukin, on dsg in a couple or more of my posts. Even this it seems has been taken out of context to mean something other than what I intended. < snip > KKT: Thanks for your clarification, Sukin. But there is not confusion from my part, I did mean Sujin. Peace, KKT 21439 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 19, 2003 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pali verses for memorizing. Dear Sarah and Christine, Now we are together reciting and trying to memorize Pali. Christine may get the verses from Pali yahoo, Pali every few days. I shall think of you now and then. I memorize and then when the next text comes along I forget, but it does not matter, still enjoy it. For example, when I am with my father. op 19-04-2003 08:38 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > we meet we can recite together on buses or boats;-) > > Susukham vata jivama.... Nina: This is a wonderful reminder not to be negligent, since we know the teachings > are going to disappear. Quote: . > Gair/Karunatillake - Chapter 1 – Further Readings > Ex. 1. (Part 1 of 2) > 1. > Naaha.m, bhikkhave, a~n~na.m ekadhamma.m pi > samanupassaami, yo eva.m saddhammassa sammosaaya > antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattati, yathayida.m, bhikkhave, > pamaado. Pamaado, bhikkhave, saddhammassa sammosaaya > antaradhaanaaya sa.mvattatiiti. > > Monks, indeed I do not perceive another single mental > quality that thus leads to the confusion and > disappearance of the true doctrine, other than > negligence. Negligence, monks, leads to the > confusion and disappearance of the true doctrine. > > Naaha.m, bhikkhave, a~n~na.m ekadhamma.m pi > samanupassaami, yo eva.m saddhammassa .thitiyaa > asammosaaya anantaradhaanaaya sa.mvattati, > yathayida.m, bhikkhave, appamaado. Appamaado, > bhikkhave, saddhamassa .thitiyaa asammosaaya > anantaradhaanaaya sa.mvattatiiti. > > Monks, indeed I do not perceive another single mental > quality that thus leads to the continuation, > non-confusion, and non-disappearance of the true > doctrine, other than diligence. Diligence, monks, > leads to the continuation, non-confusion, and > non-disappearance of the true doctrine. 21440 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:10am Subject: Metta Dear Group, I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems to have been de-valued. So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that it was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) Christine 21441 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma James (and All) James, thanks very much for doing this. I am now able to view the presentation. As you say, Rob obviously knows his PowerPoint. I look forward to reading through the slides. All, the file is available at this address: z-Introduction to the Abhidhamma-Speaker Notes.pdf Jon --- buddhatrue wrote: ... > Hi Rob and Jon, > > I converted this PowerPoint Presentation "Introduction to the > Abhidhamma" to a PDF document with the Speaker Notes and uploaded > it > to the Files section. It is now available for viewing. For those > who don't have the reader, it can be downloaded and installed for > free at this link: > > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html > > Metta, James > ps. Rob, I found your presentation quite professional and thorough; > you are a master at PowerPoint! ;-) I don't agree with all of it, > but I appreciate your efforts. I am glad I could be of help in > this regard. 21442 From: sarahdhhk Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Bogor group Hi Victor (& Rob M), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as well.* > > Regards, > Victor > > * Anguttara Nikaya X.69, Kathavatthu Sutta, Topics of Conversation > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-069.html ..... I meant to add a couple of comments: 1. Note the sutta is addressed to bhikkhus. What is idle or against the rules for bhikkhus is different than for lay people perhaps. 2. I don't understand the last item mentioned, "bhavabhava" to refer to discussions on "whether things exist or not". In the PTS transl, it has "talk of becoming and not-becoming" with a footnote to say it can also mean "all sorts of becomings". I understand these `becomings' to refer to future lives. As we know, only the arahant has eradicated all bhava -tanha or attachment to `becoming'. On the contrary, understanding `the world' and whether dhammas exist and can be known and what these dhammas lies at the core of the teachings imho. While I'm here, let me also requote from the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2) and B.Bodhi' s summaries from the commentaries, with the emphasis on ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and wise attention) in this connection: ***** "What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance increases in him and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he attends to." ***** commentary notes: 1."MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed." 2. "MA illustrates the growth of the taints through unwise attention as follows: When he attends to gratification in the five cords of sensual pleasure, the taint of sensual desire arises and increases; when he attends to gratification in the exalted states (the jhanas), the taint of being arises and increases; and when he attends to any mundane things through the four "perversions" (of permanence, pleasure, self and beautiful etc), the taint of ignorance arises and increases." 3. "MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, attention denotes insight (vipassanaa), but at the moment of the path it dentotes path-knowledge. Insight directly apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, apprehending it by penetration as object (aaramma.na)..." " ********** Metta, Sarah ========= > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > According to the Suttas and Vinaya, the technical definition > > of "idle talk" is: "talk of kings, of thieves, of great ministers, > of > > armies, of fears, of battles, of food, of drink, of clothes, of > > beds, of garlands, of scents, of relations, of vehicles, of > > villages, of little towns, of towns, of the country, of women, of > > strong drink, of streets, of wells, of those departed before, of > > diversity, of speculation about the world, about the sea" > > > > In brief, almost everything we talk about fall under the category > > of "idle talk". 21443 From: nidive Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:32am Subject: Re: Mental Cultivation In Theravaada Tradition In Myanmar Hi James, > If you noticed, I did answer your question: It has to do with the > rules for when and how monks are supposed to teach the dharma. But which rule says specifically what you imply? I have given you a set of 16 rules. Is that rule within those 16? I couldn't understand how that rule is within those 16. Is there another rule? If there is, I would really appreciate if you could point it out. It was straight-forward, and there was no need to make a joke out of my inquiry. > I wasn't going to answer you specifically because you are looking > for an argument. No, I wasn't. A straight-forward inquiry requires a straight-forward reply. > I know when people are sincere and when they aren't, and you are > the latter. I do not concede that you have perfected the art of mind-reading. No, I do not admit that. Because you are entirely wrong. > For example, if you were truly sincere you wouldn't be trying to > play the victim now to drum up negative appraisal of me. Let's just > drop this; it is very tired. In the first place, if you had treated my initial inquiry with sincerity, instead of making a joke out of it, you would have been as sincere as me. > Also, I haven't ever been a monk. I was going to be a monk but I > discovered the institution nowadays is, for the most part, > hypocritical as well. Thanks for clarifying this. Perhaps I should not have pursued this Vinaya issue with you. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21444 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Christine & All, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Victor, Sarah, Mike, Jeff and All, > > My thinking over impermanence, change (anicca) began when I was > wondering about how all of us, blinded by Wrong View, could ever > understand what Right View really is. I intellectually understand > that Right View means to "see" things in their real nature as marked > with the Three Characteristics of Suffering (dukkha > or "unsatisfactoriness"), Impermanence and Not-Self; that all > phenomenal existence without exception is intrinsically > unsatisfactory in that there is no "thing" which can yield lasting > happiness; that this is in large part because of the second > characteristic - Impermanence. Everything which comes into existence > passes away eventually; there is no stability or permanence anywhere > to be found. ...... As you say, this is intellectual understanding which of course has value too. The reason I asked before what ‘everything’ is (or sth like that) was that if we just repeat that ‘everything’ changes or is impermanent or ‘everything’ is marked with the Three Characteristics as you mention, there will not be any deeper understanding of dhammas. So, as I see it, before there can be any real understanding of impermanence of dhammas, first these same dhammas, i.e the namas and rupas, have to be clearly understood and sati has to repeatedly be aware of them for this to happen. If there is no understanding now of seeing or visible object, hearing, feeling or other dhammas, there cannot possibly be the real comprehension of the arising and passing away of those same dhammas. That’s why the first vipassana nana (stage of insight) is clearly comprehending the difference between nama and rupa, not just thinking about it. ..... >Reading further on Impermanence, I came across Bhikkhu > Bodhi's teaching on Anicca: > > "According to the Buddha all momentary happenings go through three > stages, three submoments: a moment of arising, finally a moment of > perishing, and between the two "a transformation of that which > stands". This intermediate stage means that even in the brief moment > that a thing exists it isn't static but changing, a process, a flux > of becoming. The stable entities that we see are really bundles of > events, "packages" of momentary flashings strung together by laws of > conditionality. > http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/threeStages.htm > I feel a little uncomfortable with this 'flux of becoming' - ( :-) ..... I don’t have any problem with these comments :-) I think he is stressing (and we read this in the texts) that what is conditioned is in a state of continual flux. Is not the seeing or hearing now in a ‘flux of becoming’? ..... > though I don't imagine Bhikku Bodhi would feel at all rattled by that > remark :-)) 'Flux' means "The act of flowing; a continuous moving > on or passing by, as a flowing stream; constant succession; change." ..... That’s how I understand the term and yes, I think it would take more than your helpful reflections for B.Bodhi to feel rattled :-) ..... > This doesn't mirror what I experience as happening to everything in > daily life. My experience is that change, though relentless, doesn't > happen at a constant rate with all things. It is discontinuous. ..... I think the truth is that almost all the time, relentlessly, moha (ignorance) covers up the truth. This is why our perceptions of experience, especially when taken as being ‘my’ experiences, are notoriously unreliable. Usually when we have an idea of ‘everything in daily life’, isn’t this an idea in terms of situations and ‘things’ like computers? ..... > > Sarah asked: Do we (or panna) even see this `everything' changing > in `fits and starts'? > > CJF: No, I don't, always see the changing - I notice that 'how > things are' has changed. ..... What I meant to consider was whether there is any direct (rather than thinking) understanding of change of realities/actualities even for a finger-snap, let alone in ‘fits and starts’? ..... >But I don't think that is necessarily an > indicator that there is continuous imperceptible changes occuring in > every moment or sub-moment. I think everything is subject to change, > and could change at any time, and must change sooner or later, yet > also things endure for varying periods. At some times they change and > at other times they don't. ..... As you say, this is thinking;-) ..... > It seems to me somehow that the idea/belief of "continuous > imperceptible changes" could be the result of people seeking a type > of defense or barrier against sudden chaotic happenings, against > dukkha. *Everything* changes *all the time* is predictable and > comforting in some way. Could it be a search for a type of > certainty? Variable unpredictable change is more frightening than the > smooth certainty of flux. I am reminded of a common reaction in > those facing unresolvable uncertainty - build barriers of mental and > physical busy-ness - the 'workaholic' syndrome, "I'm busy and have > goals to be met, reports to be written, meetings to attend - > therefore I exist and I'm safe". ..... ;-) Wanting to see phenomena as changing or not changing or sometimes changing all sounds like more attachment to me. ..... > > Bhikkhu Bodhi says "according to the Buddha" - can someone point me > to Suttas that teach a doctrine of constant flux? I've found a few > that indicate while things arise and pass away, they also endure. ..... It may be a question of terminology - even when say a rupa is at the stage of ‘presence’(.thiti), I don’t think there is any suggestion of endurance, in that there are already the conditions in place for the same rupa to fall away. Perhaps you could indicate the suttas you have in mind for us all to look at further. Again, we need to consider carefully again the use of conventional language and what we’ve learnt from the Abhidhamma. Not sure if this helps further. Thanks for your feedback, Chris. Perhaps the others will have more comments too. Metta, Sarah ====== 21445 From: nidive Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 3:49am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill-will or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21446 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for the well ordered and comprehensive analysis. I didn't have a > problem wth any of it. .... @.@ .... >It occurred to me that an interesting arena in > which to discriminate between concept and reality is in a conversation. > Concept is the words and reality is the emotional reactions to the > words. ..... I’m not sure it’s helpful to think of concepts in terms of words at all. Anytime, whether or not in conversation, there are realities appearing and being experienced in between the concepts being thought about. Even when we are using words, aren’t there many moments of hearing, seeing, experiencing tangible objects and so on in between? At the moment of awareness of seeing or hardness, regardless of whether there is any conversation, there is no confusion about realities. ..... > A more subtle analysis could occur using the discursive thinking > process. Would it be correct to say concept can only be an object in > citta process? ..... I think you mean in the mind-door citta process as opposed to sense-door citta process? (remember, seeing is a citta too..) In this case, yes. Concept cannot be an object in a sense-door process. ..... >I assume vittaka and vicara (thinking) would accompany a > root citta in the javana (reaction) series. Similarly for sati and > ditthi (views). ..... Correct. Vitakka and vicara also accompany other cittas as well. As you know, they are different from our usual idea of thinking. ..... >So in order to make this distinction one would have to > discriminate between words and thinking as concept and reality. Correct? ..... Actually, this sounds pretty good. The cittas and accompanying cetasikas which ‘think’ or experience the concepts are real and can be directly known. Therefore they have characteristics, arise and fall away, are unsatisfactory and not self. On the other hand the words, the computer, the other ideas cannot be directly known. At this moment the experiencing or thinking can be known. I’d like to add a longish quote from an earlier message of Nina’s (to Kom) which I think you may find useful to look at again. I look forward to any further comments as I think this is such an important area of discussion. I'd be glad to hear any further discussion between you and Howard in your own words as well;-) Metta, Sarah ======= Nina: “I think one of the reasons of confusion with regard to concept, as you mentioned, is the word . In some translations thought stands for thinking. Thinking is the act of thinking, the experience, the nama of thinking. Even the word thinking can stand for the cetasikas vitakka, applied thinking and vicara, sustained thinking. They accompany cittas of the sense-door process, except the sense-cognitions of seeing etc., and cittas of the mind-door process, and also cittas not arising in processes(rebirth consciousness, bhavanga and dying-consciousness). Thus we see that they do not accompany only cittas of the mind-door process, that they are not the same as what we mean by thinking in conventional sense. Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the object. The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and vicara in order to experience visible object. We can use thinking in a wider sense: citta experiencing an object through the mind-door, but we have to be careful. Citta can experience through the mind-door paramattha dhammas as well as concepts. We can use the word thinking for citta experiencing concepts. The word *thought*: this is what citta thinks about, the object citta thinks of, and I am inclined to use this for concept, just as you, Kom, explained. You explained about shape and form: this is the concept of a whole. Citta can think of a story, a situation, this is a concept. We can call it also a thought. Thus for me thought is the object of the citta which thinks. For me it is not the act of thinking, the experience which is thinking. Also the long quote about the kinds of concepts given by Larry is very important to consider. When citta does not experience a reality it experiences a concept. As I remarked before, when we reflect on reality and concept the difference cannot be so clear. We may keep on trying to find definitions of reality and concept, of thinking and thought. Only when we learn to be directly aware of at least some realities appearing through different doorways the difference between reality and concept will become clearer. Like the hardness and the table, visible object and (Howard's) tree. I have a mental picture of Howard looking at his tree in the garden. A concept.” ********* 21447 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta Hi Christine, Many thanks for your reminders about metta: > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. ..... I just read over my last message to you (on change) which was a bit rushed and doesn’t sound as friendly as I intended at the outset. We can see how the cittas change - one moment friendly, the next moment impatient or restless perhaps. Hence the value of sincerity (sacca) and honesty. ..... > Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. .... A mental state. I think a behaviour, like writing a letter or talking to someone consists of many different mental states, some kusala, most akusala. ..... >If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. ..... On the other hand, we could say it shows some consideration. For example, if I show my nervousness or fear about the SARS virus or war or anything else to my students or even friends, it isn’t considerate. So I try to smile and reassure others and help them, keeping quiet about my own fears and anxieties. I’m sure this is the same when you are with patients/clients in the hospital. I think there are bound to be these different moments of kindness and metta and then thinking of oneself or fear and anger. When we smile and behave generously, I don’t think there is any anger at those moments. How about you? ..... >And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) ..... :-) Understanding the quality and carefully considering it as you are doing is very helpful. The wishing to strengthen it or have it arise more often is an impediment and contrary to the quality of metta as I see it. I hope others add comments. I only responded to this one now because I wished to apologise for any comments I make (such as in my other post) which could be said with more friendliness. Metta, Sarah ====== 21448 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta Dear Chris and Swee Boon, ----- Original Message ----- From: nidive To: > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. > > Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. > > Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill-will > or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. Even if there's no ill-will, aversion or hypocrisy, true moments of mettaa are rare, I think, and most likely occur amid moments of many other factors--most notably attachment (as Chris wrote earlier: "I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have for friends and congenial people."). In the context of the discourses, by my reading, mettaa can mean very conventional friendliness, amity etc., or the brahma vihaara or divine abode (or abiding) (an absorption, as I understand it). In abhidhamma, I think it's synonymous with the sobhanacetasika ('beautiful mental factor') adosa (translated by Bhikkhu Bodhi as non-hatred) and is also one of the four illimitables (identical to the brahma viharas). Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in his Guide to the Universal Beautiful Factors, Compendium of Mental Factors (p. 86, CMA): "When non-hatred appears as the sublime quality of loving-kindness (mettaa), it has the characteristic of promoting the welfare of living beings. Its function is to prefer [!?--mn] their welfare. Its manifestation is the removal of ill-will. Its proximate cause is seeing beings as lovable. Such loving-kindness must be distinguished from selfish affection, its near enemy." Though I don't use it as a closing myself for the above reasons, when someone else does I take it to refer to the first meaning--an expression of conventional friendliness, amity etc.--which seems quite harmless to me. mike 21449 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:37am Subject: RE: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Nina & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 10:47 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala > > > Dear Sarah, > op 16-04-2003 10:37 schreef Sarah op > sarahdhhk@y...: > > >> > I had a lot of trouble with the Way: just before > the repulsiveness, Way 74 > at end: truth of suffering is mindfulness, truth > of origination is > precraving (we talked of that), which originates > that mindfulness. I think > Kom said something about this but I still find it > difficult. What we have discussed before ended up into 2 explanations: 1) Pre-craving results in rebirth of being which makes possible mindfulness. I think this is clear an uncontroversial. 2) Pre-craving results in mindfulness in this very life. I think this is somewhat controversial. I think we may be able to equate this to jhana meditation. One may want to attain the peaceful state or the brahma rebirth, but the jhana states are wholesome and free of such need. Pre-craving motivates one to develop jhana. I think this is the same as in mindfulness (and I know this point is controversial) of realities. I think the big difference is, with the most subtle attachment still abound, one may still reach the highest level of jhana. But for one to attain enlightenment itself, the pre-craving must be recognized as sankhara and abandoned... That doesn't mean that one needs to have attachment toward mindfulness in order to have mindfulness, but having one is perfectly normal even though it should be recognized as something that is not useful to the development of the path. kom 21450 From: connie Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:54am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Jon ~ Here's 5-7. peace, connie five contemplations I am of the nature to age, I have not gone beyond ageing. I am of the nature to sicken, I have not gone beyond sickening. I am of the nature to die, I have not gone beyond dying. All that is mine, beloved and pleasing, will become otherwise, will become separated from me. I am the owner of my kamma, heir to my kamma, born of my kamma, related to my kamma, abide supported by my kamma; whatever kamma I shall do, for good or for ill, of that I shall be the heir." Matricide - ending all procreative agencies and lust and joy associated with procreation. Patricide - ending ignorance taking life of an Arahant - ending passion and anger creating schism in Sangha - breaking all combinations of aggregates draw blood from Buddha - destroy eightfold body of consciousness. The five components/aggregates, or skandhas, are: 1) rupa, materiality or form, 2) vedana, feelings of pleasure or pain or the absence of either one, 3) sanna, cognitive perception, 4) sankhara, the forces that cooperate to condition the psychic activity of an individual, 5) vinnana, consciousness. The 12 bases, or ayatanas, include the five sense organs and the mind (manas), as well as the five related sense fields and a cognizable object (as reflected in mental perception). five orders or processes (Niyamas) in the physical and mental realms: 1.seasonal laws (utu niyama) physical inorganic order e.g., seasonal phenomena, etc. 2.the biological laws (bija niyama) relating to seasonal changes etc., 3.the kammic law (kamma niyama) relating to moral causation or the order of act and result (vipaka), one of 24 paccaya (conditions) mental impulsion (Javana Citta) Birth (gati), time or conditions (kala), beauty (upadhi), and effort (payoga) act as such powerful aids and hindrances to the fruition of Kamma. Volition of will (cetana) is the doer. Feeling (vedana) is reaper. (A.N. 4.77) 4 imponderables: power of the Buddha; depth and power of jhãna; kamma-vipaka; speculation about the nature of the world. 4.natural phenomena (Dhamma niyama) relating to electrical forces, tides etc., and 5.psychological laws (citta niyama) which govern the processes of consciousness. After my decease, first will occur the five disappearances. And what are the five disappearances? The disappearance of the attainments, the disappearance of the method, the disappearance of learning, the disappearance of the symbols, the disappearance of the relics. five planes of existence (3, 6, 10, 31) (1) sphere of the plane of the devas ("shining beings", "gods"); (2) humans; (3) spirit world; (4) animal world; (5) lower world (duggati, niraya "hells") [(1) the sensuous world (kâma loka); (2) the fine material world (rûpa loka); (3) the immaterial world (ârûpa loka)] Six doors (dvara) = 5 sense rupa + mano-dhatu (mind element) their Six correlated objects (aramanna) Six conciousness (vinnana) total 18 elements (dhatus) 6 natures 1. Raga carita (greedy or passionate) 2. Dosa carita (angry ) 3. Moha carita (deluded) 4. Saddha carita (faithful) 5. Buddhi carita (intelligent) 6. Vitakka carita (ruminating or pondering) 7 universals (sabbacitta) 1.contact (phassa w/arammana) 2.feeling (vedana) 3.perception (sanna) 4.volition (cetana) determines activities 5.concentration (ekaggata)(samádhi) 6.life (jivita) 7.attention (manasikara) 7 Noble Treasures (ariya-dhanani): faith, virtue, a sense of shame, the fear of blame, learning (suta), renunciation (caga), and wisdom 7 powers (balani): faith, energy, a sense of shame, the fear of blame, mindfulness, concentration, wisdom. 7 factors of enlightenment: Mindfulness (Sati-sambojjhanga), investigation of the Law (Dhamma-vicaya), Energy (Viriya), Rapture (Piti), Tranquillity (Passaddhi), Concentration (Samadhi), Equanimity (Upekkha). 7 wrong practices (asaddhamma): lack of faith, lack of a sense of shame, lack of fear of blame, little learning, being slack (kusito), being unmindful (mutthassati), and lack of wisdom. 21451 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:34am Subject: Re: Metta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. > > Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. > > Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill- will > or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Dear Christine, the word love, has different connotations. It denotes attachment and therefore lobha chitta. love in ordinary sense has lot of negative elements, passion, possessiveness, jealosy, pride, anger and fear. Metta on the other hand is, generosity, happiness, friendly interest, sympathy, willingness to help, free from hate and ill- will. It is one of the four Brahama-viharas boundless state( appamanna). The four boundless states are: i) Loving kindness (metta) It is the kindness you extend to all beings, like the mothers love to her only child ii) Compassion (karuna)-quality that arouses tender feeling at the suffering or distress of others. Buddha is called the Great Compassionate One(Maha karuniko) iii) Altruistic joy (mudita)-It is the joy that rises in the heart of one ,seeing the others' success, welfare and happiness. iv) Equanimity (upekkha)-equanimity in both happiness and hardship of life. Brahama Vihara may be used as a daily meditation. For Metta Meditataion one should, sit comfortably in a quiet place where there is no disturbance (preferably before going to bed,or/and, immediately after waking up) . With eyes closed, infuse yourself with kindness and boundless love. Look at yourself with all the kindness you could muster, and wish yourself, health,happiness and contentment. Then extend that same kindness-boundless love,health, happiness and contentment, to those who are near and dear to you, imagining each one of them. Think of all beings, devas, men and women , all beings from smallest insects to biggest animals,and those in lower births and extend the same kindness-boundless love, wishing them, health,happiness and contentment, all beings in all ten directions, North, West, South and East, and directions in between, upwards and downwords. Ending a message or letter with the words " with metta", is a mere expression of goodwill, wishing the other happiness and contentment. with metta, yasalalaka 21452 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:34am Subject: Re: Metta --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. > > Which is why I seldom use it in my posts. > > Saying metta to someone when there is any slightest sense of ill- will > or aversion while writing the post is hypocritical. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Dear Christine, the word love, has different connotations. It denotes attachment and therefore lobha chitta. love in ordinary sense has lot of negative elements, passion, possessiveness, jealosy, pride, anger and fear. Metta on the other hand is, generosity, happiness, friendly interest, sympathy, willingness to help, free from hate and ill- will. It is one of the four Brahama-viharas boundless state( appamanna). The four boundless states are: i) Loving kindness (metta) It is the kindness you extend to all beings, like the mothers love to her only child ii) Compassion (karuna)-quality that arouses tender feeling at the suffering or distress of others. Buddha is called the Great Compassionate One(Maha karuniko) iii) Altruistic joy (mudita)-It is the joy that rises in the heart of one ,seeing the others' success, welfare and happiness. iv) Equanimity (upekkha)-equanimity in both happiness and hardship of life. Brahama Vihara may be used as a daily meditation. For Metta Meditataion one should, sit comfortably in a quiet place where there is no disturbance (preferably before going to bed,or/and, immediately after waking up) . With eyes closed, infuse yourself with kindness and boundless love. Look at yourself with all the kindness you could muster, and wish yourself, health,happiness and contentment. Then extend that same kindness-boundless love,health, happiness and contentment, to those who are near and dear to you, imagining each one of them. Think of all beings, devas, men and women , all beings from smallest insects to biggest animals,and those in lower births and extend the same kindness-boundless love, wishing them, health,happiness and contentment, all beings in all ten directions, North, West, South and East, and directions in between, upwards and downwords. Ending a message or letter with the words " with metta", is a mere expression of goodwill, wishing the other happiness and contentment. with metta, yasalalaka 21453 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 11:12am Subject: Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, Thank you for sharing your comments and quotes from the commentaries. I agree that the discourse, like most of the discourses, is addressed to bhikkhus, not to lay followers. I checked the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary and found that under the word "bhava": --abhava this or that life, any form of existence, some sort of existence. I think a bit of etymology of the word "bhava"/"bhavati" might of some interest. bhavati [bhu to become, cp. Sk. bhumi earth; Gr. fu/sis nature (physical), fu/omai to grow; Lat. fui I have been, futurus=future; Oir. buith to be; Ags. buan=Goth. bauan to live, Ger. bauen, also Ags. byldan=to build; Lith. buti to be, butas house Dhtp 1: bhu sattayan] to become, to be, exist, behave etc. You might also find this essay by Martin Heidegger interesting.* He traced the etymology of the word "bauen"/"build" and made a connection between building, dwelling, and being. http://pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Heidegger.html Regarding the connection between building, dwelling, and being, I find that the Buddha's utterance as recorded in Dhammapada has a striking metaphor reflects this connection. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/11.html#153 The purpose of drawing on the etymology of the word "bhava"/"bhavati" is to show the meaning of the word and how it can be understood in relation to the Buddha's teaching. I would think the core of the Buddha's teaching is not about what exists and what does not exist, or about whether dhamma exists or not. I would say that the Buddha's teaching is about dukkha and cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor * I mentioned this essay in another message that I wrote to you and Howard last March. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12163 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "sarahdhhk" wrote: > Hi Victor (& Rob M), > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > > Talk of whether things exist or not is fall under idle talk as > well.* > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > * Anguttara Nikaya X.69, Kathavatthu Sutta, Topics of > Conversation > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-069.html > ..... > I meant to add a couple of comments: > > 1. Note the sutta is addressed to bhikkhus. What is idle or > against the rules for bhikkhus is different than for lay people > perhaps. > > 2. I don't understand the last item mentioned, "bhavabhava" to > refer to discussions on "whether things exist or not". In the PTS > transl, it has "talk of becoming and not-becoming" with a footnote > to say it can also mean "all sorts of becomings". > > I understand these `becomings' to refer to future lives. As we > know, only the arahant has eradicated all bhava -tanha or > attachment to `becoming'. > > On the contrary, understanding `the world' and whether > dhammas exist and can be known and what these dhammas > lies at the core of the teachings imho. > > While I'm here, let me also requote from the Sabbasava Sutta > (MN 2) and B.Bodhi' s summaries from the commentaries, with > the emphasis on ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and > wise attention) in this connection: > ***** > "What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They > are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint > of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual > desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and > the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of > ignorance increases in him and the arisen taint of ignorance > increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he > attends to." > ***** > commentary notes: > > 1."MA makes the important point that there is no fixed > determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or > unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of > attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for > unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that > mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome > states should be developed." > > 2. "MA illustrates the growth of the taints through unwise > attention as follows: When he attends to gratification in the five > cords of sensual pleasure, the taint of sensual desire arises > and increases; when he attends to gratification in the exalted > states (the jhanas), the taint of being arises and increases; and > when he attends to any mundane things through the four > "perversions" (of permanence, pleasure, self and beautiful etc), > the taint of ignorance arises and increases." > > 3. "MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, > attention denotes insight (vipassanaa), but at the > moment of the path it dentotes path-knowledge. Insight directly > apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the > mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and > its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. > Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, > apprehending it by penetration as object (aaramma.na)..." " quotes from earlier message> > ********** > > Metta, > > Sarah > ========= 21454 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 0:14pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Christine, Thanks for this message. I think that you hit it right on the spot by saying that I think everything is subject to change, and could change at any time, and must change sooner or later, yet also things endure for varying periods. At some times they change and at other times they don't. This is how I see it: It is not much of how fast things change or one is able to see the change. Change can be imperceptible, gradual, sudden, violent, chaotic... It does not matter. Everthing is impermanent in the sense that whatever it is, be it some specific mundane object such as a glass, a desk, or a chair, or something like a marriage or a relationship, or in terms of five aggregates: form, feeling, perception, fabrications, or consciousness, is subject to change, disintegration, does not last. Whatever comes into existence, passes away, sooner or later. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, Sarah, Mike, Jeff and All, > [snip] > metta, > Christine 21455 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 2:00pm Subject: Astrology Dear Group, I am wondering about the place of Astrology in the practice of Buddhism. I had a phone call from an acquaintance last week who has been a Theravadin buddhist for about twenty-five or thirty years. This person is knowledgeable enough in the practice of Astrology to contemplate setting up a small business to draw natal charts, and have consultations. I did not ask (and, under the circumstances, could not) if this was a wholesome buddhist practice or whether it was encouraged or discouraged in the Teachings. I have looked in Access to Insight and have been able to find that Bhikkhus are forbidden to practice astrology, it being considered a wrong mode of livelihood. However, the Buddha established a purely monastic uposatha observance, "which he limited to the final day of the lunar fortnight. To enable the bhikkhus to determine the date of this observance, he relaxed the rule against their studying astrology, which in those days had not yet separated from astronomy, allowing them to learn as much astronomy as needed to calculate whether the full and new moons fell on the fourteenth or fifteenth of a particular fortnight. ("At that time people asked the bhikkhus as they were going for alms, 'Which day of the fortnight is it, sirs?' The bhikkhus said, 'We don't know.' The people were offended and annoyed and spread it about, 'These Sakyan contemplatives don't even know enough to calculate the fortnight. How will they know anything else that's worthwhile?'" -- Mv.II.18.1) But is the practice of Astrology forbidden, or discouraged, or seen as not wholesome as a livelihood, hobby or belief for lay people? I am told that the predictions are quite scientific and uncannily accurate - and this raises other questions about perhaps viewing Astrology as a comfort, support or a skillful means to chart one's aims and goals. And how can it (as it seems to do) scientifically predict the future? I wonder how Astrology fits in with life consisting only of the present moment, with kamma, with anatta, with no-control etc. metta, Christine 21456 From: Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:11pm Subject: Way 78, Cemetary Contemplations cont. Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Section on the Nine Cemetery Contemplations continued: Everywhere, according to the method already stated beginning: "He thinks of his own body thus: 'This body of mine too is of the same nature as that (dead) body, is going to be like that body, and has not got past the condition of becoming like that body." Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally": Thus through the laying hold of the corpse from the state in which it is being eaten by crows and other creatures to the state when it is dust, one dwells contemplating the body in one's own body, or in another's or at one time in one's own body and at another time in another's body. Further having stopped here one should put together the nine cemetery contemplations thus: Ekahamatam va dvihamatam va tihamatam va = "A body dead one, two or three days." This is the first contemplation. Kakehi va khajjamanam = "Whilst it is being eaten by crows." This portion of the Discourse where the devouring of the body of various kinds of animals is stated refers to the second contemplation. Atthikasamkhalikam samamsalohitam naharusamban-dham = "A skeleton together with (some) flesh and blood held in by the tendons." This is the third contemplation. Nimmamsalohitamakkhitam naharusambandham = "A blood-smeared skeleton without flesh but held in by the tendons." This is the fourth. Apagatamamsalohitam naharusambandham = "A skeleton held in by the tendons but without flesh and not besmeared with blood." This is the fifth. Atthikani apagatasambandhani = "Bones gone loose, scattered in all directions." This is the sixth. Atthikani setani sankhavannupanibhani = "Bones white in color like a conch." This is the seventh. Atthikani puñjakitani terovassikani = "Bones more than a year old heaped together." This is the eighth. Atthikani putini cunnakajatani = "Bones gone rotten and become dust." This is the ninth. Evam kho bhikkhave = "Thus, indeed, o bhikkhus." He said this bringing to an end body-contemplation after pointing out the nine cemetery contemplations. The mindfulness which lays hold of the nine cemetery contemplations is the Truth of Suffering; the previous craving which originates that mindfulness is the Truth of Origin; the non-occurrence of both that mindfulness and the craving is the Truth of Cessation. The Real Path that understands suffering, casts out the origin, and has cessation for its object is the Truth of the Way. Endeavoring in this way by means of the Four Truths one arrives at peace. This is for the bhikkhu who lays hold of the nine cemetery contemplations the portal of deliverance up to arahantship. Now, these are the fourteen portions which comprise body-contemplation: The section on breathing in and breathing out, on the postures, on the four kinds of clear comprehension, of reflection on repulsiveness, on the modes of materiality, and on the nine cemetery contemplations. There, only the sections on breathing in and breathing out and of the reflection on repulsiveness can become meditation-subjects of full absorption. As the cemetery contemplations are stated by way of consideration of disadvantages, dangers or evils, all the remaining twelve are only meditation-subjects of partial absorption. 21457 From: Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 4:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, I re-read the definition of concepts in CMA and didn't see anything beyond concepts are words and meanings of words. If you see something more, let's discuss it. Also, I thought of a complication with regard to when concepts can arise in citta process. If sanna (perception) remembers [as, I think, Suan asserts] then sanna possibly has two objects, the object of citta and the remembered object. Should this be the case, then concept could arise with any consciousness by means of sanna. This seems logically possible, but I don't think I have experienced it, at least with the idea that concept = word. Dredging up words seems to be a distinct process in itself. One that gets more difficult as one gets older :-))) Also, I'm looking forward to your reply to KKT regarding the importance of the concept/reality distinction in abhidhamma. Larry 21458 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 6:23pm Subject: Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid > wrote: > > Hi James, > > > > You know the war now between America and Iraq. I > > absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my > > family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big > > drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I > > mean a real scream. > > > > Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war > > against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about > > anti-war? > > > > If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will > > they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, > > if yes, most likely into what? > > Metta, > > > > > Hilary > > Hi Star Kid Hilary! > > Gosh, I am so sorry to hear that the war coverage on TV upset you. I > didn't see anything on TV news coverage with blood going across the > camera lens like you describe, but I probably would have been rather > upset also. I hope that you are better now. > > Hilary, I'm sorry, but I am not going to answer any of your questions > about war, Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. This is a very > volatile subject and my answers are incorrectly viewed as me pushing > a personal agenda. Frankly, I don't feel safe or accepted in this > group discussing this subject. I wish I could help you, but I > can't. I hope you can understand. If I ever meet you face-to- face, > I will then answer your questions about war. > > Metta, James Hi Star Kid Hilary! I wanted to give you some quotes about what some different children think about this war, children in England and the USA. As you will notice, they all have different opinions. There isn't one right answer to your question...that is why I am hesitant to answer. But let me make something very clear: The Lord Buddha wasn't anti-war, he was anti-suffering and anti-ignorance. War is just a consequence of the ignorance in the world...the Buddha didn't campaign to stop the symptoms, he campaigned to stop the cause. To be anti-war, without qualification, in the face of the truth of suffering, is juvenile and fantasy-like. I wanted to add more because someone wrote you a post that I don't agree with and is misleading of what the Buddha actually taught. Here are what some children have to say about the current war in Iraq: I would like to say that although the war is a bad thing! It's also a good thing because Saddam Hussein will get the message and just get on with people. From what I have heard not many people over there like him anyway and it's a shame they have to put up with another war! But I'm also very proud of Tony Blair because sooo many people have disagreed with him but he stood by his beliefs and the war has started but already it's going well for us! So hopefully it will be over soon! And not too many people have died! Steph, 15, Birmingham I have mixed feelings about the war. If we didn't go to war Saddam Husein might've used the weapons to attack the U.S. By going to war we are trying to protect our country, but many innocent people will die. Ashley, 10, USA I think by bomming Iraq Saddam might feel to presure to retaliate. Alexandra, 11, Illford I am saddened by the fact we are at war. It is hard to really understand how people are feeling in Iraq because it is so far away. One night on the news there was footage from the troops and people in Iraq - that is the closest I have got to being able to understand how it must be in Iraq for everyone there, and that understanding is minimal. Rachel, 15, Derbyshire I think It is utterley pointless to go to war. But as we are at war we do need to support the people that are fighting for us. I feel sorry for all the people who have family and friends in Iraq and the armed forces. I cannot see why this matter could not be sorted out peacefully Rachel, 14, Burnham War is stupid! So are Tony Blair and George W. Bush for starting this stupid war in the first place! Kirsty and Annie, 14, Dalkeith I'm glad we are doing something to get rid of Saddam because he is an extremely evil and sick man who tortures his own people, but in the process these people are going to die which im not happy about. Jen, 14, Farnborough It doesn't make sense that, even though this is a fight of the countries' leaders it is the innocent that are being killed. And that British people could die, for America. We as kids are taught that two wrongs don't make a right, so why do they not listen to their own advice? Layla, 14, Lancashire I'm upset and scared. I still think that there was some way of sorting it all out. I don't think we had to do this with weapons, I think there should have been more time. If you look at all the facts, this really doesn't make much sense! Even though I am against the cause I still support the troops, I'm proud of them and I want them to know that my heart is with them no matter what. Amethyst, 13, Washington I think that it's sad that we have gone to war but it's necessary. Sadam has done terrible things to his own people and we need to save them. I feel sorry for all of the innocent people especially the children who get caught up in this. Cassandra, 13, Chelmsford I don't think that the war is right, but now we are at war I think we should be supporting the soldiers who are fighting. Rachel, 15, Reading I'm glad we've gone to war. Saddam is a threat to the rest of the world with his wepons of mass destruction. He uses them on his own people so he won't think twice about using them on other countries. Harriet, 12, Edinburgh My father is in the RAF. He has recently been to Oman, and I'm worried he will get called up. This war has a very big emotional imnpact on everyone. Toria, 13, Findhorn It's stupid because innocent people will die. Harriet, 9, Stowmarket I think that Blair and Bush are wrong to go to war without the U.N backing them up. If Sadam has chemical and biological wepons he will use them against us in defence. Rachel, 11, Newcastle Under Lyme I think that now war has started, more terrorists will try to attack innocent people in innocent countries like we saw in 9/11. Although Iraq has little chance of boming us, declaring war on Iraq still puts an amount of danger upon us. Christopher, 11, Witley I didn't think war was possible until 9/11. Now I'm scared for my country and the world. Kids in America have a constant fear of someone striking us everyday. I think that Iraq has messed with the wrong country, especially when it comes to war. My friends try to act tough about this war, but I know they're scared just as every kid is right now. Sarah, 13, Virginia, USA You go Blair and Bush, get Saddam we will back you all the way! Support our boys and girls, bring them safely home. We hope you got Saddam this morning - he needs to be stopped. Stand up for your country, I would never have thought we could be so unpatriotic! Freya, 13, Cornwood I think that now that war has started many people are going to die, and there cannot ever be peace if we hate like this. Some of my friends have gone on a walkout and I think they mat be suspended. I know that my sister is in the military and she could die. Bush and Blair are ruining so many lives. We are all forever doomed if there cannot be peace. Becca, 12, London We feel sorry for the people in Iraq. Why did Tony Blair want to do such a thing? Class 5B, Chesham I can remember back to the week following September 11th 2001 and someone in my class saying that there will probably be war, no matter what. He was right. I can't believe Blair would do this! Soldiers that have families may die! It's horrible to think about what they're going through! Emma, 11 I think this is a terrible course of action and I am disappointed in our leaders' failure to inform and support us. Somebody should tell him that NO WAR doesn't mean NO ACTION. Something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein, but not this. Attacking Iraq is like attacking someone with a tumour rather than removing it. Richard, 15, Windsor My dad fought in the last Gulf war but he hasn't been called up. But I never thought the weapons inspections would amount in war. Hannah, 12, Gloucester I think that war isn't the best solution to this. They could have done this with peace. War is not good for anybody whether they are rich or poor and how powerful they are. And not only that, many people can be killed. Amy, 12, Vancouver I remember my parents always saying they hoped there would never be another war. But this has changed that, and it's pretty terrifying. Even living in Australia, whenever there's a plane overhead everyone tenses up, maybe because we feel the terror of the Iraqi's during those moments of suspense. It's terrible, and the public doesn't know enough information to have an opinion on war. How did we let this happen? Caitlyn, 12, Sydney I have become a different person within the last few hours, and I realize now not to take the essence of life for granted. As I write this, I can see the explosions in Iraq on my television, while I am sitting safe at home. I am in an utter state of shock and disbelief. How can the prosperous and wealthy America attack a deprived impoverished Iraq? My heart goes out to those who will suffer in this atrocity. My friends and I are scared for not only the USA, but for also the world. Arianna, 13, Mississippi, USA I think that war isn't the best solution to this. But we'll probably win anyway considering how many allies we have. Kaelyn, 12, Hillsboro A couple of years ago before 9/11 I thought that war would be impossible. Now that I'm older of course I know it's possible. We're at the beginning of it right now. Americans treasure their rights. I, being one, do too. I'm watching the news more than ever before and I realize that they're giving all this information about the war. Cara, 12, USA Well, as of now war has started. I (like many Americans), am anti- war. However, I think we should support the troops. They do not decide whether they go or not, they are ordered to. They are over there to fight, perhaps even to die, and we should support them, not as soldiers, but as people. People almost seem to forget that soldiers have lives and families, and I doubt that they want to die. Even if we do not support the war, we should support the people who are trying to end it faster. Rachel, 14, New York Metta, James 21459 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:17pm Subject: Re: Astrology Hi Christine, Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda has written a small booklet on Astrology and Buddhism. Here is the link: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/pictures/PUBLI/Buddhism%20And% 20Astrology%20-%20edited.pdf Here is the link to the collection of Chief Reverend's books: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm Hope that this helps. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am wondering about the place of Astrology in the practice of > Buddhism. I had a phone call from an acquaintance last week who has > been a Theravadin buddhist for about twenty-five or thirty years. > This person is knowledgeable enough in the practice of Astrology to > contemplate setting up a small business to draw natal charts, and > have consultations. I did not ask (and, under the circumstances, > could not) if this was a wholesome buddhist practice or whether it > was encouraged or discouraged in the Teachings. I have looked in > Access to Insight and have been able to find that Bhikkhus are > forbidden to practice astrology, it being considered a wrong mode of > livelihood. > > However, the Buddha established a purely monastic uposatha > observance, "which he limited to the final day of the lunar > fortnight. To enable the bhikkhus to determine the date of this > observance, he relaxed the rule against their studying astrology, > which in those days had not yet separated from astronomy, allowing > them to learn as much astronomy as needed to calculate whether the > full and new moons fell on the fourteenth or fifteenth of a > particular fortnight. ("At that time people asked the bhikkhus as > they were going for alms, 'Which day of the fortnight is it, sirs?' > The bhikkhus said, 'We don't know.' The people were offended and > annoyed and spread it about, 'These Sakyan contemplatives don't even > know enough to calculate the fortnight. How will they know anything > else that's worthwhile?'" -- Mv.II.18.1) > > But is the practice of Astrology forbidden, or discouraged, or seen > as not wholesome as a livelihood, hobby or belief for lay people? I > am told that the predictions are quite scientific and uncannily > accurate - and this raises other questions about perhaps viewing > Astrology as a comfort, support or a skillful means to chart one's > aims and goals. And how can it (as it seems to do) scientifically > predict the future? > I wonder how Astrology fits in with life consisting only of the > present moment, with kamma, with anatta, with no-control etc. > metta, > Christine 21460 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 7:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I chatted with Chief Reverend yesterday about this. He mentioned that five books had been translated. I went to this link: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm and I was able to download "Buddhism in Modern Life" without a problem. "Buddhism and the Duties of a Lay Buddhist" took a long time, but could also be downloaded. The other three books, "The Aim and Way of Life", "How to Overcome Your Difficulties" and "Moral and Ethical Conduct of a Buddhist" caused errors when I tried to download the Burmese versions. I sent an email to the Webmaster about this problem and asked to be notified when it had been fixed. Chief mentioned that there were no hard copies of Burmese books at the temple and that the person who did the translation was Dr. Mehm Tin Mon. I attended Dr. Mon's Abhidhamma lectures last November. He does not have an e-mail address (difficult to come by in Myanmar). Here are Dr. Mon's contact details: Dr. M. Tin Mon 15/19 U Wisara Estate Dagon P.O. Yangon Union of Myanmar. Phone: 95-01-286610 I will let you know if I am notified when the files are fixed. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Yes I am interested only in the Burmese books. > I am assuming that there may not be more than handful of these, but > I may be wrong. Lets just say that about 5 different books will do. > And I am going to be giving them to beginners of Buddhism. So if you > will have to choose from a larger collection, I leave it to you to > decide which ones to get. > BTW I will have to pay for whatever the costs, if any. > > Thanks again. > > Sukin. 21461 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 8:47pm Subject: Re: Astrology Hi Rob, I've read Dr. K. Sri Dhammadanda's four page article on Astrology. I must say I was expecting an 'anti' article, and instead got the opposite. Very interesting, and it has opened quite another perspective for me. (lucky I didn't say anything on the phone last week! :)) Thank you. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda has written a small booklet on Astrology and > Buddhism. Here is the link: > > http://www.ksridhammananda.com/pictures/PUBLI/Buddhism%20And% > 20Astrology%20-%20edited.pdf > > Here is the link to the collection of Chief Reverend's books: > > http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > > Hope that this helps. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > I am wondering about the place of Astrology in the practice of > > Buddhism. I had a phone call from an acquaintance last week who > has > > been a Theravadin buddhist for about twenty-five or thirty years. > > This person is knowledgeable enough in the practice of Astrology 21462 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 5:53pm Subject: Astrology Re Astrology. Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am very much against it. In the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not alowwed to read the future by any means Yet, there are monks who do it. I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or Thai monks, but it is wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple Prayorkyo reads the future with numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day and gets a donation of $50 dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao Temple in St Jhons Park Sydney also reads the future with numbers. Venerable Abbot of That Luang in Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot cards. I have been very outspoken with the monks about this, but been told that this is a tradition of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I should mind my own business. All this monks have been monks for over 25 years and all of then received money as donations for them for reading the cards and astrological charts. Christine, there is no way that a man can read the future, it is against the Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all the time. Venerable Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) I know by personal experience about this. This is a battle that I will never win. 21463 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:25pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Rob, Thankyou for your help. But I just spend the last 25 minutes trying to download "Buddhism in Modern Life" and I got only to page 5. I think it must be a big file since it is a scanned copy. Besides my phone line is not very good. However they must have done something about it, since on my previous attempts I got only error messages. So I will probably have to write to Dr. M. Tin Mon and hope that something positive will come up. Thanks again. Best wishes, Sukin. -----Original Message----- From: robmoult [mailto:rob.moult@j...] Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 9:27 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I chatted with Chief Reverend yesterday about this. He mentioned that five books had been translated. I went to this link: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm and I was able to download "Buddhism in Modern Life" without a problem. "Buddhism and the Duties of a Lay Buddhist" took a long time, but could also be downloaded. The other three books, "The Aim and Way of Life", "How to Overcome Your Difficulties" and "Moral and Ethical Conduct of a Buddhist" caused errors when I tried to download the Burmese versions. I sent an email to the Webmaster about this problem and asked to be notified when it had been fixed. Chief mentioned that there were no hard copies of Burmese books at the temple and that the person who did the translation was Dr. Mehm Tin Mon. I attended Dr. Mon's Abhidhamma lectures last November. He does not have an e-mail address (difficult to come by in Myanmar). Here are Dr. Mon's contact details: Dr. M. Tin Mon 15/19 U Wisara Estate Dagon P.O. Yangon Union of Myanmar. Phone: 95-01-286610 I will let you know if I am notified when the files are fixed. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Rob, > > Yes I am interested only in the Burmese books. > I am assuming that there may not be more than handful of these, but > I may be wrong. Lets just say that about 5 different books will do. > And I am going to be giving them to beginners of Buddhism. So if you > will have to choose from a larger collection, I leave it to you to > decide which ones to get. > BTW I will have to pay for whatever the costs, if any. > > Thanks again. > > Sukin. 21464 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:45pm Subject: Re: Astrology Dear Bhante and All, Thank you for your letter, Bhante. I understand your concern about fortune telling, and fully agree with it. The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about Astrology did not encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the types of personalities born under certain star signs. The article is at: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm 12th row down, centre column He felt there was some scientific evidence to indicate that there was a connection between birth date and personality characteristics. He felt that having knowledge of this might be of some help to people in plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony with their innate tendencies, so that there is less friction as they go through life. I am a little puzzled about one point though. He says "Buddhists accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which pulsates through every living thing, including plants. This energy interacts with the karmic energy which individual generates and determines the course that a life will take." I hadn't heard this 'immense cosmic energy' discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) a problem. Does anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the scriptures at all? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Re Astrology. > > Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am very much against it. In > the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not alowwed to read the future by > any means Yet, there are monks who do it. > I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or Thai monks, but it is > wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks > Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple Prayorkyo reads the future with > numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day and gets a donation of $50 > dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao Temple in St Jhons Park > Sydney also reads the future with numbers. Venerable Abbot of That Luang in > Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot cards. I have been very > outspoken with the monks about this, but been told that this is a tradition > of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I should mind my own business. > All this monks have been monks for over 25 years and all of then received > money as donations for them for reading the cards and astrological charts. > Christine, there is no way that a man can read the future, it is against the > Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all the time. Venerable > Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) I know by personal > experience about this. This is a battle that I will never win. 21465 From: nidive Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jonothan Abbott, But how can the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts be discerned if concepts cannot be "directly known" as suggested by Sarah? I think it is better to treat concepts as under the aggregate of fabrications. Concepts are fabricated things anyway. They depend on the ultimate reality of fabrications. Concepts "arise" and "fall away" together with the ultimate reality of fabrications. I think in one sense concepts are real. In another sense, they are not real. I hope you get what I mean. I do not think that the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities is that crucial. Otherwise the Buddha would have merely taught the ultimate teaching. [4] "Furthermore... just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain -- wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice -- and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html All these things in the body are merely concepts. Yet the Buddha tells us to contemplate the body in this manner. [5] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed -- in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html Here, the Buddha presents the ultimate teaching. Why would the Buddha present both conventional and ultimate teachings in one single sutta? If insight into the four great elements is crucial for everyone, the Buddha would not have presented so many choices as how to be mindful of the body in and of itself. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21466 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 20, 2003 10:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation Hi Sukin, I have downloaded the two books ("Buddhism in Modern Life" and "Buddhism and the Duties of a Lay Buddhist") and will put them onto a CD to send to you using "snail mail". Please send me your "snail mail" address to my email account: rob.moult@j... Metta, Rob M :-) 21467 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 0:38am Subject: Re: Astrology --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Bhante and All, > > Thank you for your letter, Bhante. I understand your concern about > fortune telling, and fully agree with it. > > The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about Astrology did not > encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the types of > personalities born under certain star signs. > The article is at: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > 12th row down, centre column > > He felt there was some scientific evidence to indicate that there was > a connection between birth date and personality characteristics. He > felt that having knowledge of this might be of some help to people in > plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony with their innate > tendencies, so that there is less friction as they go through life. > > I am a little puzzled about one point though. He says "Buddhists > accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which pulsates through > every living thing, including plants. This energy interacts with the > karmic energy which individual generates and determines the course > that a life will take." I hadn't heard this 'immense cosmic energy' > discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) a problem. Does > anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the scriptures at all? > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" > wrote: > > Re Astrology. > > > > Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am very much against > it. In > > the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not alowwed to read the > future by > > any means Yet, there are monks who do it. > > I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or Thai monks, but > it is > > wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks > > Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple Prayorkyo reads the > future with > > numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day and gets a donation > of $50 > > dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao Temple in St Jhons > Park > > Sydney also reads the future with numbers. Venerable Abbot of That > Luang in > > Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot cards. I have been > very > > outspoken with the monks about this, but been told that this is a > tradition > > of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I should mind my own > business. > > All this monks have been monks for over 25 years and all of then > received > > money as donations for them for reading the cards and astrological > charts. > > Christine, there is no way that a man can read the future, it is > against the > > Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all the time. > Venerable > > Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) I know by personal > > experience about this. This is a battle that I will never win. Dear Christine, Buddha has not spoken of cosmic energy that could change the course of Kamma, in any of his dicourse. These are Hindu beliefs that have crept into Buddhist Societies and are not the teachings of the Buddha. with metta, Yasalalaka 21468 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 0:43am Subject: Re: Astrology Hi Chris, I haven't read your original post since I haven't caught up with it yet in my reading of dsg material of the past 2 days. But I randomly picked up and found this one and felt a need to respond since it comes at a time when I am trying to get other books by the Venerable. You wrote: > The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about Astrology did not > encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the types of > personalities born under certain star signs. > The article is at: http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > 12th row down, centre column > > He felt there was some scientific evidence to indicate that there was > a connection between birth date and personality characteristics. He > felt that having knowledge of this might be of some help to people in > plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony with their innate > tendencies, so that there is less friction as they go through life. Perhaps it is the Venerable's aim that he just wants "people to have less friction as they go through life", maybe he is talking about those of us who would not deeply understand the dhamma anyway. If living a smooth conventional life is the aim, this might sound attractive, but even this will not ultimately work. So I *do* have a problem with this because I think it encourages an attitude that goes against the correct understanding of dhamma. Firstly for me 'sceintific evidence' is no evidence at all. I don't believe in the methods of science when it comes to understanding truth, even if it admits to being partial and one sided, I think a collection of parts put together no matter how extensive does not and will not make a whole or even give a glimpse of it. For example when it comes to personality, it's evidence is based on outer behavior and/ or inference, not direct insight. Based on this inferential knowledge, more inferences are made and so in the end one really gets further away from the actual fact, which is this moment arising and falling away. You and I at least appreciate the fact that there are at any given moment a complex set of conditions which determine the arising of any reality. And this can't be comprehended by anyone let alone to know the arising of any subsequent dhamma. And so far I have only implied citta, cetasika and kamma, now you add environment and you can see how much more complicated it gets. Secondly, even in the Buddha's teachings itself, about carita (sp?), I don't see any use in knowing one's personality type at all. How can knowing this help in understanding the moment? In fact there is a danger in dwelling on such knowledge and taking the attention away from the more important task of understanding the arising reality. "Knowledge is power" they say, I think it is a fetter in this case...;-) > I am a little puzzled about one point though. He says "Buddhists > accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which pulsates through > every living thing, including plants. This energy interacts with the > karmic energy which individual generates and determines the course > that a life will take." I hadn't heard this 'immense cosmic energy' > discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) a problem. Does > anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the scriptures at all? I doubt it, and would be surprised if it were. Such ideas seem to be the product of speculation, and I leave it to other's to do whatever want with such kind of thinking, for me it is not helpful at all. Metta, Sukin. 21469 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Sarah, Mike, Swee Boon, Yasalalaka and All, Sarah - I like your example about the SARS and the children - putting their comfort and calmness ahead of your own feelings is (probably) metta. I didn't regard anything in your other post as unfriendly - thank you for making sure there was no misunderstanding. :-) Sometimes I wonder how you and others put up with my questioning, and I'm grateful for people's patience - especially when I asked the same questions last year and seemed to 'get it' at the time. (It would be wonderful if my memory was like 'monkey-lime' for Right Understanding). Mike - Thanks for your thoughts. I find your quotation from Bhikkhu Bodhi rather interesting - the bit about where Bhikkhu Bodhi writes in his Guide to the Universal Beautiful Factors, Compendium of Mental Factors (p. 86, CMA): "When non-hatred appears as the sublime quality of loving-kindness (mettaa), it has the characteristic of promoting the welfare of living beings. Its function is to prefer [!?--mn] their welfare. --- " I wonder how this relates to that sutta (which I can't locate) where it was said (something like) if someone was with three companions and a bandit came and wanted to select one to be killed - it was not showing Right Understanding to volunteer to sacrifice *oneself* - as that was differentiating, and *oneself* was just as valuable as the other three. [I hope I haven't imagined this sutta or misunderstood its meaning]. The Visuddhimagga (Chapter IX 93) takes *the being* out of it, and says: "loving kindness is characterized here as promoting the aspect of welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in beings. It succeeds when it makes ill-will subside, and it fails when it produces (selfish) affection." Not wishing to revive the old discussion about 'self' or 'other' as the object of metta - but perhaps we have? If my sutta is locatable - wouldn't it mean *oneself* is no more and no less valuable than an *other*.(and equally deserving of metta without differentiation?) Swee Boon - I understand what you mean. This raises a question for me - what do I do with the feeling of ill will and aversion? It belongs to me not to the other person. Sometimes I wonder how I am ever to get to the point of : "Just as a mother would protect her son - her only son - with her life - even so let him cultivate this boundless love to all living beings. Radiating with a full heart loving thoughts of kindness towars all the world, free from anger, malice or anxiety - above, below and in all directions". Yasalalaka - Thank you for your post, and for telling me that the Buddha is called the Great Compassionate One(Maha karuniko) I don't remember hearing of this title before. There have been a number of discussions over the last year on whether metta should be pervaded towards oneself or only towards others; and whether metta could be made to arise in a specific formal practice or whether it just arises in moments of daily living. On this List, there are numbers of people who do formal sitting/walking/standing meditation, and numbers of people who don't. Of course, while the discussions were robust and interesting, I'm not sure too many changed their particular stance. :-) I gather from the description of meditation in your post that you practice formal meditation. Have you heard these Brahma Viharas chant and guided meditations on this site?: http://www.vipassana.com/audio_files/index.php metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" 21470 From: jonoabb Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:47am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma Rob M Congratulations on a fine work. I am very impressed with your presentational skills. You invited feedback. I've had a quick look through the slides, and I can see there are a some references I would probably comment on. If you were to post the text to the list in short segments, I'm sure there'd be feedback from me and others. Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi All, > > I have just posted to the "Files" section of DSG a PowerPoint that I > created to introduce Abhidhamma to a general Buddhist audience. It > has speaker notes indicating generally what I would say on each > slide. > > Enjoy! Feedback is welcome. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21471 From: ajahn_paul Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:47am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, From the movie Matrix, someone said "Its different from knowing the path and walking the path". ^^ and as i remember,, Buddha had said that "You wont feel full by (talking) about eating". I think its very common, i think many of buddhist r just like that! Pitty to say, many ppl called themselves as buddhist is bcoz buddhism is become (fashion) in sociaties. may be im wrong,, but thats what i can see! @.@ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems > to have been de-valued. > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that > it > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > Christine 21472 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > op 16-04-2003 10:37 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > >> > >> "One of the most important teachings of the Buddha is Kamma and > >> Vipàka (cause and effect). According to the four Noble Truths, what > >> is Kamma? Kamma is the cause of suffering or craving. > > ..... > > This is a little unclear, I think. Craving or attachment (tanha) is the > > cause of suffering. Kamma arises on account of attachment and the other > > defilements. > N: When we look at the four analytical knowledges we see how complicated it > all is, and depending on the aspect what is cause under one heading may be > effect on another heading. See Budhist dictionary about this subject. Also: > the Netti (Guide), at the beginning. I find this subject very difficult and > I cannot go into it now. However, this does not mean that there are > contradictions. When there are seemingly contradictions we should go more > deeply into the material that is more complex than we thought at first > sight. > I had a lot of trouble with the Way: just before the repulsiveness, Way 74 > at end: truth of suffering is mindfulness, truth of origination is > precraving (we talked of that), which originates that mindfulness. I think > Kom said something about this but I still find it difficult. Could Kom > perhaps explain again? Also now, Way 76: mindfulness which lays hold of the four modes of materiality is the > Truth of Suffering.> > It shows that there are many aspects. > Nina. Dear Sarah, Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different things. Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. It is said that the Buddha had, insight into this great teaching on the 7th day after his enlightenment still seated under the Bodhi tree, while he was experiencing the bliss of Nirvana. This unique teaching of the Buddha, along with the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Four Noble Truth, make up the sum total of his teaching. Hetu-phala, explains the ultimate reality , the Dukkha and its causes. Paticchasamuppada, has eleven conditions, which explains in its descending order, beginning from, ignoranace (avijja), leading to suffering (dukkha), and in its ascending order elimination of ignorance (avijja) to attain Nibbana. i) Ignorance (avijja) conditions (paccaya) karma-formations (sankhara) ii) Karma-formations(sankhara) condition consciousness (vinnana) iii) Consciousness(vinnana) conditions mental and physical phenomena(nama-rupa) iv) Mental and physical phenomena(nama-rupa) condition six sense bases(salayatana) v) Six sense bases, including consciousness(salayatana) condition contact (phasso) vi) Contact (phassa) conditions feeling(vedana) vii) Feelings (vedana) condition attachment, desire or craving (tanha) viii) Craving (tanha) conditions clinging (upadanam) ix) Clinging (upadana) conditions the process of becoming(bhavo) x) Process of becoming (bhava) conditions rebirth (jati) xi) Rebirth(jati) conditions death sorrow, lamentation, pain grief (jaramarana) With metta, Yasalalaka 21473 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 2:07am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment In "What Buddhists Believe", Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda says: The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be harmonized, but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and explaining the Dhamma. In fact the real meaning of the most important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna cannot be understood without a knowledge of Abhidhamma. 21474 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:36am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 2-5 for comment Abhidhamma in the Buddhist Canon Slide Contents ============== Tipitaka (Three Baskets) Vinaya - Authorative teaching - Lists of rules and regulations for monks and nuns - "Avoid evil" Suttas - Conventional teaching - Has the form of recorded speeches - Uses common, imprecise language - "Do good" Abhidhamma - Ultimate teaching - Has the form of an advanced textbook - Uses precise, technical language - "Purify the mind" Speaker Notes ============= A "Canon" is a set of sacred books. In Theravada Buddhism, the sacred books are called "Tipitaka", which in Pali means "Three Baskets". All together, the Tipitaka is about eleven times the size of the Christian Bible. The first basket in the Tipitaka is the Vinaya. In the Vinaya, the Buddha used his authority to lay down rules of behaviour for monks and nuns. The Vinaya tells us to avoid evil through awareness. In society, "evil" usually implies hurting somebody else; in Buddhism, "evil" means contaminating our own minds. A contaminated mind is the forerunner of all evil speech or deeds. The second basket in the Tipitaka is the Suttas. These are the recorded speeches of the Buddha. They often start with the phrase, "Thus have I heard …" The Buddha used everyday, conversational language in the Suttas, depending on the audience to whom He was speaking. Many of the Suttas tell us to be good through effort and determination. In society, "being good" usually implies helping somebody else; in Buddhism, "good" means purifying our own minds. A pure mind is the forerunner of all good speech or deeds. The third basket in the Tipitaka is the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma has the form of an advanced textbook; like a textbook, it is difficult to sit down and start reading the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma uses precise technical terms. As an analogy, the common, imprecise language used by the Suttas are like an image on TV screen, whereas the technical, precise language used by the Abhidhamma are like the coloured dots which form image. The focus of the Abhidhamma is to purify the mind by seeing things as they truly are and thereby uprooting defilements. The Suttas and the Abhidhamma are two different ways of saying the same thing. 21475 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi KKT (Larry & All), Sorry for any delayed replies. --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > KKT: I study Buddhism as a << whole >> > ie. all different traditions without distinction. the diamond from different angles. ..... One thing for sure is that ‘truth’ or ‘actuality/reality’ is the same regardless of the words used and regardless of any comprehension or lack of it. ..... > I have a question: > > Sujin insists on the importance > of making the distinction between > concepts and paramattha dhammas. > I agree that this is a very important point. > My question is that this insistence > is proper to Sujin's teachings > or of Abhidhamma in general? ..... From the start of CMA, ch 1-2 “The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana.” (“Tatha vutt’aabhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Cittam cetasikam ruupam Nibbaanam iti sabbathaa”) In B.Bodhi’s Guide to this, he writes: “According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, there are two kinds of realities - the conventional (sammuti) and the ultimate (paramattha). Conventional realities are the referents of ordinary conceptual thought (pa~n~natti) and conventional modes of expression (vohaara). They include such entities as living beings, persons, men, women, animals, and the apparently stable persisting objects that constitute our unanalyzed picture of the world. The Abhidhamma philosophy maintains that these notions do not possess ultimate validity, for the objects which they signify do not exist in their own right as irreducible realities. Their mode of being is conceptual, not actual. They are products of mental construction (parikappanaa), not realities existing by reason of their own nature. Ultimate realities, in contrast, are things that exist by reason of their own intrinsic nature (sabhaava). Thee are the dhammas: the final, irreducible components of existnce, the ultimate entities which result from a correctly performed analysis of experience. Such existents admit of no further reduction, but are themselves the final terms of analysis, the true constituents of the complex manifold of experience. Hence the word paramattha is applied to them, which is derived from parama = ultimate, highest, final, and attha = eality, thing.” ***** Many more quotes from Abhidhamma and Sutta sources on this topic will be found in posts under ‘concepts and realities’ and ‘concepts’ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts When I read any sutta, regardless of the language used, I understand it to be about paramattha dhammas and to be stressing the importance of understanding these. Examples where this may be more apparent are ones like ‘The All’ or ‘The World’, or others which discuss paramattha dhammas in similar language to the Abhidhamma. For some like the ‘Mulapariya Sutta’, we read a phrase such as used in the introduction: “sabbadhammamuulapariyaaya” = the exposition of the root of all things, and need to look at the commentary and sub-commentary for clarification which stresses the same importance in understanding the distinction you ask about: Cy, B.Bodhi p32: “.....Here the word (dhamma) occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: “They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas” (attano lakkha.nam dhaarentii ti dhammaa) Sub Cy: ***** “They bear their own characteristics”: although there are no dhammas devoid of their own characteristics, 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). Or else they are borne, they are discerned, known, according to their specific nature, thus they are dhammas (dhaariiyanti vaa yathaasabhaavato avadhaariyanti ~naayantii ti dhammaa). ***** As I mentioned in an earlier post, I believe this passage supports the following: 1) all dhammas have characteristics, 2)these dhammas (i.e.5 khandhas) have sabhava, 3) dhammas are anatta, 4) concepts are not “real actualities” whereas those with sabhava are, 5) dhammas cannot be separated or distinguished from their characteristics (lakkhana), 6) they can only be known by ‘their specific nature” (yathaasabhaavato) or characteristics. I hope this helps and I’ll be very glad to hear more feedback from you. Metta, Sarah ====== QUOTE from a post from Rob Eddison: “Are you perhaps referring to paramattha sacca (truth in the highest sense)? If so, I would agree that this term is absent in the Suttas, though I would suggest that the notion is present. That is to say, the idea that something may be true conventionally but not ultimately is inferrable from the Suttas, even though it is expressed in different terms. What the Commentaries call conventional truth (sammuti-sacca), the Suttas call 'worldly consensus(lokasamañña), 'worldly language' (lokanirutti), 'worldly usage' (lokavohaara), or 'worldly convention' (lokapaññatti). What the Commentaries call truth in the highest sense (paramattha-sacca) is indicated in several ways in the Suttas, but most unambiguously when the Buddha prefaces a statement with "In truth and reality..." (saccato thetato). E.g. "....since in truth and reality there obtains neither self nor what belongs to self...." (Alagadduupama Sutta ) "In truth and reality, here and now the Tathaagata is not to be found[i.e. in the khandhas, apart from the khandhas etc.]." (Yamaka Sutta)” ***** 21476 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Rob & Mike, > --- robmoult wrote: > > I extracted this definition from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive > > Manual of Abhidhamma (I, 3). "... The commentators define citta in > > three ways: as agent, as instrument and as activity..." ..... In the recently published PTS transl of the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha I now see it gives all the detail and explanation of to the points we were discussing and which B.Bodhi based many of his comments on. So let me quote directly from it: Prologue 2, p7: “Ultimate means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and ultimate. Consciousnes (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is that it knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: ‘Consciousness has the characteristic of knowing objects.’ for although such causal conditions as those of support and immediate contiguity are also relevant, consciousness does not arise in the absence of an object, and therefore its characteristic is spoken of with reference to that. This rejects the view that consciousness arises in the absence of an object. Or else consciousness is the means by which asociated dhammas are conscious (cintana). For it is its mere occurrence in accordance with conditions that is called ‘a dhamma with its own particular nature’ (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the particular natures of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute; the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (kara.na) should be seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma’s being treated as an agent, by attributing the status of ‘self’ to the particular function of a dhamma, and also its being (treated) in consequence as an instrument, by attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc apart from the particular nature of a dhamma. The meaning of the word citta is also elaborated as that which causes variegation and so on. Thus it is summarized: “It is consciousness because it causes variegation (vicitta), or because it is itself variegated; it is gathered (cita) by kamma and defilements, or it preserves what has been gathered thus; it gathers its own continuity, and it has a variety of objects.” (Abhidhammaavataara 2,v-9) That which exists in the mind (cetasi) by occurring in dependence upon it is mentality (cetasika). For it is unable to take an object without consciousness; in the absence of consciousness there is no arising of any mentality at all. But consciousness does occur with an object in the absence of certain mentalities; so mentality is said to occur in dependence upon consciousness. Therefore the Blessed One has said: “Dhammas have mind as their forerunner.” (Dhp 1) This refutes erroneous opinions such as that happiness, etc, are permanent and exist in the absence of consciousness. (Cf Vism XV1, 85). Alternatively mentality is that which is combined with consciousnes.” ***** The text continues with a discussion on rupa. Any further comments? With metta, Sarah ===== 21477 From: m. nease Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Metta Hi Chris, ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 1:44 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Metta > Mike - > I wonder how this relates to that sutta (which I can't locate) where > it was said (something like) if someone was with three companions and > a bandit came and wanted to select one to be killed - it was not > showing Right Understanding to volunteer to sacrifice *oneself* - as > that was differentiating, and *oneself* was just as valuable as the > other three. [I hope I haven't imagined this sutta or misunderstood > its meaning]. I remember reading this too but am not able to put my finger on it at the moment. > The Visuddhimagga (Chapter IX 93) takes *the being* out of it, and > says: > "loving kindness is characterized here as promoting the aspect of > welfare. Its function is to prefer welfare. It is manifested as the > removal of annoyance. Its proximate cause is seeing lovableness in > beings. It succeeds when it makes ill-will subside, and it fails > when it produces (selfish) affection." This makes more sense. I suspect these are both excerpts from Atthasaalinii with variations in translation. I really must get a copy (in English, of course and unfortunately). > Not wishing to revive the old discussion about 'self' or 'other' as > the object of metta - but perhaps we have? If my sutta is > locatable - wouldn't it mean *oneself* is no more and no less > valuable than an *other*.(and equally deserving of metta without > differentiation?) I don't think so--I don't think 'valuable' or 'deserving' enter into it at all. Mettaa is undifferentiated and inclusive of all 'beings', as I understand it. No need to bring self or other into it at all (ditto with the other illimitables). Does this make sense to you? I hope someone can come up with the sutta you cited above. This one isn't about mettaa (exactly) but seems somewhat pertinent to me: "Monks, these four types of individuals are to be found existing in the world. Which four? The one who practices neither for his own benefit nor for that of others. The one who practices for the benefit of others but not for his own. The one who practices for his own benefit but not for that of others. The one who practices for his own benefit and for that of others. "Just as a firebrand from a funeral pyre -- burning at both ends, covered with excrement in the middle -- is used as fuel neither in a village nor in the wilderness: I tell you that this is a simile for the individual who practices neither for his own benefit nor for that of others. The individual who practices for the benefit of others but not for his own is the higher & more refined of these two. The individual who practices for his own benefit but not for that of others is the highest & most refined of these three. The individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of others is, of these four, the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme. Just as from a cow comes milk; from milk, curds; from curds, butter; from butter, ghee; from ghee, the skimmings of ghee; and of these, the skimmings of ghee are reckoned the foremost -- in the same way, of these four, the individual who practices for his own benefit and for that of other is the foremost, the chief, the most outstanding, the highest, & supreme. "These are the four types of individuals to be found existing in the world." Anguttara Nikaya IV.95 Chavalata Sutta The Firebrand mike 21478 From: abhidhammika Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation: To Howard Dear Howard How are you? You wrote: "I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say about syllable accenting. ...I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but vi~n~naana as vi~n~n-a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'- pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be?" The accent you place on the chosen syllables in those examples is the way it should be. This is only my intuitive answer, though. The syllable accenting is part of Pali learning to be taken up, in addition to the subject of poetics (Alankaara), when one is composing Pali verses. The subject that covers the syllable accenting, syllable counting and measuring is called "Chandam". I do have this text handy, but I haven't come round to studying it properly as I do not have any immediate plan to compose poetry in Pali. When I have a chance to read Chandam text in future, I will certainly be able to tell you more about syllable accenting. With regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, Suan - This is very interesting to me. (I like the phonetics/phonemics of languages perhaps most of all language features.) I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say about syllable accenting. I've been *assuming* that long vowels get the accent, and when no vowel is long, if the word has at least three syllables, it is the third from last which gets the accent, and the next to last in two-syllable words. So, as a couple of examples, I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but vi~n~naana as vi~n~n- a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'-pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be? With metta, Howard 21479 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I re-read the definition of concepts in CMA and didn't see anything > beyond concepts are words and meanings of words. If you see something > more, let's discuss it. ..... I’m not sure which part of CMA you’re looking at. In ch V111,29 p325, we read that apart from the aggregates and nibbana that “what remains are concepts..” Mental images, for example when there is some recognition without words, or for a baby, are still pannatti (concepts) and not any of the aggregates. We read about atthapa~n~atti or concepts as meanings as well as naamapa~n~natti or concepts as names. On pp 326-7 we read about the different kinds of atthapannatti which “become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of (ultimate) things.” I think the last category, kasina signs, nimittapannatti (sign concepts) are a good example of mental images without words. “They correspond to mental signs gained by meditative development”. Note that some of the same examples, such as ‘land’ and ‘mountain’ are used in the categories of atthapannatti and namapannatti. “Woman’s voice” can be recognised with or without words. Either way, it is “a concept of the real by means of the unreal, since the sound of the voice ultimately exists but not the woman”. I notice in the commentary, atthapannatti is translated as ‘conceptual idea’ and namapannatti as ‘conceptual name’. ..... > Also, I thought of a complication with regard to when concepts can arise > in citta process. If sanna (perception) remembers [as, I think, Suan > asserts] then sanna possibly has two objects, the object of citta and > the remembered object. Should this be the case, then concept could arise > with any consciousness by means of sanna. ..... Sanna accompanies every single citta and ‘marks’ its object, one object at a time. The object will be the same as for the citta and this means that sometimes it is a reality (a nama or rupa) and sometimes it is a concept. A concept never arises with consciousness. It can only ever be the object and doesn’t arise and pass away. Remember it’s a ‘shadow’ and doesn’t have sabhava or characteristics. From the Abhid.Sangaha, ch 8, as transl in the Comy,p323 “(There is a concept as) the objective field of the mind-door (process) which arises immediately after the occurrence of an ear consciousness process in the wake of the sound of speech; it is in conformity with this that meanings are afterwards discerned. A concept such as this is to be seen as created through ordinary conventions.” Extract to this passage (see also CMA p328) from the Comy: “And here, ‘an ear-consciousness process’ is stated as also including in that same process of ear-consciousness the proces at the mind-door which comes into being immediately after the ear-consciousness process. For when one hears the word ‘drum’, etc, for every sound there are two courses of impulsion by way of a present and past object, (while) there is one (course of impulsion) taking the sequence of syllables which constitute the conceptual name apprehended by one’s intellect; in this way the conceptual name is apprehended immediately after the proces of impulsion that has as its object the past sounds and that occurs immediately after the (actual) ear-consciousness process; after that, so the teachers say, one understands the meaning.” ..... >This seems logically possible, > but I don't think I have experienced it, at least with the idea that > concept = word. Dredging up words seems to be a distinct process in > itself. One that gets more difficult as one gets older :-))) ..... I know what you mean. Now, just because I might forget the names of students or of suttas doesn’t mean that all concepts disappear;-) This is why I think it is misleading if one considers concepts as literally words. Also, understanding of realities bears no relationship to how good one’s memory is (as we conventionally use the term). ..... Let me know how this sounds so far, Larry and whether you have any further comments/queeries on the other post to KKT or this one. They are great points you’re both raising imho. With metta, Sarah ===== 21480 From: connie Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism 8-11: eight kinds of suffering: birth, old age, sickness, death, separation from loved ones, confrontation with enemies, inability to attain what one seeks and the suffering of the five aggregates. eight worldly concerns --gain, loss, fame, blame, rebuke, praise, pleasure, and pain. eight fold path I. Morality (sila) Right Speech (samma vaca) (1)Lying, (2)Slander and tale-bearing, (3)harsh speech, and (4)Frivolous and meaningless talk. Right Action (samma kammanta) precepts - Pratimoksha (lit. The root of freedom) Right Livelihood (samma ajiva) "... this holy life is not for cheating people, scheming, nor for profit, favor, and honor... this holy life is lived for the sake of restraint, for abandoning [delusion], for dispassion, for cessation." II. Concentration (samadhi) two benefits: mental and physical well-being, comfort, joy, calm, tranquillity. capable of seeing things as they truly are, and prepares the mind to attain wisdom. Right Effort (samma vayama) - enthusiasm, positive attitude/determination reject evil that has already arisen; prevent the arising of evil; develop unarisen good; maintain the good which has arisen. Right Mindfulness (samma sati) six objects of mindfulness: the Buddha, the Dharma, the Sangha, the precepts, the merits of renouncing worldliness, and the merits of good deeds. four foundations of mindfulness of body, of sensation, of mind, and of dharmas (external and mental objects) Right Concentration (samma samadhi) leads to mental and physical well-being, comfort, joy, calm, tranquillity and prepares the mind to attain wisdom. III. Wisdom (pañña) [bodhi, vipassana] Right Understanding/View (samma dithi) go beyond views Wrong View (micchaditthi): nihilism (natthika-d.), inefficacy-of-action(akiriya-d.), acausality (ahetuka-d.) "Right understanding understands not a person or a Buddhist." Right Thoughts (samma sankappa) renunciation (nekkhamma) loving-kindness (metta) harmlessness (avihimsa) compassion (karuna) sympathetic joy (mudita) equanimity (upekkha) Passion, aversion, delusion, anger, resentment, arrogance, insolence, envy, & stinginess. One who has abandoned these nine things is capable of realizing arahantship. Parami - Perfections 1. Dana - Generosity 2. Sila - Morality 3. Nekkhamma - Renunciation 4. Panna - Wisdom 5. Viriya - Energy 6. Khanti - Patience 7. Sacca - Truthfulness 8. Adhitthana - Determination 9. Metta - Loving-kindness 10. Upekkha - Equanimity ten meritorious deeds are: 1. Charity 2. Morality 3. Mental culture 4. Reverence or respect 5. Service in helping others 6. Sharing merits with others 7. Rejoicing in the merits of others 8. Preaching and teaching the Dhamma 9. Listening to the Dhamma 10. Straightening one's views Precepts - "rules of training" (sikkhapada) 1-5. principles of non-injury and loving-kindness, honesty, sexual propriety, truthfulness and sobriety. 6. Abstaining from eating after mid-day 7. Abstaining from dancing, singing, music and shows 8. Abstaining from garlands, scents, cosmetics and adornment 9. Abstaining from luxurious beds 10. Abstaining from accepting gold and silver The third precept is also expanded to a rule enjoining chastity. ten fetters (sayojanâ) that bind people to the phenomenal world. five lower: personality belief, sceptical doubt, clinging to rite and ritual, sensuous craving and ill-will, and five higher:0craving for "fine material" existence, craving for "immaterial existence", conceit, restlessness, and ignorance. 10 kilesas (delusions, passions, defilements):0desire, hate, delusion, pride, wrong views, doubt, rigidity, excitability, shamelessness, and no conscience. create the causes and conditions (vexations) 11 benefits of loving-kindness: - Sleep peacefully - He awakes fresh, like a flower opening - No bad dreams - One is dear to human beings - One is dear to non-human beings - One is protected by Devas - Fire, poison and weapons cannot injure one - One'e mind becomes easily concentrated - One's complexion becomes serene - One will die unconfused - One will be reborn in bhahma plane (or higher) (Taken from Anguttara Nikaya XI, 16) [RobM] 11 as two ones: life a mirror 11 kinds of physical pain and mental agony: lust, hatred, illusion, sickness, decay, death, worry, lamentation, pain (physical and mental), melancholy and grief. 21481 From: Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Pali Pronounciation: To Howard Hi, Suan - In a message dated 4/21/03 9:35:03 AM Eastern Daylight Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > > Dear Howard > > How are you? > > You wrote: > > "I would be also *very* interested in hearing what you have to say > about syllable accenting. ...I pronounce vinaya as vi'-naya, but > vi~n~naana as vi~n~n-a'-na, and anattaa as anatt-a', and rupa as ru'- > pa but attaa as att-a'. Is this at all the way it should be?" > > The accent you place on the chosen syllables in those examples is the > way it should be. This is only my intuitive answer, though. > > The syllable accenting is part of Pali learning to be taken up, in > addition to the subject of poetics (Alankaara), when one is composing > Pali verses. > > The subject that covers the syllable accenting, syllable counting and > measuring is called "Chandam". I do have this text handy, but I > haven't come round to studying it properly as I do not have any > immediate plan to compose poetry in Pali. > > When I have a chance to read Chandam text in future, I will certainly > be able to tell you more about syllable accenting. > > With regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > ================================ Thanks very much, Suan. With regard to "When I have a chance to read Chandam text in future, I will certainly be able to tell you more about syllable accenting," I look forward to hearing more from you on this in the future. 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) 21482 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:44am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor (and Christine), I have some thoughts, hope you don't mind me expressing them. Victor, you said; > I think that you hit it right on the spot by saying that > > > I think everything is subject to change, and could change at any > time, and must change sooner or later, yet also things endure for > varying periods. At some times they change and at other times they > don't. > > > This is how I see it: > It is not much of how fast things change or one is able to see the > change. Change can be imperceptible, gradual, sudden, violent, > chaotic... It does not matter. Everthing is impermanent in the > sense that whatever it is, be it some specific mundane object such > as a glass, a desk, or a chair, or something like a marriage or a > relationship, or in terms of five aggregates: form, feeling, > perception, fabrications, or consciousness, is subject to change, > disintegration, does not last. Whatever comes into existence, > passes away, sooner or later. Let us say we have a broken chair, how would this show impermanence? By associating it with a memory of an unbroken one, no? Without this association, where is impermanence to be seen? So isn't this just 'thinking' impermanence? Can this kind of thinking lead to insight? May be, but most likely not. Because the only thing that would lead to insight would be the actual perception of impermanence, not thinking about it. Thinking I believe may condition at best a calm acceptance of the inevitability of all things to come to an end. But this will always be in relation to a self, "one's own end or that of others". But this line of approach in and of itself, seems to me unlikely to lead to vipassana knowledge. One must have accumulated a great deal of panna to see through the concept to the underlying truth. Otherwise one will revolve only on this level. Besides this kind of perception is not unique to Buddhism, nor is it that only certain religious philosophers have seen this, but even a common man can come upon this kind of understanding independently. To say that "everything changes" is like saying that everything is dhamma without having insighted a single dhamma. But worse, because at least the word dhamma can refer to paramatthadhammas, but 'everything' in your statement refers to non-existents as well. In fact if you asked me if a computer is permanent or impermanent,and I had only to choose between the two, I would say "permanent". This wouldn't be just from experience, since for me a new computer is just a 'new computer' and an old one is just an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can be used by one person at different times, in different places and by any number of persons to refer to something constant. These were the thoughts. What do you think Victor? Best, Sukin. 21483 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:45am Subject: Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 19 We read in the Commentary to this passage: The Bodhisatta who was in that life named Dipåyana, went to see his friend Mandavya. He (Mandavya) was impaled on a stake and because Dipåyana excelled in síla he did not neglect this recluse. He stood there leaning on a spear throughout the three watches of the night. He acquired the name Kanhadipåyana (kanha meaning black), because his body became black by the drops of blood that streamed from the recluse Mandavya¹s body and that had dried up. Question: What is the cause that the Great Man who during many thousands of existences had the inclination to renunciation and who found happiness in the brahma-faring, was in this life dissatisfied with it? Answer: This was because of the instability that is characteristic of non-enlightened people. Question: Why did he not enter again the married state? Answer: At first he saw the disadvantage in the sense pleasures, and because of his inclination to renunciation he became a monk. However, because of the lack of wise consideration he became dissatisfied with the brahma-faring. Although he could not abandon that dissatisfaction, he disliked to be blamed by people who might say, ³Kanhadipåyana raves on and on, he is unreliable. He left his wealth and went forth from the household life; he left his possessions and then he wants to return again to these.² Because he feared that his sense of shame and fear of blame would be destroyed, the Great Man, full of suffering and unhappy feeling, even cried and shed tears that streamed over his face. In this way he continued the brahma-faring and he did not leave it. As we read in the ³Basket of Conduct², the Bodhisatta highly valued truthfulness, he spoke the truth, saying that he was only for seven days a recluse wholeheartedly, with full confidence in kusala. He expressed his confidence in kusala and in truthfulness by a solemn utterance, an ³Assertion of Truth². This was the condition for the brahman youth to recover. An ³Assertion of Truth² is a forceful affirmation of faith in the truth which can create a direct effect on someone else¹s condition [15] . Some people may have doubts about the ³Assertion of Truth² referred to in the above quoted passage. Or, they may have heard that an Assertion of Truth can bring its result according to one¹s wish. However, when a person has to experience suffering and distress, he cannot, in order to overcome his suffering, utter an Assertion of Truth without knowing what truthfulness is and without understanding its high value. It is essential that one, before making an Assertion of Truth, sees the superiority and the benefit of truthfulness. Moreover, it is necessary to develop the perfection of truthfulness. If someone develops kusala and his goal is the realization of the four noble Truths, he should know that the way leading to this goal is the development of all the perfections. If someone accumulates the perfection of truthfulness together with the other perfections so that they gain strength, and if he sees the benefit of truthfulness, he may express an Assertion of Truth. However, not everyone can do so, it also depends on the power of his kusala and the degree of his understanding of truthfulness. Footnote: 15. I have added this whole paragraph with an explanation of ³Assertion of Truth². 21484 From: Michael Newton Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Astrology --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Bhante and All, > > Thank you for your letter, Bhante. I understand > your concern about > fortune telling, and fully agree with it. > > The article that Dr. Sri Dhammananda wrote about > Astrology did not > encourage fortune telling - it was looking at the > types of > personalities born under certain star signs. > The article is at: > http://www.ksridhammananda.com/publications.htm > 12th row down, centre column > > He felt there was some scientific evidence to > indicate that there was > a connection between birth date and personality > characteristics. He > felt that having knowledge of this might be of some > help to people in > plotting their life more meaningfully in harmony > with their innate > tendencies, so that there is less friction as they > go through life. > > I am a little puzzled about one point though. He > says "Buddhists > accept that there is an immense cosmic energy which > pulsates through > every living thing, including plants. This energy > interacts with the > karmic energy which individual generates and > determines the course > that a life will take." I hadn't heard this > 'immense cosmic energy' > discussed before, but don't see it as (necessarily) > a problem. Does > anyone know if it is mentioned in any way in the > scriptures at all? > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" > wrote: > > Re Astrology. > > > > Dear Christina, You have touch a point that I am > very much against > it. In > > the Vinaya it is clear that we Monks are not > alowwed to read the > future by > > any means Yet, there are monks who do it. > > I have not seen this in the Sri Lankan, Burmese or > Thai monks, but > it is > > wide spread in the Laotian and Cambodian monks > > Venerable Tonsawang, the Abbot of Lao temple > Prayorkyo reads the > future with > > numbers, he has at least 4 or five people a day > and gets a donation > of $50 > > dollars a reading. The Abbott of Buddha Meta Lao > Temple in St Jhons > Park > > Sydney also reads the future with numbers. > Venerable Abbot of That > Luang in > > Canberra reads the future with French and Tarot > cards. I have been > very > > outspoken with the monks about this, but been told > that this is a > tradition > > of the country of Laos and Cambodia and that I > should mind my own > business. > > All this monks have been monks for over 25 years > and all of then > received > > money as donations for them for reading the cards > and astrological > charts. > > Christine, there is no way that a man can read the > future, it is > against the > > Vinaya, yet monks from Lao and Cambodio do it all > the time. > Venerable > > Yanatharo. ( I was ordained in the Lao tradition) > I know by personal > > experience about this. This is a battle that I > will never win. >Dear Noble Sangha; I'm not really sure how I feel about Astrology as it relates to the Buddhist path,except that Buddhism teaches living from moment to moment-not putting too much concern about the future,so I wonder about these Lao and Cambodian monks doing these readings and charging $50.It appears to me that monks are not supposed to be handling money in this respect,unless my understanding incorrect.However,it's different in the West on this maybe.Please correct me if I'm wrong. YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METT,MICHAEL > 21485 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:47am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, Thank you for the message. I appreciate the points that you brought up. This is how I see it: A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair with the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one sees it as a new computer or an old one. Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that might be of some interest: "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the perception of inconstancy." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-060.html#anicca Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor (and Christine), > > I have some thoughts, hope you don't mind me expressing them. > Victor, you said; > > > I think that you hit it right on the spot by saying that > > > > > > I think everything is subject to change, and could change at any > > time, and must change sooner or later, yet also things endure for > > varying periods. At some times they change and at other times they > > don't. > > > > > > This is how I see it: > > It is not much of how fast things change or one is able to see the > > change. Change can be imperceptible, gradual, sudden, violent, > > chaotic... It does not matter. Everthing is impermanent in the > > sense that whatever it is, be it some specific mundane object such > > as a glass, a desk, or a chair, or something like a marriage or a > > relationship, or in terms of five aggregates: form, feeling, > > perception, fabrications, or consciousness, is subject to change, > > disintegration, does not last. Whatever comes into existence, > > passes away, sooner or later. > > Let us say we have a broken chair, how would this show impermanence? > By associating it with a memory of an unbroken one, no? Without this > association, where is impermanence to be seen? So isn't this > just 'thinking' impermanence? Can this kind of thinking lead to > insight? May be, but most likely not. > Because the only thing that would lead to insight would be the > actual perception of impermanence, not thinking about it. Thinking I > believe may condition at best a calm acceptance of the inevitability > of all things to come to an end. But this will always be in relation > to a self, "one's own end or that of others". But this line of > approach in and of itself, seems to me unlikely to lead to vipassana > knowledge. One must have accumulated a great deal of panna to see > through the concept to the underlying truth. Otherwise one will > revolve only on this level. > Besides this kind of perception is not unique to Buddhism, nor is it > that only certain religious philosophers have seen this, but even a > common man can come upon this kind of understanding independently. > > To say that "everything changes" is like saying that everything is > dhamma without having insighted a single dhamma. But worse, because > at least the word dhamma can refer to paramatthadhammas, > but 'everything' in your statement refers to non-existents as well. > In fact if you asked me if a computer is permanent or > impermanent,and I had only to choose between the two, I would > say "permanent". This wouldn't be just from experience, since for me > a new computer is just a 'new computer' and an old one is just > an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can > be used by one person at different times, in different places and by > any number of persons to refer to something constant. > > These were the thoughts. > What do you think Victor? > > Best, > Sukin. 21486 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 0:27pm Subject: Re: Way 78, Cemetary Contemplations cont. Dear Larry, Can one do the Cemetery Contemplations without an actual corpse as object? Ganges Sangha have made available photos of an corpse in 15 stages of decomposition to assist in this contemplation. I'm not quite sure how these photos relate to the descriptions of the nine contemplations in the two posts you have made from The Way of Mindfulness. http://www.geocities.com/~madg/gangessangha/Death.html Interesting to me were my thoughts on pondering the images. Immediately I realised that the corpse was male - therefore, not like me. Then I realised the corpse was of a different ethnic group - therefore, not like me. Then I ruefully realised what I was doing ... so I'm really not going to live for ever? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & > ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), > Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > The Section on the Nine Cemetery Contemplations continued: > > Everywhere, according to the method already stated beginning: "He thinks > of his own body thus: 'This body of mine too is of the same nature as > that (dead) body, is going to be like that body, and has not got past > the condition of becoming like that body." > > Iti ajjhattam = "Thus internally": Thus through the laying hold of the > corpse from the state in which it is being eaten by crows and other > creatures to the state when it is dust, one dwells contemplating the > body in one's own body, or in another's or at one time in one's own body > and at another time in another's body. > > Further having stopped here one should put together the nine cemetery > contemplations thus: > > Ekahamatam va dvihamatam va tihamatam va = "A body dead one, two or > three days." This is the first contemplation. > > Kakehi va khajjamanam = "Whilst it is being eaten by crows." This > portion of the Discourse where the devouring of the body of various > kinds of animals is stated refers to the second contemplation. > > Atthikasamkhalikam samamsalohitam naharusamban-dham = "A skeleton > together with (some) flesh and blood held in by the tendons." This is > the third contemplation. > > Nimmamsalohitamakkhitam naharusambandham = "A blood-smeared skeleton > without flesh but held in by the tendons." This is the fourth. > > Apagatamamsalohitam naharusambandham = "A skeleton held in by the > tendons but without flesh and not besmeared with blood." This is the > fifth. > > Atthikani apagatasambandhani = "Bones gone loose, scattered in all > directions." This is the sixth. > > Atthikani setani sankhavannupanibhani = "Bones white in color like a > conch." > This is the seventh. > > Atthikani puñjakitani terovassikani = "Bones more than a year old > heaped > together." This is the eighth. > > Atthikani putini cunnakajatani = "Bones gone rotten and become dust." > This > is the ninth. > > Evam kho bhikkhave = "Thus, indeed, o bhikkhus." He said this bringing > to an end body-contemplation after pointing out the nine cemetery > contemplations. The mindfulness which lays hold of the nine cemetery > contemplations is the Truth of Suffering; the previous craving which > originates that mindfulness is the Truth of Origin; the non- occurrence > of both that mindfulness and the craving is the Truth of Cessation. The > Real Path that understands suffering, casts out the origin, and has > cessation for its object is the Truth of the Way. Endeavoring in this > way by means of the Four Truths one arrives at peace. This is for the > bhikkhu who lays hold of the nine cemetery contemplations the portal of > deliverance up to arahantship. > > Now, these are the fourteen portions which comprise body- contemplation: > The section on breathing in and breathing out, on the postures, on the > four kinds of clear comprehension, of reflection on repulsiveness, on > the modes of materiality, and on the nine cemetery contemplations. > There, only the sections on breathing in and breathing out and of the > reflection on repulsiveness can become meditation-subjects of full > absorption. As the cemetery contemplations are stated by way of > consideration of disadvantages, dangers or evils, all the remaining > twelve are only meditation-subjects of partial absorption. 21487 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 1:10pm Subject: Thing .... everything Hi all, While I was reading Heidegger's essay http://pratt.edu/~arch543p/readings/Heidegger.html I came across the following passage: Gathering or assembly, by an ancient word of our language, is called "thing." I looked into the etymology of the word "thing" and found the following: thing - O.E. þing "meeting, assembly," later "entity, being, matter" (subject of deliberation in an assembly), also "act, deed, event," from P.Gmc. *thengan "appointed time." Old sense is preserved in second element of hustings and in Icelandic Althing, the nation's general assembly. To me it is interesting to see that the word "thing" had that meaning of meeting/assembly (Pali: sangha) and later "what brings together"/"entity, being, matter subject of deliberation in an assembly" It appears to me that the word "thing" has always retained the sense of "assemblage"/"gathering together". A thing is what comes/brings together. What comes/brings together, breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent. Regards, Victor 21488 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > In "What Buddhists Believe", Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda says: > > The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for > Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual > who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of > understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. (James: Rob, where do you think I, as someone who doesn't accept the Abhidhamma, fall in these levels? Am I of a lesser spiritual development than you or others who embrace the Abhidhamma? Please answer honestly with your opinion...you won't hurt my feelings.) > > Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be harmonized, > but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based > on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. > The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the > Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of > insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, > unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the > periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of > the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. (James: How is this so? What exactly is a person supposed to be thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a greater depth and understanding of the dhamma?) > > We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we > experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge > of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and > explaining the Dhamma. In fact the real meaning of the most > important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, > Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna cannot be understood without > a knowledge of Abhidhamma. (James: How can this be since the Buddha taught these cosmic laws that you list and yet he didn't teach the Abhidhamma? Are you of the opinion that he really didn't understand them?...since he had no knowledge of the Abhidhamma as such. [at least he didn't say so...or didn't want to say so]. Are you suggesting that those who fashioned the Abhidhamma after he died understood them better than he did?) Metta, James ps. I believe these questions are going to throw you for a loop, because I really don't see you as thinking in these terms at all. But perhaps a different perspective would be nice. 21489 From: Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 4:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Way 78, Cemetary Contemplations cont. Hi Christine, If you are asking is it ok with me if you contemplate corpses in pictures the answer is yes. I think it would be good to contemplate the decay of the body even without a direct visual aid. The idea is to let go of attachment to one's own body and any other body one may cherish, as I'm sure you know. One might also be aware of attachment in morbid fascination and hatred of death. Whatever arises, is it me? if not why not? and are you really convinced? Larry 21490 From: Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, In the "Analysis of Concepts" chapter p. 325 in CMA I don't see where it says mental images are concepts. The reference to jhana is unclear but I take it to be confined to counterpart signs only and not mental images such as occur in dreams and memories. Certainly the shape of a computer or the red light of a stop sign are not concepts any more than the sound of speech is a concept. Concepts are dhammas so they are real. I think the expression "no own-nature" simply means there is no hardness in the concept of hardness, for example. To say the *meaning* of a concept has no own-nature is _not_ to say the *referent* of a concept has no own-nature. Hardness has its own nature (characteristic) but "hardness" is a concept. I think there is considerable confusion in the texts regarding this point. Some concepts have a real referent and some do not. Some concepts are true but have no paramatta dhamma as a referent (impermanence, for example). All concepts have no own nature. In other words, their meaning can't be experienced. We can't experience "Sarah" or the *meaning* of "hardness" but we can talk to you and experience hardness. I don't see abhidhamma making a big issue out of the discrimination of concept and reality but most meditative traditions do use this discrimination in a conventional sense to get beginning meditators to recognize discursive thinking and wandering mind. So there is no reason why abhidhammikas shouldn't engage in a similar practice. I think it is a beginning step in recognizing thinking as not self. However, as a philosophical issue, there are many subtle and controversial points. I don't find it particularly helpful to say concepts don't exist or are not real. It is my understanding that A. Sujin teaches this discrimination by focusing mainly on the sense of touch, probably because touch isn't mixed with concept very much. A similar emphasis on touch can be seen in the preliminary stages of anapanasati. I think it would be beneficial to extend this discrimination to the other khandhas but trying to be absolutely paramatta in one's analysis would just lead to confusion and be useless. The main idea is that feeling, recognizing, and intending could be separated from concept. Even a little bit of looseness could result in seeing "this feeling is not self" or "this concept is not self", for example. That is the main point, imo. Is there anything you would care to share regarding A. Sujin's approach or your own experience with this practice? Larry 21491 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 7:13pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi James, I love your questions. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > In "What Buddhists Believe", Dr. K. Sri Dhammananda says: > > > > The question is raised whether the Abhidhamma is essential for > > Dhamma practice. The answer to this will depend on the individual > > who undertakes the practice. People vary in their levels of > > understanding, their temperaments and spiritual development. > > (James: Rob, where do you think I, as someone who doesn't accept the > Abhidhamma, fall in these levels? Am I of a lesser spiritual > development than you or others who embrace the Abhidhamma? Please > answer honestly with your opinion...you won't hurt my feelings.) ===== I am convinced that it is an issue of accumulations (what Chief Reverend called "temperaments"). Personally, I am strongly drawn to the Abhidhamma. I believe that this is because of my past experiences (especially past life experiences). Others (such as yourself) may not be attracted to the Abhidhamma at all. This is because of your accumulations. No value judgement here, just different accumulations. I am a "terrible meditator" whereas I understand that you have developed yourself in this area. This is also because of accumulations. No value judgement. I have two sons; one is better at music, one is better at art. They have different accumulations, no need for any value judgement. ===== > > > > > Ideally, all the different spiritual faculties should be > harmonized, > > but some people are quite contented with devotional practices based > > on faith, while others are keen on developing penetrative insight. > > The Abhidhamma is most useful to those who want to understand the > > Dhamma in greater depth and detail. It aids the development of > > insight into the three characteristics of existence - impermanence, > > unsatisfactoriness, and non-self. It is useful not only for the > > periods devoted to formal meditation, but also during the rest of > > the day when we are engaged in various mundane chores. > > (James: How is this so? What exactly is a person supposed to be > thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a greater > depth and understanding of the dhamma?) ===== You have raised a key issue. What happens to us is a result of our past actions (vipaka). How we react to what happens to us creates new kamma. There are four options: - Like what happens to us -> akusala kamma (lobha) - Dislike what happens to us -> akusala kamma (dosa) - Indifferent to what happens to us -> akusala kamma (moha) - See things as they truly are (anicca / dukkha / anatta) through wise attention (yoniso manisakara) -> kusala kamma Which of the four options are followed depends on our accumulations (habits). When we do sit doing vipassana meditation, we practice seeing things as anicca, dukkha, anatta and develop a habit of wise attention. We can then carry this habit of wise attention into our daily life. If we can do this, then we see paramattha as paramattha, then we see concepts as concepts. Seeing concepts is not wrong; as long as they are not mistaken as realities. James, you asked, "What exactly is a person supposed to be thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a greater depth and understanding of the dhamma?" I think that you have to "un-ask" this question. This question assumes that you have to think about something other than what you are currently doing. The correct perspective is that with wise attention, you see whatever is presented to us "as it truly is". ===== > > > > > We derive great benefit from the study of the Abhidhamma when we > > experience absolute reality. In addition, a comprehensive knowledge > > of the Abhidhamma is useful for those engaged in teaching and > > explaining the Dhamma. In fact the real meaning of the most > > important Buddhist terminologies such as Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, > > Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna cannot be understood without > > a knowledge of Abhidhamma. > > (James: How can this be since the Buddha taught these cosmic laws > that you list and yet he didn't teach the Abhidhamma? Are you of the > opinion that he really didn't understand them?...since he had no > knowledge of the Abhidhamma as such. [at least he didn't say so...or > didn't want to say so]. Are you suggesting that those who fashioned > the Abhidhamma after he died understood them better than he did?) ===== According to tradition, the Buddha understood the Abhidhamma completely and explained it in brief to Sariputta who then passed it along to 500 monks. It is Sariputta's version which has been passed down to us. I note that Sariputta started teaching the Abhidhamma while the Buddha was still around (the Buddha was around for another 38 years after Sariputta started teaching Abhidhamma), I believe that the Buddha would correct any incorrect teachings passed along by Sariputta. I believe that Sariputta was more of an intellectual and had accumulations which caused him to be attracted to the Abhidhamma. There is no doubt that the Buddha had complete understanding of Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna. The Buddha explained these terms using "conventional language". The Abhidhamma is simply another way of explaining the same concepts using more technical language. I am not aware of any discrepencies between the Suttas / Vinaya and the Abhidhamma. Two different ways of saying the same thing. ===== > > Metta, James > ps. I believe these questions are going to throw you for a loop, > because I really don't see you as thinking in these terms at all. > But perhaps a different perspective would be nice. ===== James, No loop. I liked your questions. Thank you. Metta, Rob M :-) 21492 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 6-8 for comment History of Abhidhamma Slide Contents ============== - Realized by the Buddha the fourth week after His enlightenment - Taught to the Devas in Tâvatimsa heaven for three months during the seventh rainy season retreat - Each day, Buddha gave outline to Sâriputta, who "filled in details" Speaker Notes ============= In the fourth week after enlightenment, the Buddha sat in the Jewel house and contemplated on the Abhidhamma. When the Buddha started contemplating on the most complicated part of the Abhidhamma, Conditional Relations, His body emanated rays of six colours. The Buddha's mother died seven days after giving birth. She was reborn as a male Deva in Tusita heaven. In gratitude to His mother, the Buddha went to Tavatisma heaven to teach the Abhidhamma to his former mother and many other Devas. It took three months of human time (the entire rainy retreat) for the Buddha to complete this task; equivalent to 3.6 minutes of Deva time. Each day, when it was time for His alms-round, He created a Buddha after His own image and willed that the created Buddha teach the Dhamma so much during His absence. After alms-round, He met Sariputta and told him that so much of the Dhamma had been taught during the interval. Three versions of Abhidhamma: - Taught by Buddha in Tavatimsa Heaven (long) - Taught by Buddha to Sariputta (short) - Taught by Sariputta to 500 monks (medium, passed to us) 21493 From: nidive Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 8:55pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 6-8 for comment Hi robmoult, > Each day, when it was time for His alms-round, He created a Buddha > after His own image and willed that the created Buddha teach the > Dhamma so much during His absence. It seems that Buddha had become God. ;-) Something like the Holy Trinity. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21494 From: Michael Newton Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 6:33pm Subject: The Vinaya Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks from going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk would be disrobed. There seems to be convincing scriptural passages against supporting wars which would apply to both Monks and Lay Buddhists. Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and fear,and hatred. There are non-violent alternatives for dealing with the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. A Buddhist would not support war. MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL 21495 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 10:22pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, > I love your questions. (James: I am glad; you are a genuninely nice guy.) > > (James: Rob, where do you think I, as someone who doesn't accept > the > > Abhidhamma, fall in these levels? Am I of a lesser spiritual > > development than you or others who embrace the Abhidhamma? Please > > answer honestly with your opinion...you won't hurt my feelings.) > ===== > > I am convinced that it is an issue of accumulations (what Chief > Reverend called "temperaments"). > > Personally, I am strongly drawn to the Abhidhamma. I believe that > this is because of my past experiences (especially past life > experiences). Others (such as yourself) may not be attracted to the > Abhidhamma at all. This is because of your accumulations. No value > judgement here, just different accumulations. I am a "terrible > meditator" whereas I understand that you have developed yourself in > this area. This is also because of accumulations. No value > judgement. I have two sons; one is better at music, one is better at > art. They have different accumulations, no need for any value > judgement. (James: Rob, I believe that you are somewhat mixing up accumulations and personality, which I don't see as related necessarily…at least what you describe doesn't match my understanding of accumulations. Yes, the both of us have lived several lifetimes; we have had our various experiences and have learned our various lessons; therefore we have different accumulations. However, during each of those lifetimes we had a unique personality, shaped somewhat by our accumulations and shaped somewhat by our environment (especially what others project onto us). The accumulations move from lifetime to lifetime, but the personality doesn't; personality is anatta and doesn't last, accumulations are karma and do transmigrate. This is what I am thinking of when I think of accumulations. Therefore, talent in either art or music wouldn't necessarily fall under the category of accumulations…they would probably fall under the categories of environmental influence and genetic predispositions. With this in mind, some people have accumulations that move them closer to the truth (like the Lord Buddha), and some people have accumulations that move them farther away from the truth (like Adolf Hitler). What I asked is where do you see your accumulations and my accumulations, as is evidenced by either accepting or rejecting the Abhidhamma, in relation to which is closer to the truth (dharma)? You had a very long laundry list of things which you said couldn't be truly understood without knowing the Abhidhamma. Now, for someone who knows and then rejects the Abhidhamma, where do you think that puts me in relation to the Buddhadhamma?) > > (James: How is this so? What exactly is a person supposed to be > > thinking during various mundane chores that will result in a > greater > > depth and understanding of the dhamma?) > > ===== > > You have raised a key issue. > > What happens to us is a result of our past actions (vipaka). How we > react to what happens to us creates new kamma. There are four > options: > - Like what happens to us -> akusala kamma (lobha) > - Dislike what happens to us -> akusala kamma (dosa) > - Indifferent to what happens to us -> akusala kamma (moha) > - See things as they truly are (anicca / dukkha / anatta) through > wise attention (yoniso manisakara) -> kusala kamma > > Which of the four options are followed depends on our accumulations > (habits). When we do sit doing vipassana meditation, we practice > seeing things as anicca, dukkha, anatta and develop a habit of wise > attention. We can then carry this habit of wise attention into our > daily life. If we can do this, then we see paramattha as paramattha, > then we see concepts as concepts. Seeing concepts is not wrong; as > long as they are not mistaken as realities. > > James, you asked, "What exactly is a person supposed to be thinking > during various mundane chores that will result in a greater depth > and understanding of the dhamma?" I think that you have to "un-ask" > this question. This question assumes that you have to think about > something other than what you are currently doing. The correct > perspective is that with wise attention, you see whatever is > presented to us "as it truly is". (James: Actually, this is what I was leading to. We simply have to see things for what they are. I am not sure how knowledge of the Abhidhamma is supposed to be able to lead to this; but it seems to work beautifully for you. But as I said before, I think you are a special case. Not everyone can spin straw into gold.) > > (James: How can this be since the Buddha taught these cosmic laws > > that you list and yet he didn't teach the Abhidhamma? Are you of > the > > opinion that he really didn't understand them?...since he had no > > knowledge of the Abhidhamma as such. [at least he didn't say > so...or > > didn't want to say so]. Are you suggesting that those who > fashioned > > the Abhidhamma after he died understood them better than he did?) > > ===== > > According to tradition, the Buddha understood the Abhidhamma > completely and explained it in brief to Sariputta who then passed it > along to 500 monks. It is Sariputta's version which has been passed > down to us. I note that Sariputta started teaching the Abhidhamma > while the Buddha was still around (the Buddha was around for another > 38 years after Sariputta started teaching Abhidhamma), I believe > that the Buddha would correct any incorrect teachings passed along > by Sariputta. I believe that Sariputta was more of an intellectual > and had accumulations which caused him to be attracted to the > Abhidhamma. > > There is no doubt that the Buddha had complete understanding of > Dhamma, Kamma, Samsâra, Sankhâra, Paticcasamuppâda and Nibbâna. The > Buddha explained these terms using "conventional language". The > Abhidhamma is simply another way of explaining the same concepts > using more technical language. > > I am not aware of any discrepencies between the Suttas / Vinaya and > the Abhidhamma. Two different ways of saying the same thing. (James: Perhaps there aren't any discrepancies in how you view the Abhidhamma and Sutta/Vinaya, but I don't think that could be said for everyone. Just look at how many different interpretations of the Abhidhamma there are! I mean, how many different ways can a computer be viewed! (ref: "Computer as Dukkha" thread). If you want to believe that the Buddha and Sariputta co-taught the dharma that is fine. I obviously don't have any evidence from the Buddha stating, "People are going to say in a few thousand years that I taught something called the Abhidhamma to Sariputta and Sariputta taught it to those intellectual monks without a penchant for meditation. This will not be true. Don't believe it." But I think we all could use some common sense here. If Sariputta and the Buddha were both teaching the same truth through different versions, I believe the Buddha would have been stating as much several different times. He didn't want to leave anything to chance after all. Don't you think he would have mentioned that? Very directly and often?) > > ===== > > James, No loop. I liked your questions. Thank you. (James: No, thank you Rob for taking the time and making the effort to answer them. I appreciate it.) > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Metta,(Which I believe means a lot more than just being nice. Ref: 'Metta' thread.) James 21496 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:41pm Subject: Re: The Vinaya --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > > Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; > > The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks from > going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is > central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- > or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk > would be disrobed. > There seems to be convincing scriptural passages > against supporting wars which would apply to both > Monks and Lay Buddhists. > Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and > fear,and hatred. > There are non-violent alternatives for dealing with > the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. > A Buddhist would not support war. > MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL Hi Michael, Then by your definition, the Lord Buddha wasn't a very good Buddhist. Please read the beginning part of this sutta "The Last Days of the Buddha": http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html Vassakara and the Lord Buddha discuss an upcoming war against the Vajjis. The Lord Buddha ultimately tells Vassakara to do whatever he sees fit in waging war against the Vajjis. The Lord Buddha, contrary to popular opinion, wasn't anti-war. Metta, James 21497 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 21, 2003 11:55pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor, Thanks for your reply. My comments follow yours and I hope you don't mind me making a reference to the subject matter of another post of yours about "things", I think there is some connection. Victor: > This is how I see it: > A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is > impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it > disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent > whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent > whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair with > the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is > impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one sees it as a new computer or an old one. Sukin: But this is all thinking no? Even to say that citta and its object is impermanent is still thinking. However when we refer to tables and chairs as being impermanent, we are not being directed to what is actually that is impermanent. It is the rupas which arise and fall, not the concept itself. If we do not make this distinction, I think there is a danger of developing wrong view and atta sanna. These influences take place quite subtly without our knowing that. This brings me to your idea about 'things', you said; " A thing is what comes/brings together.What comes/brings together, breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent." This I think could lead to a wrong understanding of impermanence if not considered carefully. Impermanence is 'that which does not stay', but in your description of things, it seems to imply that there are moments that they do. And again a coming together is just the working of different elements in a particular way, where is there a need to posit the existence of a 'thing' here, except for convenience. To me the limitation of science and philosophy, and everything not informed by the Buddha's teachings is that it is all based on inferential knowledge. Something is seen, a 'self' is made out of what is seen, an attempt is then made to break it into elements. But this will still be dictated by the 'self' that was initially posited. So all these elements will end up as being a property of that something. And on and on this goes. At this day and age so many "things" are bombarded into our consciousness, this wouldn't be so much of a problem were it not for the different theories about their existence which come along. This is one reason why I think at such times, Abhidhamma is indispensable for the understanding of the Buddha's teachings. The seed for 'wrong view' has been so much accumulated, that we easily agree with well sounding explanations. I am not saying Victor, that you have wrong view, perhaps I am just talking about my own experience and how Abhidhamma seem to slowly distance me from these influences. And actually I am not so clear too, there seem to be a glimpse of something there, and I just 'think' about it further. It may even qualify as idle talk, in any case I don't dwell on it, happy to slowly learn. Victor: > Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that > might be of some interest: > > "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a > monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to > an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is > inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, > consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy > with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the > perception of inconstancy." Sukin: So this is referring to paramattha dhamma's no? So even initially it is just on the intellectual level, it does accumulate and will one day be strong enough for direct experience!? Waiting for your feedback. Best, Sukin 21498 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hetu-Phala Dear Yasalalaka, --- yasalalaka wrote: > > Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different > things. ..... I believe it was in the article a friend mentioned (rather than my post) which suggested they were synonymous. I do note that from the dictionary entry below, phala is sometimes used with vipaka to refer to consequence. ..... > Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, > translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with > the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. ..... Thank you for your clarification of how you use the phrase. I am most used to how these terms are used in an Abhidhamma context, so while I was aware that hetu is often used in a broad sense in the suttas to refer to conditions or paccaya and phala literally means fruit, I wasn’t aware that hetu-phala was used to refer to paticcasamuppada. Thank you for telling me this. It may avoid some confusion. I have since looked in the Rhys Davids-Stede Pali dict and realise that hetu and phala have more different meanings in different contexts than I realised. In brief, these are the main meanings it gives: Hetu ==== 1. cause, reason, condition. “In the older use paccaya and hetu are almost indentical as synonyms, eg “n’atthi hetu n’atthi paccaya” D 1.53 In later use, they are distinguished 2. moral condition (as used in Abhidhamma) i.e the 6 roots of lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites hetu-paccaya - the first of the 24 conditions, referring to these roots. Phala ====== 1. Fruit, eg fruit of a tree, lit. “bursting”. 2. fruit, result, consequence, particularly in reference to phala citta (fruition consciousness) of sotapanna, sakadagamai, anagami, arahant and also samapatti phala citta etc. It refers to the realisation of attainment. 3. Combined with vipaka (result of kamma) to refer to consequence and sometimes synonymous with “fruition, benefit, profit”. ********** Whilst looking at these terms, let me also add the entries for them from the Nyantiloka dictionary: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html hetu ===== 'cause', condition, reason; (Abhidhamma) root-condition. In sutta usage it is almost synonymous with paccaya, 'condition', and often occurs together with it ('What is the cause, what is the condition', ko hetu ko paccayo). In Abhidhamma, it denotes the wholesome and unwholesome roots (múla, q.v.). In that sense, as 'root-condition' (hetu-paccaya; s. paccaya), it is the first of the 24 conditions given in the introduction to the Patthána (s. Guide, p. 117). The Dhs (1052-1082) and Patthána (Duka-patth; Guide, p. 144) have sections on roots (hetu). - The term is also used (a) for the classification of consciousness, as sa-hetuka and a-hetuka, with and without concomitant root-conditions; (b) for a division of rebirth consciousness into ahetuka, dvihetuka and tihetuka, without, with 2, or with 3 root-conditions (s. patisandhi). Ahetuka-ditthi, the false view of the uncausedness of existence; s. ditthi. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ phala ====== lit. 'fruit'. - 1. result, effect (often together with hetu, cause ); 2. benefit (e.g. in Sámañña-phala Sutta, 'The Results, or Benefits, of Recluseship'; D.2). As 'path-result', or 'fruition', it denotes those moments of supermundane consciousness which flash forth immediately after the moment of path-consciousness (s. ariya-puggala) and which, till the attainment of the next higher path, may during the practice of insight (vipassaná, q.v.) still recur innumerable times. If thus repeated, they are called the 'attainment of fruition (phalasamápatti), which is explained in detail in Vis.M. XXIII. ********** Thank you again for your helpful comments. I also greatly appreciate your other posts, sutta references, questions and comments. With metta, Sarah ===== 21499 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Victor, Appreciating all your recent posts;-)) --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thank you for sharing your comments and quotes from the commentaries. .... Likewise, many thanks for your detailed and very interesting comments;-) ..... > I agree that the discourse, like most of the discourses, is > addressed to bhikkhus, not to lay followers. > > I checked the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary and found > that under the word "bhava": > --abhava this or that life, any form of existence, some sort of > existence. > > I think a bit of etymology of the word "bhava"/"bhavati" might of > some interest. .... Thank you so much for inc. the other dictionary entry, Heidegger link and the Dhp verse (gahakaaraka is used, I note, for house-builder in that context, but I understand your point of the metaphor). What we are looking at specifically is the meaning of bhavabhava in the sutta under topics of idle chatter. In this context, I understand the definition you give above, referring to ‘any form of existence’ to be correct. As I mentioned, in the PTS transl, it has "talk of becoming and not-becoming" with a footnote to say it can also mean "all sorts of becomings". B.Bodhi adds an interesting paragraph on ‘bhava’ and its translation in his introduction to Samyutta Nikaya, p52: “Bhava, in MLDB, was translated “being.” In seeking an alternative, I had first experimented with “becoming,” but when the shortcomings in this choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to “existence” used in my earlier translations. Bhava, however, is not “existence” in the sense of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a mathematical equation. Existence in the latter sense is covered by the verb atthi and the abstract noun atthitaa. Bhava is concrete sentient existence in one of the three realms of existence posited by Buddhist cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death. In th formula of dependent origination it is understood to mean both i) the active side of life that produces rebirth into a particular mode of sentient existence, in other words rebirth-producing kamma; and ii) the mode of sentient existence that results from such activity.” I take it you would not agree with these comments either? ..... > The purpose of drawing on the etymology of the > word "bhava"/"bhavati" is to show the meaning of the word and how it > can be understood in relation to the Buddha's teaching. I would > think the core of the Buddha's teaching is not about what exists and > what does not exist, or about whether dhamma exists or not. I would > say that the Buddha's teaching is about dukkha and cessation of > dukkha. ..... “sankhittena pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa - briefly, the five khandhas of attachment are suffering”. In other words, as I was discussing with Christine regarding change, suffering as the 1st Noble Truth cannot be understood apart from the 5 khandhas of attachment. So the khandhas (and ‘existing’ dhammas which make up the khandhas) have to be clearly known by panna. As I understand, without the clear comprehension of these dhammas and the unsatisfactory nature of them, and of craving as origin, there cannot be the path leading to the cessation of that same craving. Thanks again for your helpful and interesting references. I’ll be glad to hear any further feedback. Metta, Sarah ====== 21500 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:28am Subject: Re: Hetu-Phala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > > > > Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different > > things. > ..... > I believe it was in the article a friend mentioned (rather than my post) > which suggested they were synonymous. I do note that from the dictionary > entry below, phala is sometimes used with vipaka to refer to consequence. > ..... > > Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, > > translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with > > the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. > ..... > Thank you for your clarification of how you use the phrase. I am most used > to how these terms are used in an Abhidhamma context, so while I was aware > that hetu is often used in a broad sense in the suttas to refer to > conditions or paccaya and phala literally means fruit, I wasn't aware that > hetu-phala was used to refer to paticcasamuppada. Thank you for telling me > this. It may avoid some confusion. > > I have since looked in the Rhys Davids-Stede Pali dict and realise that > hetu and phala have more different meanings in different contexts than I > realised. > > In brief, these are the main meanings it gives: > > Hetu > ==== > 1. cause, reason, condition. > "In the older use paccaya and hetu are almost indentical as synonyms, eg > "n'atthi hetu n'atthi paccaya" D 1.53 > In later use, they are distinguished > > 2. moral condition (as used in Abhidhamma) > > i.e the 6 roots of lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites > > hetu-paccaya - the first of the 24 conditions, referring to these roots. > > Phala > ====== > 1. Fruit, eg fruit of a tree, lit. "bursting". > > 2. fruit, result, consequence, particularly in reference to phala citta > (fruition consciousness) of sotapanna, sakadagamai, anagami, arahant and > also samapatti phala citta etc. It refers to the realisation of > attainment. > > 3. Combined with vipaka (result of kamma) to refer to consequence and > sometimes synonymous with "fruition, benefit, profit". > ********** > > Whilst looking at these terms, let me also add the entries for them from > the Nyantiloka dictionary: > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html > > hetu > ===== > > 'cause', condition, reason; (Abhidhamma) root-condition. In sutta usage it > is almost synonymous with paccaya, 'condition', and often occurs together > with it ('What is the cause, what is the condition', ko hetu ko paccayo). > > In Abhidhamma, it denotes the wholesome and unwholesome roots (múla, > q.v.). In that sense, as 'root-condition' (hetu-paccaya; s. paccaya), it > is the first of the 24 conditions given in the introduction to the > Patthána (s. Guide, p. 117). The Dhs (1052-1082) and Patthána (Duka- patth; > Guide, p. 144) have sections on roots (hetu). - The term is also used (a) > for the classification of consciousness, as sa-hetuka and a-hetuka, with > and without concomitant root-conditions; (b) for a division of rebirth > consciousness into ahetuka, dvihetuka and tihetuka, without, with 2, or > with 3 root-conditions (s. patisandhi). > > Ahetuka-ditthi, the false view of the uncausedness of existence; s. > ditthi. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > phala > ====== > > lit. 'fruit'. - > > 1. result, effect (often together with hetu, cause ); > > 2. benefit (e.g. in Sámañña-phala Sutta, 'The Results, or Benefits, of > Recluseship'; D.2). > > As 'path-result', or 'fruition', it denotes those moments of supermundane > consciousness which flash forth immediately after the moment of > path-consciousness (s. ariya-puggala) and which, till the attainment of > the next higher path, may during the practice of insight (vipassaná, q.v.) > still recur innumerable times. If thus repeated, they are called the > 'attainment of fruition (phalasamápatti), which is explained in detail in > Vis.M. XXIII. > ********** > > Thank you again for your helpful comments. I also greatly appreciate your > other posts, sutta references, questions and comments. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > Dear Sarah, Thankyou very much for looking over my post, and appreciate you explaining. I admit Hetu-phala may be used both as cause and effect, and as action and reaction, or action and result. This term hetu-phala seemed to me more often used in reference to Causal Genesis (paticcasamuppada), cause (hetu), and effect (phala), and in speaking of kamma as, action (kamma) and reaction or result (kamma-vipaka). These are after all words and what is important is, what we have in mind when refering to one or the other aspect of dhamma. In my mind 'hetu-phala' stood for paticcasamupada and "karma and kamma-vipaka", for action and their results. Please pardon my rather assertive sentense "Hetu-phala is not karma- and vipaka. These are two different things." Perhaps there was a touch of manna (conceit)...! with metta, Yasalalaka > 21501 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 2:02am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Sukin, Thanks for sharing your thought. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > In fact if you asked me if a computer is permanent or > impermanent,and I had only to choose between the two, I would > say "permanent". This wouldn't be just from experience, since for me > a new computer is just a 'new computer' and an old one is just > an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can > be used by one person at different times, in different places and by > any number of persons to refer to something constant. Let's listen to the Buddha: Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta ---------------------- "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html smallchap 21502 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT (Larry & All), Sorry for any delayed replies. > KKT: > I have a question: > > Sujin insists on the importance > of making the distinction between > concepts and paramattha dhammas. > I agree that this is a very important point. > My question is that this insistence > is proper to Sujin's teachings > or of Abhidhamma in general? From the start of CMA, ch 1-2 "The things contained in the Abhidhamma, spoken of therein, are altogether fourfold from the standpoint of ultimate reality: consciousness, mental factors, matter, and Nibbana." ("Tatha vutt'aabhidhammatthaa Catudhaa paramatthato Cittam cetasikam ruupam Nibbaanam iti sabbathaa") < snip > KKT: Thanks for your long post with many quotes, Sarah. I see now that the importance of making the distinction between concepts and paramattha dhammas is << inherently >> in the teaching of Abhidhamma. Sujin just points out this important point. I have some more questions but before asking I want to draw the whole picture to see more clearly (correct me if I'm wrong) __The Buddha taught 2 truths: Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth. All the two Truths lead to enlightenment, to liberation. __Abhidhamma treats << exclusively >> the Ultimate Truth. The Ultimate Truth is about the << true >> reality that is rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana. But because the Buddha's main concern is to liberate man (my teaching has only one taste, the taste of liberation) therefore what He taught should lead man to detachment, to be dispassionate, to the ending of tanha. My question is: What is the << concrete, practical >> way of Abhidhamma to realize this objective? What is the << tool >> of Abhidhamma? Thank you, Sarah. Metta, KKT 21503 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:38am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > (James: Rob, I believe that you are somewhat mixing up accumulations > and personality, which I don't see as related necessarily…at least > what you describe doesn't match my understanding of accumulations. > Yes, the both of us have lived several lifetimes; we have had our > various experiences and have learned our various lessons; therefore > we have different accumulations. However, during each of those > lifetimes we had a unique personality, shaped somewhat by our > accumulations and shaped somewhat by our environment (especially what > others project onto us). The accumulations move from lifetime to > lifetime, but the personality doesn't; personality is anatta and > doesn't last, accumulations are karma and do transmigrate. This is > what I am thinking of when I think of accumulations. Therefore, > talent in either art or music wouldn't necessarily fall under the > category of accumulations…they would probably fall under the > categories of environmental influence and genetic predispositions. > > With this in mind, some people have accumulations that move them > closer to the truth (like the Lord Buddha), and some people have > accumulations that move them farther away from the truth (like Adolf > Hitler). What I asked is where do you see your accumulations and my > accumulations, as is evidenced by either accepting or rejecting the > Abhidhamma, in relation to which is closer to the truth (dharma)? > You had a very long laundry list of things which you said couldn't be > truly understood without knowing the Abhidhamma. Now, for someone > who knows and then rejects the Abhidhamma, where do you think that > puts me in relation to the Buddhadhamma?) ===== I see "accumulations", "habits", "tendencies", "character" and "personality" as different ways of saying pretty much the same thing. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about this in "Questions on Kamma": http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm Firstly let us deal with the psychological effect of kamma. When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential for the future. I see three stages of development; study, practice and wisdom. Study forms the basis for practice and wisdom can only achieved through practice. As the Buddha stressed in the Bhumija Sutta (Mn126), results are only obtained through right practice, never because of strong desire (and I would add, never because of intellectual study). Your practice seems more developed than mine (sometimes I get trapped in "analysis paralysis"). At some point, your practice may present you with an experience that your knowledge of the Abhidhamma helps you to understand / appreciate better. If you were to ask me if somebody could attain enlightenment without detailed knowledge of the Abhidhamma, I would answer, "Certainly... the Buddha did!". For those with the right accumulations (such as myself), the Abhidhamma can be of great help along the path. ===== > (James: Actually, this is what I was leading to. We simply have to > see things for what they are. I am not sure how knowledge of the > Abhidhamma is supposed to be able to lead to this; but it seems to > work beautifully for you. But as I said before, I think you are a > special case. Not everyone can spin straw into gold.) ===== I like it because the Abhidhamma combines the tools of analysis (breaking things into component parts; paramatthas) and synthesis (natural laws of how one thing conditions another). I am an engineer by training... what more can I say :-) ===== > (James: Perhaps there aren't any discrepancies in how you view the > Abhidhamma and Sutta/Vinaya, but I don't think that could be said for > everyone. Just look at how many different interpretations of the > Abhidhamma there are! I mean, how many different ways can a computer > be viewed! (ref: "Computer as Dukkha" thread). ===== Sorry, I have to admit that I wasn't following that thread. But even if we were to restrict our discussion only to the Suttas, there would still be lots of opportunity for disscussion and dialogue. ===== > > If you want to believe that the Buddha and Sariputta co-taught the > dharma that is fine. I obviously don't have any evidence from the > Buddha stating, "People are going to say in a few thousand years that > I taught something called the Abhidhamma to Sariputta and Sariputta > taught it to those intellectual monks without a penchant for > meditation. This will not be true. Don't believe it." But I think > we all could use some common sense here. If Sariputta and the Buddha > were both teaching the same truth through different versions, I > believe the Buddha would have been stating as much several different > times. He didn't want to leave anything to chance after all. Don't > you think he would have mentioned that? Very directly and > often?) > ===== You raise an excellent point. I have a hard time saying I am convinced of the truth of the story of the Buddha teaching the Abhidhamma in heaven and then reporting it on earth. I don't say that I don't believe it; the jury is still out. If I run across any discrepency between the Abhidhamma and the Suttas, then I will almost certainly side with the Suttas. However, so far, I am not aware of any, so I consider the Abhidhamma merely another way of presenting the same material. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: I will soon be posting something on the Metta thread! 21504 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:49am Subject: For your viewing pleasure .... Dear Group, Just to let you know that a new photo, one taken of Betty on the Sri Lanka trip, has been added to Album 1 'Members'. [Thanks Betty, gives me itchy feet again! :-)] and two photos of K. Sujin (also taken in Sri Lanka) have been added to Album 4 'Others': http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst And may I take this opportunity to invite any of you who have been thinking of adding a photo, to do more than just think :-) We'd love to have you join us all - ourselves, our kids, our dog, and our friends. Think of it as "enhancing our posting experience" by allowing us to see who we are writing to. :-) metta, Christine 21505 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:01am Subject: Re: The Vinaya Hello Michael, Thanks for your post. It encouraged me to further reflection on some of the many references in the Teachings against violence, killing and war - just a few are quoted below. metta, Christine From Kuddakapatha 2 "I undertake the training rule to refrain from taking life." From the Samyutta Nikaya XLII.3 To Yodhajiva " When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, his mind is already seized, debased, & misdirected by the thought: 'May these beings be struck down or slaughtered or annihilated or destroyed. May they not exist.' If others then strike him down & slay while he is thus striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the hell called the realm of those slain in battle. But if he holds such a view as this: 'When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle,' that is his wrong view. Now, there are two destinations for a person with wrong view, I tell you: either hell or the animal womb." When this was said, Yodhajiva the headman sobbed & burst into tears. [The Blessed One said:] "That is what I couldn't get past you by saying, 'Enough, headman, put that aside. Don't ask me that.'" "I'm not crying, venerable sir, because of what the Blessed One said to me, but simply because I have been deceived, cheated, & fooled for a long time by that ancient teaching lineage of professional warriors who said: 'When a professional warrior strives & exerts himself in battle, if others then strike him down & slay him while he is striving & exerting himself in battle, then with the breakup of the body, after death, he is reborn in the company of devas slain in battle.' " From Majjhima Nikaya 13 "it's with sensuality for the reason, sensuality for the source... that (men), taking swords & shields and buckling on bows & quivers, charge slippery bastions while arrows & spears are flying and swords are flashing; and there they are splashed with boiling cow dung and crushed under heavy weights, and their heads are cut off by swords, so that they incur death or deadly pain. Now this drawback too in the case of sensuality, this mass of stress visible here & now, has sensuality for its reason, sensuality for its source, sensuality for its cause, the reason being simply sensuality. " Dhammapada v.129-130 All tremble at the rod, all are fearful of death. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill. All tremble at the rod, all hold their life dear. Drawing the parallel to yourself, neither kill nor get others to kill. From Anguttara Nikaya VIII.39 "There is the case where a disciple of the noble ones, abandoning the taking of life, abstains from taking life. In doing so, he gives freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings. In giving freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, freedom from oppression to limitless numbers of beings, he gains a share in limitless freedom from danger, freedom from animosity, and freedom from oppression. This is the first gift, the first great gift -- original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning -- that is not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and is unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests." From Samyutta Nikaya XLII.8 "There is the case, headman, where a Tathagata appears in the world, worthy & rightly self-awakened, consummate in clear knowing & conduct, well-gone, a knower of the cosmos, unexcelled trainer of those to be tamed, teacher of human & divine beings, awakened, blessed. He, in various ways, criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, 'Abstain from taking life.' <> A disciple has faith in that teacher and reflects: 'The Blessed One in a variety of ways criticizes & censures the taking of life, and says, "Abstain from taking life." There are living beings that I have killed, to a greater or lesser extent. That was not right. That was not good. But if I become remorseful for that reason, that evil deed of mine will not be undone.' So, reflecting thus, he abandons right then the taking of life, and in the future refrains from taking life. This is how there comes to be the abandoning of that evil deed. This is how there comes to be the transcending of that evil deed." --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > > Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; > > The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks from > going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is > central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- > or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk > would be disrobed. > There seems to be convincing scriptural passages > against supporting wars which would apply to both > Monks and Lay Buddhists. > Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and > fear,and hatred. > There are non-violent alternatives for dealing with > the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. > A Buddhist would not support war. > MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL 21506 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:05am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, Thank you for the response. Yeah, there is some connection between "Thing" post and the "Change" post!! Regarding thinking about impermanence, I would say that I was stating how I see things such as a chair. I was not trying to see that a chair is impermanent. It is impermanent. Regarding rupa aggregate, this is how I see it: I would say it includes a very broad range of things such as physical objects like chairs, tables, computers, apples, body.....Rupa is very a general term. A chair is rupa, a table is rupa, a computer is rupa. The word "rupa" refers to physical things/objects. Concept, on the other hand, is something that is also assembled, fabricated. A concept about a chair, for instance, is also impermanent. Chair the physical object and the concept about chair are interdependent, closely related. A thing is impermanent in the sense that it does not last, is subject to change, disintegrates. As I understand it, the perception of impermanence as the Buddha taught in the discourse is to reflect on the characteristics of the five aggregates being impermanent. The perception in and of itself, as I see it, is not of an intellectual nature. Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. My comments follow yours and I hope you don't > mind me making a reference to the subject matter of another post of > yours about "things", I think there is some connection. > Victor: > > This is how I see it: > > A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is > > impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it > > disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent > > whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent > > whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair with > > the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is > > impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one > sees it as a new computer or an old one. > Sukin: > But this is all thinking no? Even to say that citta and its object is > impermanent is still thinking. However when we refer to tables and > chairs as being impermanent, we are not being directed to what is > actually that is impermanent. It is the rupas which arise and fall, not the > concept itself. If we do not make this distinction, I think there is a > danger of developing wrong view and atta sanna. These influences take > place quite subtly without our knowing that. > This brings me to your idea about 'things', you said; > > " A thing is what comes/brings together.What comes/brings together, > breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent." > > This I think could lead to a wrong understanding of impermanence if not > considered carefully. Impermanence is 'that which does not stay', but in > your description of things, it seems to imply that there are moments that > they do. > And again a coming together is just the working of different elements in > a particular way, where is there a need to posit the existence of a 'thing' > here, except for convenience. > To me the limitation of science and philosophy, and everything not > informed by the Buddha's teachings is that it is all based on inferential > knowledge. Something is seen, a 'self' is made out of what is seen, an > attempt is then made to break it into elements. But this will still be > dictated by the 'self' that was initially posited. So all these elements will > end up as being a property of that something. And on and on this goes. > At this day and age so many "things" are bombarded into our > consciousness, this wouldn't be so much of a problem were it not for the > different theories about their existence which come along. > This is one reason why I think at such times, Abhidhamma is > indispensable for the understanding of the Buddha's teachings. The seed > for 'wrong view' has been so much accumulated, that we easily agree > with well sounding explanations. I am not saying Victor, that you have > wrong view, perhaps I am just talking about my own experience and > how Abhidhamma seem to slowly distance me from these influences. > And actually I am not so clear too, there seem to be a glimpse of > something there, and I just 'think' about it further. It may even qualify as > idle talk, in any case I don't dwell on it, happy to slowly learn. > > Victor: > > Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that > > might be of some interest: > > > > "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case where a > > monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to > > an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling is > > inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are inconstant, > > consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on inconstancy > > with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the > > perception of inconstancy." > > Sukin: > So this is referring to paramattha dhamma's no? So even initially it is > just on the intellectual level, it does accumulate and will one day be > strong enough for direct experience!? > > Waiting for your feedback. > > Best, > Sukin 21507 From: Connie Parker Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:50am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Dependent Origination - Paticca "because of, or dependent upon"; Samuppada "arising or origination." (1) Ignorance, (2) Volitional formations (sankhâra), (3) consciousness, (4) mind-and-form, (5) sense-bases, (6) contact, (7) feeling, (8) craving, (9) clinging, (10) becoming, (11) birth, (12) old-age-and-death. paragraph in the fifth book of the Vinaya Pitaka, Parivara: Discipline (Vinaya) is for the sake of restraint, restraint for the sake of freedom from remorse, freedom from remorse for the sake of joy, joy for the sake of rapture, rapture for the sake of tranquility, tranquility for the sake of pleasure, pleasure fr the sqke of concentration, concentration for the sake of knowledge and vision of things as they are, knowledge and vision of things as they are for the sake of disenchantment, disenchantment for the sake of dispassion, dispassion for the sake of release, release for the sake of knowledge and vision of release, knowledge and vision of release for the sake of total unbinding without clinging. The first noble truth, the existence of suffering, is related to the seven-fold links of consciousness, name-and-form, the six sense faculties, contact, sensation, birth, and aging/death. The second noble truth, the origin of suffering, is related to the five-fold links of ignorance, action, desire, grasping, and existence. thirteen Mixtures (vimissaka) common to both moral and immoral consciousness six Particulars (pakinnaká) 1. vitakka (initial application) 2. vicára (sustained application) 3. viriya (effort) 4. píti (pleasurable interest) 5. chanda (desire-to-do) 6. adhimokka (deciding). seven Common Properties (sabbacitta) 1. phassa (contact) 2. vedaná (feeling) 3. saññá (perception) 4. cetaná (volition) 5. ekaggatá (concentration of mind) 6. jívita (psychic life) 7. manasikára (attention). fourteen Immorals (papajáti) l. lobha (greed) 2. dosa (hate) 3. moha (dullness) 4. ditthi (error) 5. mána (conceit) 6. issá (envy) 7. macchariya (selfishness) 8. kukkucca (worry) 9. ahirika (shamelessness) 10. anottappa (recklessness) 11. uddhacca (distraction) 12. thína (sloth) 13. middha (torpor) 14. vicikicchá (scepticism) The millionth of the second that the arammana is experienced by the vinnana cittas of the different panca dvaras is followed by the vithi vara cittas of the dvara and then the mano dvara arises to experience the same arammana in sequence, so the arammana is always known by its own dvara vithi vara and the mano dvara vithi vara, after some bhavanga interposes. The same arammana can be thought of through the mano dvara vara over and over, before the vinnana cittas arise again to know another arammana, or the arammana that arises from the conditions that haven't fallen away that had produced the previous arammana. This can happen after other dvara vinnana cittas arise as well, such as at present there are visible objects, after the cakkhu vinnana cittas arise followed by the rest of the cakkhudvara vithi [preceeded by the atita bhavanga, bhavanguppaccheda and the dvaravajjana cittas] and after the javanas [and possible tadalambana cittas] have fallen away, and bhavanga cittas interpose, then the mano dvara vithi cittas would arise and immediately experience the same arammana as the preceeding vithi and think or experience that arammana through the mano dvara without fail. This is true for all the five sense dvaras. With sati arising, the javana would experience the arammana for what they really are, instead of taking them for their ghana sanna or sammatti pannattis. When sati doesn't arise, we see the whole of the memories based on the experience: people, the computer, us, and not just visible objects so different from what is experienced through other dvaras; that arise and fall away, impermanent, ever changing, and not under our control; not us at all. end 21508 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:00am Subject: Buddhism Dear James: The SARS has been spreading everwhere in Hong Kong. I think Tung Chee Wah (the Hong Kong chief executive) is very disorganised! He just isn't the right person to be HOng Kong's leader. He is not flexibile. By the time he decided to act, he virus has already spreaded out. And anyway, back to Buddhism. Here are a few questions: 1. Did the Buddha create the world? 2. Did he create humans and all the other things, including animals, plants, and planets, stars,etc? 3. Why do we die, according to Buddhism? 4. Is there a devil and a hell, according to Buddhism? 5. Is the Buddha holy? Thank you for answering Yours truly Philip 21509 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:02am Subject: Buddhism 2 Dear Kom: thanks for explaining to me about non-self. I think everything is non-self, you cannot get hold of it. And anyway, questions: 1. Did the Buddha create us? 2. Did the Buddha create the universe and all the living things? 3. Is the Buddha holy? 4. According to the Buddha, is there a devil and a hell? Thank you for answering. Philip Chui 21510 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Do rupas exist independently of consciousness? Yasalalaka --- yasalalaka wrote: ... > Do Rupas exist independantly of consciousness ? > > This I find is an interesting question, which can be put in several > ways. In relation to nama rupa, do you think it would be the same > question if I ask: Do things exist beyond our sense faculties ? Well, I suppose that would depend on what kind of 'things' are being referred to ;-)) Of course, there is a qualitative difference between conventional 'things' and rupas (which are ultimate 'things'). How do you see it? > This reminds me of the Cula Malunkya Sutta, where Munlankyaputta, > asked several questions about the existance of the Universe and > what > happens to the Buddha after his death etc. The Buddha explained > that knowing them does not help the spiritual life and irrelevant. > Again > when the Buddha was in the Simsapa forest, with the monks, he took > a handful of leaves and said that what he did not tell is as much > as the leaves in the forest and what he had told is as much as the > leaves in his hand, and that which is essential to lead a holy > life, to finally atain Nibbana . > > However, Abhidhamma, from the few chapters I was happy to read > from > Nina's Book, explains how to understand paramatta dhamma from what > is happening now. We become aware of arammana through the six sense > faculties. Looking for things beyond them would be getting away > from the present moment. > > There is also the other aspect of conventional truth and the > ultimate truth. The world does not exist in the sense of the > ultimate truth-(paramatta -sacca), but conventianally it continues > to exist. My family, that I have left behind in a distant Island, > I do not see, but they exist. Therefore, I cannot deny their > existance telling my-self that," in reality they do not exist". > > All this is carrying coal to New Castle. Because, you know all > what > I had written and perhaps more. Some times these questions prop up > in the mind and we should perhaps, look at them as mind(nama) > engaged in thinking(rupa). Thanks for these useful reminders and snippets from the teachings. Always welcome. Just a question about your reference to mind as nama and thinking as rupa. Could you explain a little further? To my understanding, there is no rupa in thinking. > It was a pleasure reading you in the Forum. It's a pleasure to have you here. Jon > May you be happy, > with metta, > Yasalalaka 21511 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, Good and pertinent citations, thanks. I find I'm in agreement with Bhikkhu Bodhi's take in general (as well as I'm able to understand it) and the textual quotes make sense to me too. The quote from Abhidhammaavataara reminds me of something similar in 'Survey' about variegation. Haven't quite figured this one out yet (the 'glazed eyes' problem...!). Thanks again, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Monday, April 21, 2003 5:07 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: "Pure Awareness" (was the Bogor group) > Hi Rob & Mike, > > > --- robmoult wrote: > > > I extracted this definition from Bhikkhu Bodhi's Comprehensive > > > Manual of Abhidhamma (I, 3). "... The commentators define citta in > > > three ways: as agent, as instrument and as activity..." > ..... > In the recently published PTS transl of the commentary to the > Abhidammattha Sangaha I now see it gives all the detail and explanation of > to the points we were discussing and which B.Bodhi based many of his > comments on. So let me quote directly from it: > > Prologue 2, p7: > > "Ultimate means in the ultimate, highest and undistorted sense; or it is > the sense that comes within the sphere of knowledge that is highest and > ultimate. > > Consciousnes (citta) is that which is conscious; the meaning is that it > knows (vijaanaati) an object. So it is said: 'Consciousness has the > characteristic of knowing objects.' for although such > causal conditions as those of support and immediate contiguity are also > relevant, consciousness does not arise in the absence of an object, and > therefore its characteristic is spoken of with reference to that. This > rejects the view that consciousness arises in the absence of an object. > > Or else consciousness is the means by which asociated dhammas are > conscious (cintana). For it is its mere occurrence in accordance with > conditions that is called 'a dhamma with its own particular nature' > (sabhava-dhamma). In consideration of this, it is the definition of the > particular natures of ultimate dhammas that is taken as absolute; the > explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (kara.na) should be > seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma's being treated as an > agent, by attributing the status of 'self' to the particular function of a > dhamma, and also its being (treated) in consequence as an instrument, by > attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both > taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms > should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of > an agent, etc apart from the particular nature of a dhamma. The meaning > of the word citta is also elaborated as that which causes variegation and > so on. Thus it is summarized: > > "It is consciousness because it causes variegation (vicitta), or because > it is itself variegated; it is gathered (cita) by kamma and defilements, > or it preserves what has been gathered thus; it gathers its own > continuity, and it has a variety of objects." (Abhidhammaavataara 2,v-9) > > That which exists in the mind (cetasi) by occurring in dependence upon it > is mentality (cetasika). For it is unable to take an object without > consciousness; in the absence of consciousness there is no arising of any > mentality at all. But consciousness does occur with an object in the > absence of certain mentalities; so mentality is said to occur in > dependence upon consciousness. Therefore the Blessed One has said: > "Dhammas have mind as their forerunner." (Dhp 1) This refutes erroneous > opinions such as that happiness, etc, are permanent and exist in the > absence of consciousness. (Cf Vism XV1, 85). Alternatively mentality is > that which is combined with consciousnes." > ***** > The text continues with a discussion on rupa. > > Any further comments? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > 21512 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Hetu-Phala Dear Yasalalaka and Sarah, Thanks for this exchange. It's useful to have someone with a slightly different usage of Pali terms remind us dsg'rs that our accustomed usages aren't uniquely valid--especially, for me, when different usages help to bridge the gap between 'suttanta method' and 'abhidhamma method'. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: yasalalaka To: Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 1:28 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Hetu-Phala --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > > --- yasalalaka wrote: > > > > Hetu-phala, is not Karma and vipaka. These are two different > > things. > ..... > I believe it was in the article a friend mentioned (rather than my post) > which suggested they were synonymous. I do note that from the dictionary > entry below, phala is sometimes used with vipaka to refer to consequence. > ..... > > Hetu-phala-or to use the correct Pali term, Paticcasamuppada, > > translated as Causal Genesis or Dependant Origination, together with > > the Anatta Doctrine, is the heart of the teachings of the Buddha. > ..... > Thank you for your clarification of how you use the phrase. I am most used > to how these terms are used in an Abhidhamma context, so while I was aware > that hetu is often used in a broad sense in the suttas to refer to > conditions or paccaya and phala literally means fruit, I wasn't aware that > hetu-phala was used to refer to paticcasamuppada. Thank you for telling me > this. It may avoid some confusion. > > I have since looked in the Rhys Davids-Stede Pali dict and realise that > hetu and phala have more different meanings in different contexts than I > realised. > > In brief, these are the main meanings it gives: > > Hetu > ==== > 1. cause, reason, condition. > "In the older use paccaya and hetu are almost indentical as synonyms, eg > "n'atthi hetu n'atthi paccaya" D 1.53 > In later use, they are distinguished > > 2. moral condition (as used in Abhidhamma) > > i.e the 6 roots of lobha, dosa, moha and their opposites > > hetu-paccaya - the first of the 24 conditions, referring to these roots. > > Phala > ====== > 1. Fruit, eg fruit of a tree, lit. "bursting". > > 2. fruit, result, consequence, particularly in reference to phala citta > (fruition consciousness) of sotapanna, sakadagamai, anagami, arahant and > also samapatti phala citta etc. It refers to the realisation of > attainment. > > 3. Combined with vipaka (result of kamma) to refer to consequence and > sometimes synonymous with "fruition, benefit, profit". > ********** > > Whilst looking at these terms, let me also add the entries for them from > the Nyantiloka dictionary: > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic_idx.html > > hetu > ===== > > 'cause', condition, reason; (Abhidhamma) root-condition. In sutta usage it > is almost synonymous with paccaya, 'condition', and often occurs together > with it ('What is the cause, what is the condition', ko hetu ko paccayo). > > In Abhidhamma, it denotes the wholesome and unwholesome roots (múla, > q.v.). In that sense, as 'root-condition' (hetu-paccaya; s. paccaya), it > is the first of the 24 conditions given in the introduction to the > Patthána (s. Guide, p. 117). The Dhs (1052-1082) and Patthána (Duka- patth; > Guide, p. 144) have sections on roots (hetu). - The term is also used (a) > for the classification of consciousness, as sa-hetuka and a-hetuka, with > and without concomitant root-conditions; (b) for a division of rebirth > consciousness into ahetuka, dvihetuka and tihetuka, without, with 2, or > with 3 root-conditions (s. patisandhi). > > Ahetuka-ditthi, the false view of the uncausedness of existence; s. > ditthi. > -------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > phala > ====== > > lit. 'fruit'. - > > 1. result, effect (often together with hetu, cause ); > > 2. benefit (e.g. in Sámañña-phala Sutta, 'The Results, or Benefits, of > Recluseship'; D.2). > > As 'path-result', or 'fruition', it denotes those moments of supermundane > consciousness which flash forth immediately after the moment of > path-consciousness (s. ariya-puggala) and which, till the attainment of > the next higher path, may during the practice of insight (vipassaná, q.v.) > still recur innumerable times. If thus repeated, they are called the > 'attainment of fruition (phalasamápatti), which is explained in detail in > Vis.M. XXIII. > ********** > > Thank you again for your helpful comments. I also greatly appreciate your > other posts, sutta references, questions and comments. > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== > > Dear Sarah, Thankyou very much for looking over my post, and appreciate you explaining. I admit Hetu-phala may be used both as cause and effect, and as action and reaction, or action and result. This term hetu-phala seemed to me more often used in reference to Causal Genesis (paticcasamuppada), cause (hetu), and effect (phala), and in speaking of kamma as, action (kamma) and reaction or result (kamma-vipaka). These are after all words and what is important is, what we have in mind when refering to one or the other aspect of dhamma. In my mind 'hetu-phala' stood for paticcasamupada and "karma and kamma-vipaka", for action and their results. Please pardon my rather assertive sentense "Hetu-phala is not karma- and vipaka. These are two different things." Perhaps there was a touch of manna (conceit)...! with metta, Yasalalaka > 21513 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Victor and Sukin, Hope you don't mind my butting in. I agree with both of you. With an apology for harping on this point, it seems to me that, from the point of view of the 'suttanta method', chair is impermanent. From that of the 'abhidhamma method', chair is not impermanent (in the sense of the tilakka.na) because it is is not paramattha. To me, the latter is more literally true but it is important not to make the best (paramattha-sacca) the enemy of the good (sammuti-sacca). That said, it seems to me that from a point of view informed by abhidhamma, the suttanta method (as well as the abhihdamma method) still makes perfect sense, while from a point of view uniformed by abhidhamma, the suttanta method can still make perfect sense while the abhidhamma method makes little sense, if any. It's this initially counterintuitive quality of abhidhamma that so often puts off those well-informed by the suttanta, or so it seems to me. I think it's well worth the trouble of illuminating this hurdle for those who see the value in jumping it. Thanks for your patience with my hobby-horse. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: yu_zhonghao To: Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2003 5:05 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) > Hi Sukin, > > Thank you for the response. Yeah, there is some connection > between "Thing" post and the "Change" post!! > > Regarding thinking about impermanence, I would say that I was stating > how I see things such as a chair. I was not trying to see that a > chair is impermanent. It is impermanent. > > Regarding rupa aggregate, this is how I see it: > I would say it includes a very broad range of things such as physical > objects like chairs, tables, computers, apples, body.....Rupa is very > a general term. A chair is rupa, a table is rupa, a computer is > rupa. The word "rupa" refers to physical things/objects. Concept, > on the other hand, is something that is also assembled, fabricated. > A concept about a chair, for instance, is also impermanent. Chair > the physical object and the concept about chair are interdependent, > closely related. A thing is impermanent in the sense that it does > not last, is subject to change, disintegrates. > > As I understand it, the perception of impermanence as the Buddha > taught in the discourse is to reflect on the characteristics of the > five aggregates being impermanent. The perception in and of itself, > as I see it, is not of an intellectual nature. > > Again, thanks for sharing your thoughts on this topic. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > > > Thanks for your reply. My comments follow yours and I hope you > don't > > mind me making a reference to the subject matter of another post of > > yours about "things", I think there is some connection. > > Victor: > > > This is how I see it: > > > A chair, whether it is broken or not, is impermanent. It is > > > impermanent in the sense that it is subject to change, it > > > disintegrates, it does not last forever. A chair is impermanent > > > whether one physically sees the change or not. It is impermanent > > > whether or not one associates the memory of an unbroken chair > with > > > the broken one. A computer, whether it is new or old, is > > > impermanent. A computer is impermanent regardless whether one > > sees it as a new computer or an old one. > > Sukin: > > But this is all thinking no? Even to say that citta and its object > is > > impermanent is still thinking. However when we refer to tables and > > chairs as being impermanent, we are not being directed to what is > > actually that is impermanent. It is the rupas which arise and fall, > not the > > concept itself. If we do not make this distinction, I think there > is a > > danger of developing wrong view and atta sanna. These influences > take > > place quite subtly without our knowing that. > > This brings me to your idea about 'things', you said; > > > > " A thing is what comes/brings together.What comes/brings together, > > breaks apart. In that sense, a thing is impermanent." > > > > This I think could lead to a wrong understanding of impermanence if > not > > considered carefully. Impermanence is 'that which does not stay', > but in > > your description of things, it seems to imply that there are > moments that > > they do. > > And again a coming together is just the working of different > elements in > > a particular way, where is there a need to posit the existence of > a 'thing' > > here, except for convenience. > > To me the limitation of science and philosophy, and everything not > > informed by the Buddha's teachings is that it is all based on > inferential > > knowledge. Something is seen, a 'self' is made out of what is seen, > an > > attempt is then made to break it into elements. But this will still > be > > dictated by the 'self' that was initially posited. So all these > elements will > > end up as being a property of that something. And on and on this > goes. > > At this day and age so many "things" are bombarded into our > > consciousness, this wouldn't be so much of a problem were it not > for the > > different theories about their existence which come along. > > This is one reason why I think at such times, Abhidhamma is > > indispensable for the understanding of the Buddha's teachings. The > seed > > for 'wrong view' has been so much accumulated, that we easily agree > > with well sounding explanations. I am not saying Victor, that you > have > > wrong view, perhaps I am just talking about my own experience and > > how Abhidhamma seem to slowly distance me from these influences. > > And actually I am not so clear too, there seem to be a glimpse of > > something there, and I just 'think' about it further. It may even > qualify as > > idle talk, in any case I don't dwell on it, happy to slowly learn. > > > > Victor: > > > Regarding the perception of impermanence, here is a passage that > > > might be of some interest: > > > > > > "And what is the perception of inconstancy? There is the case > where a > > > monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or > to > > > an empty building -- reflects thus: 'Form is inconstant, feeling > is > > > inconstant, perception is inconstant, fabrications are > inconstant, > > > consciousness is inconstant.' Thus he remains focused on > inconstancy > > > with regard to the five aggregates. This, Ananda, is called the > > > perception of inconstancy." > > > > Sukin: > > So this is referring to paramattha dhamma's no? So even initially > it is > > just on the intellectual level, it does accumulate and will one day > be > > strong enough for direct experience!? > > > > Waiting for your feedback. > > > > Best, > > Sukin 21514 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: ... > S: Conditioned means depended on certain conditions (for it to > arise). Yes, but may I ask, Does a computer arise, and if so, what are some of the conditions for its arising (that cause it to arise)? > smallchap > > Ps. I hope you do not mind my dispensing with the usual > formality and courtesy. :) Not at all! Be as informal as you like ;-)) Jon 21515 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Connie --- connie wrote: > OK, Jon, Rob M and All~ > > Sorry for the feeble excuse. I've added Rob M's 11 benefits of > metta > and look forward to reading the article. > > 1 through 4 below. > > peace, > connie Thanks for sharing this with us. I can see a lot of thought and work went into it. A very eclectic set of groupings. I'm sure your audience found it fascinating. Was there any particular group that they seemed interested in, or were their questions unrelated to your groupings (i.e., the usual ones about rebirth as an ant etc.)? Jon > DHAMMA - law / reality / truth that upholds the universe > > "No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance > like > seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is fore-doomed at their > birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. They come > from > nowhere, break up, nowhere go; Flash in and out, as lightning in > the > sky." 21516 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:35am Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, A couple of years ago, my wife and I visited the small Vihara in Jakarta where we were married. We sat in silence for a while when an extremely old Thai monk came in and sat down in front of us. After initial pleasantries, the monk looked my wife in the eye and said that she need not be afraid when she flew. I had slept on the flight and did not even know that the flight had experienced turbulence. My wife had been very afraid but had not mentioned the incident to anybody; not to me, nor to the monk. The monk then turned to me and asked me how my meditation practice was going. I squirmed. The monk told me, "Do not be frustrated because of lack of progress. You must view meditation as your duty. You have duty to your office that you must fulfill. You have duty to your family that you must fulfill. Meditation is your duty to yourself. Results will arise at the right time, your duty is to meditate." I believe that the monk could sense what we were thinking. I am now meditating much more regularly; still no real progress, but meditation is my duty. As I meditate, I am developing a habit; a habit of mindfulness, a habit of calm, a habit of peace. These habits impact how I deal with my daily life. In other words, the benefits of the meditation can arise long after I have got up from my cushion. I choose to sign off all my business emails with a " Thanks, Rob :- ) ". Ending my messages with the familiar form of "Thanks" and adding the emoticon is important to me. It has become a habit for me; not a blind ritual but a wholesome habit. This habit is part of my effort to be more friendly and personable in my email communication. I choose to sign off my DSG messages with a " Metta, Rob M :-) ". I chose to make this my habit because I want to instill more Metta in my dealings with others. The amount of "true Metta" (if there is such a thing) in my heart as I type my DSG message varies significantly from "almost none", to "considerable". That is okay with me. Just as I do not feel like a hypocrite when I am sitting without results, I do not feel like a hypocrite when I end a message with the word "Metta" when there is less than 100% "true Metta" during the typing. Each time I type the word "Metta", the term "Metta" arises in my mind. Even if the contemplation on the term and the concept arise only for a short time, it is better than nothing. I also like to read the word "Metta" when used by others. Reading the word "Metta" causes the term and the concept to arise in my own mind and that is kusala. When people vary their closing a bit (such as "With Extreme Metta") or when a closing is uncommon (such as Connie's "Peace"), it gives me even more pleasure to read it. In fact, it often causes me to smile. I do not see Metta as "mental lightning" that jumps from the originator to the recipient. Metta works on our own minds. I attended a Dhamma talk on Metta more than a year ago. A lady asked, "Each evening, I radiate metta towards this nasty person at work, but there is no effect. What should I do?" The monk answered, "Metta is to be used by your own mind, it is not for the other person. The next step is to put the metta into action. Do something nice for the other person, motivated and driven by your own metta. Many people change if you do something nice for them. Even if they do not change, no problem, your action motivated by metta will bring you good kamma." As we practice metta, either by sitting, by "signing off", by reading and contemplating or though our actions, we develop a habit. This habit of metta will cause us to react to future situations in a "metta" (kusala) way. In summary, I strongly support the idea of using "Metta" as a sign- off. I believe that it makes the world a slightly better place. It helps both the writer and the reader. I see dana, sila, bhavana and metta as our duty, our responsibility. Metta (and I mean it!), Rob M :-) PS: Consider this; for us to be reborn as a human, our last thought must have included alobha (dana), adosa (metta) and probably amoha (panna). In other words, our human subconscious (bhavanga) citta is the result of a thought of metta. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems > to have been de-valued. > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that > it > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > Christine 21517 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Ok. Thank you for sharing how your see it. To me the dichotomy of > absolute/conventional is unnecessary. > > Again, thanks for sharing. > > Regards, > Victor If by 'unnecessary' you mean 'optional' (for some), you might be right ;-)), in the sense that in many suttas the teaching is given in both conventioonal and absolute terms, presumably to cater for different accumulations and capabilities. I'd like to give an example i came across the other day. You will recall that recently you and I were talking about the Noble Truth of suffering, and you pointed out the 'conventional' nature of the references to birth, aging and death. I then mentioned the 'ultimate' nature of the reference to the five aggregates in the same truth. In the 'Analysis of Dependent Origination' Sutta (SN 12:2, CDB trans. Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.534), there are descriptions of birth, aging and death, in the context of dependent origination. The translations from the commentary to this passage (Spk) that are included as footnotes to the sutta mention the distinction between conventional and absolute. +++++++++++++++++++ Death Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is [aging-and-]death? ... The passing away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: this is called death...." Commentary: "By the terms from "passing away" through "completion of time" he expounds death in worldly conventional terminology (lokasammutiyaa); by the expressions "breakup of the aggregates" and "the laying down of the carcass" he expounds death in the ultimate sense (paramattha). For in the ultimate sense it is only the aggregates that break up; there is no "being" that dies." Birth Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent [into the womb], production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth." Commentary: "From "birth" through "production" the teaching is conventional (vohaaradesanaa); the last two terms are an ultimate teaching (paramatthadesanaa). For in the ultimate sense it is only the aggregates that become manifest, not a being." ++++++++++++++++++++ To my understanding, the distinction between conventional and absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. Jon 21518 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > away. Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of reference, to be seen. Jon PS Without wishing to labour a point, Victor, I'd be interested to hear your answer to the question, 'Does a computer arise and fall away?' 21519 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > away. Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. KKT: Allow me to pop in here. I think there is wisdom in regarding a computer (or whatever 'conventional' thing) as something that doesn't last forever. Such seeing makes one more detached from the mundane things. Metta, KKT ============ The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of reference, to be seen. Jon 21520 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, I know you are setting me up. I am a willing victim. :) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Smallchap > > --- smallchap wrote: > ... > > S: Conditioned means depended on certain conditions (for it > to > > arise). > > Yes, but may I ask, Does a computer arise, and if so, what are > some > of the conditions for its arising (that cause it to arise)? > > Jon Yes. It does arise. Here are some of the conditions for it arising: 1. the intention to build a computer; 2. the availability of the necessary materials and components for building a computer; 3. the facilities; 4. and the knowledge of building a computer. smallchap 21521 From: Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:35am Subject: Encouragement (Re: [dsg] Re: Metta) Dear Rob - In a message dated 4/22/03 9:36:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > A couple of years ago, my wife and I visited the small Vihara in > Jakarta where we were married. We sat in silence for a while when an > extremely old Thai monk came in and sat down in front of us. After > initial pleasantries, the monk looked my wife in the eye and said > that she need not be afraid when she flew. I had slept on the flight > and did not even know that the flight had experienced turbulence. My > wife had been very afraid but had not mentioned the incident to > anybody; not to me, nor to the monk. > > The monk then turned to me and asked me how my meditation practice > was going. I squirmed. The monk told me, "Do not be frustrated > because of lack of progress. You must view meditation as your duty. > You have duty to your office that you must fulfill. You have duty to > your family that you must fulfill. Meditation is your duty to > yourself. Results will arise at the right time, your duty is to > meditate." > > I believe that the monk could sense what we were thinking. > > I am now meditating much more regularly; still no real progress, but > meditation is my duty. As I meditate, I am developing a habit; a > habit of mindfulness, a habit of calm, a habit of peace. These > habits impact how I deal with my daily life. In other words, the > benefits of the meditation can arise long after I have got up from > my cushion. > > =============================== Thank you for this beautiful piece. In a laid back way, you have just given what I consider to be superb encouragement to practice. I'm very grateful for your having written 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) 21522 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 7:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Hi Jon, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. To me, the five aggregates are a very broard classification of conditioned things/phenomena/situations. As I see it, this classification is a short hand that refers to whole range of, again, conditioned things/phenomena/situations. When stating the noble truth of suffering, the Buddha started with specific phenomena/situations as being dukkha, and ended with the statement "In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging is dukkha." I understand the word "aggregate" as collection or set. The aggregate of form is a collection/set of certain phenomena. So is the aggregate of feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. Instead of listing each and every things/phenomena/situations being dukkha, the Buddha stated collectively that "In short, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha." That is how I see it: it is not much of the dichotomy of conventional/absolute in the Buddha's teaching. The statement "computer is impermanent" is as true as the statement "form is impermanent." However, the latter is much more general than the former in the sense that computer is form but not everything that is form is computer. I would not say that the distinction between conventional and absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. I would say that this distinction is not part of the Buddha's teaching. Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > [snip] > If by 'unnecessary' you mean 'optional' (for some), you might be > right ;-)), in the sense that in many suttas the teaching is given in > both conventioonal and absolute terms, presumably to cater for > different accumulations and capabilities. > > I'd like to give an example i came across the other day. > > You will recall that recently you and I were talking about the Noble > Truth of suffering, and you pointed out the 'conventional' nature of > the references to birth, aging and death. I then mentioned the > 'ultimate' nature of the reference to the five aggregates in the same > truth. > > In the 'Analysis of Dependent Origination' Sutta (SN 12:2, CDB trans. > Bhikkhu Bodhi, p.534), there are descriptions of birth, aging and > death, in the context of dependent origination. The translations > from the commentary to this passage (Spk) that are included as > footnotes to the sutta mention the distinction between conventional > and absolute. > > +++++++++++++++++++ > Death > Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is [aging-and-]death? ... The passing > away of the various beings from the various orders of beings, their > perishing, breakup, disappearance, mortality, death, completion of > time, the breakup of the aggregates, the laying down of the carcass: > this is called death...." > Commentary: "By the terms from "passing away" through "completion of > time" he expounds death in worldly conventional terminology > (lokasammutiyaa); by the expressions "breakup of the aggregates" and > "the laying down of the carcass" he expounds death in the ultimate > sense (paramattha). For in the ultimate sense it is only the > aggregates that break up; there is no "being" that dies." > > Birth > Sutta: "And what, bhikkhus, is birth? The birth of the various > beings into the various orders of beings, their being born, descent > [into the womb], production, the manifestation of the aggregates, the > obtaining of the sense bases. This is called birth." > Commentary: "From "birth" through "production" the teaching is > conventional (vohaaradesanaa); the last two terms are an ultimate > teaching (paramatthadesanaa). For in the ultimate sense it is only > the aggregates that become manifest, not a being." > ++++++++++++++++++++ > > To my understanding, the distinction between conventional and > absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. > > Jon 21523 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, Thanks for the question. I would go along with what KKT said in his reply to your message. Furthermore, this is how I see it: The five aggregates are mundane. They are the world. Regarding the question 'Does a computer arise and fall away?', I would say yes. It arises in the sense it comes to be through fabrication, manufacturing. It falls away in the sense that it breaks down, disintegrates, and it does not last. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > > away. > > Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as > something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence > is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my > understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of > reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not > the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. > > The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object > appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is > a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the > object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of > reference, to be seen. > > Jon > > PS Without wishing to labour a point, Victor, I'd be interested to > hear your answer to the question, 'Does a computer arise and fall > away?' 21524 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] 'Conventional' and 'absolute' Hi Victor & Jon, > I would not say that the distinction between conventional and > absolute is an essential aspect of the suttas. I would say > that this distinction is not part of the Buddha's teaching. Basically, I agree with this, but I would not venture so far as to say that this is not part of the Buddha's teaching. I think that whether the teaching is conventional or ultimate, it must cultivate the arousal of these seven perceptions. Seven Perceptions 10. "Seven further conditions leading to welfare I shall set forth, bhikkhus. Listen and pay heed to what I shall say." "So be it, Lord." "The growth of the bhikkhus is to be expected, not their decline, bhikkhus, so long as they cultivate the perception of impermanence, of egolessness, of (the body's) impurity, of (the body's) wretchedness, of relinquishment, of dispassion, and of cessation. So long, bhikkhus, as these seven conditions leading to welfare endure among the bhikkhus, and the bhikkhus are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21525 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Jon, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > Thank you for the question. I don't attach significance to the > > statement. However, this is how I see it: > > > > A computer, as mundane an object as it is, is impermanent. It is > > fabricated, manufactured, and it breaks down, disintegrates, passes > > away. > > > Well, yes. But is there really any wisdom in regarding a computer as > something that doesn't last forever? While a computer's impermanence > is an undeniable fact, it is also a purely mundane one. To my > understanding, this is not the insight into the true nature of > reality that the Buddha spent so many aeons perfecting. It is not > the kind of knowledge that brings one closer to release from samsara. > > > > > KKT: Allow me to pop in here. > > I think there is wisdom > in regarding a computer > (or whatever 'conventional' thing) > as something that doesn't last forever. > > Such seeing makes one more > detached from the mundane things. > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > > ============ > > The impermanence that is a characteristic of, say, the visible object > appearing at the present moment is something else altogether. It is > a quality that is directly known at a time when visible object is the > object of insight. It does not require any thinking, or frame of > reference, to be seen. > > Jon Computer as Dukkha I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just wondered and came out with the following thoughts…… Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand the five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… understand the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in this comparative state of meditation you understand the three lakkhana. From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked any one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only be a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull …etc. But these were by way of examples, not as objects of contemplation. There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take self for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing an object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just an inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. With metta yasalalak 21526 From: Lee Dillion Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Yasalalak: I haven't posted here for some time, but I wanted to second your comments. Two ideas in particular caught my eye - the first was "What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho-physical phenomena" and the second was "One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes in contact with one of the sense faculties." I find these two ideas keep my own practice grounded. --- Lee yasalalaka wrote: > > I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, > or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , > and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a > computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just wondered > and came out with the following thoughts…… > > Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand the > five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, > understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment > to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- > physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body > and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and > perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the > aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… understand > the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in > this comparative state of meditation you understand the three > lakkhana. > >>From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked any > one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in > animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a > chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only be > a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in > its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull …etc. > But these were by way of examples, not as objects of contemplation. > There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take self > for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing an > object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for > meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes > in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just an > inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. > > With metta > yasalalak 21527 From: nidive Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:40am Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi, > From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked > any one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an > in animate object. I agree with yasalalaka too. Also, the mere insight into the four great elements as impermanent and not-self is not enough. One must also apply that insight to this very body to obtain further insight. [5] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed -- in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html I think this is one of the mistakes that Abhidhamma fundamentalists make, thinking that being aware of the present moment's dhamma is sufficient for liberation. Correct me if I am wrong. ;-) Regards, NEO Swee Boon 21528 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Yasalalak, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. This is how I see it: I wouldn't call any psycho-physical phenomenon mine, what I am, my self. Any psycho-physical phenomenon is impermanent. It is dukkha. It is not self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." I would not call what is not mine mine, what I am not I, what is not my self my self. I agree that a computer is an inanimated object. It may or may not be a suitable object for contemplation. However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self. Thanks for again for sharing the thoughts!! Regards, Victor > Computer as Dukkha > > > > > > I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, > or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , > and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a > computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just wondered > and came out with the following thoughts…… > > Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand the > five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, > understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment > to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- > physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body > and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and > perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the > aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… understand > the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in > this comparative state of meditation you understand the three > lakkhana. > > From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked any > one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in > animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a > chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only be > a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in > its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull …etc. > But these were by way of examples, not as objects of contemplation. > There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take self > for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing an > object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for > meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it comes > in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just an > inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. > > With metta > yasalalak 21529 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 0:54pm Subject: Re: Metta Hi Rob, Thanks for your post. I hadn't quite thought of meditation in the light of 'dutiful habit-formation' before. You've given me food for thought. Would you say that the accumulations we often hear mentioned on this list, are these same habits formed from some repeated behaviour or thought (kusala or akusala)? I know that mostly these are unintentional, simply arising from doing what we *want* to do - but, perhaps, the same principle could work for modelling what we want to achieve. And is this the same as 'ayuhana'? As regards metta not being 'psychic lightning' ... didn't the Blessed One tell Ananda [who was trying to put himself in front of the Buddha to protect him from the full charge of an attacking elephant] to step aside, as all that was needed to bring the elephant to its knees was the pervading of metta? Or is that an apocryphal story? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > A couple of years ago, my wife and I visited the small Vihara in > Jakarta where we were married. We sat in silence for a while when an > extremely old Thai monk came in and sat down in front of us. After > initial pleasantries, the monk looked my wife in the eye and said > that she need not be afraid when she flew. I had slept on the flight > and did not even know that the flight had experienced turbulence. My > wife had been very afraid but had not mentioned the incident to > anybody; not to me, nor to the monk. > > The monk then turned to me and asked me how my meditation practice > was going. I squirmed. The monk told me, "Do not be frustrated > because of lack of progress. You must view meditation as your duty. > You have duty to your office that you must fulfill. You have duty to > your family that you must fulfill. Meditation is your duty to > yourself. Results will arise at the right time, your duty is to > meditate." > > I believe that the monk could sense what we were thinking. > > I am now meditating much more regularly; still no real progress, but > meditation is my duty. As I meditate, I am developing a habit; a > habit of mindfulness, a habit of calm, a habit of peace. These > habits impact how I deal with my daily life. In other words, the > benefits of the meditation can arise long after I have got up from > my cushion. > > I choose to sign off all my business emails with a " Thanks, Rob :- > ) ". Ending my messages with the familiar form of "Thanks" and > adding the emoticon is important to me. It has become a habit for > me; not a blind ritual but a wholesome habit. This habit is part of > my effort to be more friendly and personable in my email > communication. > > I choose to sign off my DSG messages with a " Metta, Rob M :-) ". I > chose to make this my habit because I want to instill more Metta in > my dealings with others. The amount of "true Metta" (if there is > such a thing) in my heart as I type my DSG message varies > significantly from "almost none", to "considerable". That is okay > with me. Just as I do not feel like a hypocrite when I am sitting > without results, I do not feel like a hypocrite when I end a message > with the word "Metta" when there is less than 100% "true Metta" > during the typing. > > Each time I type the word "Metta", the term "Metta" arises in my > mind. Even if the contemplation on the term and the concept arise > only for a short time, it is better than nothing. I also like to > read the word "Metta" when used by others. Reading the word "Metta" > causes the term and the concept to arise in my own mind and that is > kusala. > > When people vary their closing a bit (such as "With Extreme Metta") > or when a closing is uncommon (such as Connie's "Peace"), it gives > me even more pleasure to read it. In fact, it often causes me to > smile. > > I do not see Metta as "mental lightning" that jumps from the > originator to the recipient. Metta works on our own minds. I > attended a Dhamma talk on Metta more than a year ago. A lady > asked, "Each evening, I radiate metta towards this nasty person at > work, but there is no effect. What should I do?" The monk > answered, "Metta is to be used by your own mind, it is not for the > other person. The next step is to put the metta into action. Do > something nice for the other person, motivated and driven by your > own metta. Many people change if you do something nice for them. > Even if they do not change, no problem, your action motivated by > metta will bring you good kamma." > > As we practice metta, either by sitting, by "signing off", by > reading and contemplating or though our actions, we develop a habit. > This habit of metta will cause us to react to future situations in > a "metta" (kusala) way. > > In summary, I strongly support the idea of using "Metta" as a sign- > off. I believe that it makes the world a slightly better place. It > helps both the writer and the reader. I see dana, sila, bhavana and > metta as our duty, our responsibility. > > Metta (and I mean it!), > Rob M :-) > > PS: Consider this; for us to be reborn as a human, our last thought > must have included alobha (dana), adosa (metta) and probably amoha > (panna). In other words, our human subconscious (bhavanga) citta is > the result of a thought of metta. > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Dear Group, > > > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I > realised > > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, > just > > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things > that > > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most > important. > > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes > seems > > to have been de-valued. > > > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya > Buddharakkhita. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It > means > > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing > to > > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted > that > > it > > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of > it > > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant > to > > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above > it > > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > > Christine 21530 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:21pm Subject: Tidy Posts Dear Group, Apologies for not trimming my last post on "metta". As you know, Kom and I are assisting the moderators with the running of the list in routine areas, one of which is reminding members about trimming posts - so it is galling when I am not mindful myself and send an unnecessarily large post into everyone's mailbox. However, (in the true spirit of projection) may I, whilst reminding myself, also take the opportunity to remind everyone else that when replying, please delete any part of the original message that is not directly relevant to your reply. This saves the reader from having to scroll through large chunks of text, and saves archive space which is limited. Also, please avoid quoting large chunks of text that are available elsewhere on-line -- use links instead. Put your own post at the TOP of the PART of the message to which you are replying (this is essential for the ease of any sight-impaired members who have no choice and cannot simply scan through a post, but must sit through everything on the screen one word at a time). Thus, keeping the re-posting of material to which we are replying at a minimum will be of maximum support to us all. metta, Christine 21531 From: connie Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 1:35pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism >Thanks for sharing this with us. I can see a lot of thought and work went into it. >A very eclectic set of groupings. I'm sure your audience found it fascinating. Was there any particular group that they seemed interested in, or were their questions unrelated to your groupings (i.e., the usual ones about rebirth as an ant etc.)? >Jon Hi, Jon ~ It turned out to be more like a conversation, really. I gave up on my list pretty early and it just sat there on the table... Sarah again, reminding me that it wasn't about me... and was surprised that I'd mentioned as much from it as I had. Some of the questions: Can you practice Buddhism and another religion? Does the goal of this lifetime have to be nirvana? If you're for non-attachment, do you think it's it wrong for people to want to get married? How does chanting relate to meditation? Is it ok to drink as long as you stay mindful? Is karma worse for someone who knows better than for someone innocent? Can you explain the Tibetan Book of the Dead? peace, connie 21532 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:28pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Yasalalak, > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > > This is how I see it: > I wouldn't call any psycho-physical phenomenon mine, what I am, my > self. Any psycho-physical phenomenon is impermanent. It is dukkha. > It is not self. It is to be seen as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my > self." I would not call what is not mine mine, what I am not I, what > is not my self my self. I agree that a computer is an inanimated > object. It may or may not be a suitable object for contemplation. > However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self. > > Thanks for again for sharing the thoughts!! > > Regards, > Victor > > > Computer as Dukkha > > > > > > > > > > > > I looked with amusement at the several posts on Computer as Dukkha, > > or computer as conditioned. I read them through curiosity… Victor , > > and Jon think it is an unfruitful effort to contemplate on a > > computer while KKT thinks there is some thing to it. I just > wondered > > and came out with the following thoughts…… > > > > Buddhist meditation is about developing the mind to understand > the > > five aggregates and its three lakkhana; anicca, dukkha, anatta, > > understanding, which one realises the futility of attachment > > to `self'. What we call `self', `I' and `me' is just a psycho- > > physical phenomena. In kayanupassana, the meditator sees his body > > and may compare it to the body of others, `which also decay and > > perish, as that of mine'. In the cemetery meditation, you see the > > aggregates of the corpse same as yours but just a rupa… > understand > > the difference of nama- rupa and see the three lakkhana. It is in > > this comparative state of meditation you understand the three > > lakkhana. > > > > From what little I have read, I do not think, Buddha had asked > any > > one to meditate on the dead body of an animal let alone an in > > animate object. But in the discourses, there is reference to a > > chariot, as an example to show that taking it apart, it will only > be > > a heap of wood, and also of the cut up meat of a bull wrapped in > > its own skin, which is just a heap of meat and not the bull … etc. > > But these were by way of examples, not as objects of > contemplation. > > There are the five aggregates and the arammana, you do not take > self > > for the arammana or arammana for self,( hearing a sound or seeing > an > > object etc). . One does not take inanimate objects as arammana for > > meditation and analyse it in detail, you merely be aware as it > comes > > in contact with one of the sense faculties. The computer is just > an > > inanimate object…and better leave it at that……don't you think so…….. > > > > With metta > > yasalalak Dear Victor, "I agree that a computer is an in animated object. It may or may not be a suitable object for contemplation. However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self." Don't you think that in this type of assertion, we are getting away from the primary object of meditation. In meditating, whose experience of anicca, dukkha and anatma are we concerned with . Is it that of the meditator or that of the objects that he comes in contact through his sense faculties ? The eye comes in contact(passa) with the object(arammana). Then the eye consciousness arises, the meditator becomes aware of the object, but he does not react and the eye consciousness passes away. Nothing remains. But if the meditator looks longer, feelings(vedana)arise, and he recognizes(sanna) the object........Now he has got away from meditation he is enjoying (tanha) the object, he thinks of it as a object he would like to have. He gets attached(clinging) to it. He realizes he has no money to buy it, he therefore feels sad (dukkha). Then he suddenly….becomes mindful, realizes that all these are thoughts arising in a mind that had wandered away, at the contact of his eye with the object which he now knows is a computer, and is mindful of the thoughts passing away (anicca). The mind had wandered the meditator had no control over it (anatta). The meditator (not the computer) experienced the anicca, dukka, anatma....now the computer is out of his mind. But on the other hand, you look at the computer, and become" aware", of its mechanism, and realize that it will not last long, that it costs more than you can afford, and it is an inanimate object without any life in it........, you are not meditating you are thinking. With metta, Yasalalaka 21533 From: Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 3:55pm Subject: Way 79, Feeling Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Feeling The Blessed One having in this way set forth the Arousing of Mindfulness through the fourteenfold method of body-contemplation, now said, "And now, o bhikkhus," in order to expound the ninefold method of contemplation of feeling. There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is different. Knowledge of pleasure possessed by infants lying on their backs and other similar kinds of knowledge of pleasure do not cast out the belief in a being, do not root out the perception of a being, do not become a subject of meditation and do not become the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is wisely understood through inquiry. Who feels? No being or person. Whose is the feeling? Not of a being or person. Owing to what is there the feeling? Feeling can arise with (certain) things -- forms, sounds, smells and so forth -- as objects. That bhikkhu knows, therefore, that there is a mere experiencing of feeling after the objectifying of a particular pleasurable or painful physical basis or of one of indifference. (There is no ego that experiences) because there is no doer or agent [kattu] besides a bare process [dhamma]. The word "bare" indicates that the process is impersonal. The words of the Discourse, "I experience (or feel)", form a conventional expression, indeed, for that process of impersonal feeling. It should be understood that the bhikkhu knows that with the objectification of a property or basis he experiences a feeling. It is said that an Elder of Cittala Hill was sick, turning over from side to side, again and again, and groaning with great pain. To him a young bhikkhu said: "Venerable Sir, which part of your body is painful?" -- "A specially painful place, indeed, there is not; as a result of taking certain things (such as forms, sounds etc.) for object there is the experiencing of painful feeling," replied the Elder. "Venerable Sir, from the time one knows that, is not bearing up befitting?" said the young bhikkhu. "I am bearing up, friend," said the Elder. "Bearing up is excellent, Venerable Sir," said the young bhikkhu. The Elder bore up. Thereafter, the aerial humor caused injury right up to the heart. His intestines protruded out and lay in a heap on the bed. The Elder pointed that out to the young bhikkhu and said: "Friend, is bearing up so far befitting?" The young bhikkhu remained silent. The Elder, having applied concentration with energy, attained arahantship with Analytical Knowledge and passed away into the final peace of Nibbana, in the state of consciousness immediately after the course of reflection on the fruit of arahantship, thus realizing the highest and passing away nearly at the same time. Just as when experiencing a pleasant feeling, so too when experiencing a painful feeling... a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling he understands, "I experience a neither-pleasant-nor-painful spiritual feeling." 21534 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 10:13am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi James, ===== > > I see "accumulations", "habits", "tendencies", "character" > and "personality" as different ways of saying pretty much the same > thing. Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote about this in "Questions on Kamma": > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm > > Firstly let us deal with the psychological effect of kamma. When a > willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint > which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a > tendency to repeat itself, to reproduce itself, somewhat like a > protozoan, like an amoeba. As these actions multiply, they form our > character. Our personality is nothing but a sum of all our willed > actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. So by > yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the > mind, we build up little by little a greedy character, a hostile > character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. On the > other hand, by resisting these unwholesome desires we replace them > with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. Then we develop a > generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we > can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits > gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character > we change our total being, our whole world. That is why the Buddha > emphasizes, so strongly the need to be mindful of every action, of > every choice. For every choice of ours has a tremendous potential > for the future. > > > > I see three stages of development; study, practice and wisdom. Study > forms the basis for practice and wisdom can only achieved through > practice. As the Buddha stressed in the Bhumija Sutta (Mn126), > results are only obtained through right practice, never because of > strong desire (and I would add, never because of intellectual study). > > Your practice seems more developed than mine (sometimes I get > trapped in "analysis paralysis"). At some point, your practice may > present you with an experience that your knowledge of the Abhidhamma > helps you to understand / appreciate better. If you were to ask me > if somebody could attain enlightenment without detailed knowledge of > the Abhidhamma, I would answer, "Certainly... the Buddha did!". For > those with the right accumulations (such as myself), the Abhidhamma > can be of great help along the path. > > ===== Hi Rob, Thank you for the link to this article by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Actually, I believe he makes a very serious mistake when he makes a leap from "character" to "personality"…as if they are both the same thing. I do not believe they are, but I am going on a connotative meaning that incorporates my university study of psychology. No reason to go into it at great length here. He also presents a very mechanistic analysis of karma, where I see it as more of a process; but he is an excellent writer. Actually, I do not believe that my practice is more developed than yours; I believe we are probably at the same space. I asked that question for a specific purpose, you fascinate me because you embrace the Abhidhamma yet you don't have the conceit I see in others who do the same… I was really wondering why that was so. I thought that maybe I had made a mistake in my internal analysis of things. But now I think I understand why you are different after reading your post about meeting the Thai meditation master. Metta, James 21535 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:36pm Subject: Re: Computer as dukkha Hi Yasalalaka, Thanks for sharing your point of view. This is how I see it: Whatever the primary object of meditation is, it is impermanent. Perception of impermanence is not much of seeing the change in the object of meditation. Rather it is to reflect thus: "This is impermanent." And in terms of the five aggregates, the perception of impermanence is to reflect and focus thus: "Form is impermanent, feeling is impermanent, perception is impermanent, fabrications are impermanent, consciousness is impermanent." * I slso don't think that seeing thus: "I have no control over this" is the same as seeing thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor * http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-060.html#anicca --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > "I agree that a computer is an in animated > object. It may or may not be a suitable > object for contemplation. > However, it is impermanent, dukkha, not self." > > Don't you think that in this type of assertion, we are getting away > from the primary object of meditation. In meditating, whose > experience of anicca, dukkha and anatma are we concerned with . Is it > that of the meditator or that of the objects that he comes in > contact through his sense faculties ? > > The eye comes in contact(passa) with the object(arammana). Then the > eye consciousness arises, the meditator becomes aware of the object, > but he does not react and the eye consciousness passes away. Nothing > remains. > > But if the meditator looks longer, feelings(vedana)arise, and he > recognizes(sanna) the object........Now he has got away from > meditation he is enjoying (tanha) the object, he thinks of it as a > object he would like to have. He gets attached(clinging) to it. He > realizes he has no money to buy it, he therefore feels sad (dukkha). > Then he suddenly….becomes mindful, realizes that all these are > thoughts arising in a mind that had wandered away, at the contact of > his eye with the object which he now knows is a computer, and is > mindful of the thoughts passing away (anicca). The mind had wandered > the meditator had no control over it (anatta). The meditator (not > the computer) experienced the anicca, dukka, anatma....now the > computer is out of his mind. > > But on the other hand, you look at the computer, and become" aware", > of its mechanism, and realize that it will not last long, that it > costs more than you can afford, and it is an inanimate object without > any life in it........, you are not meditating you are thinking. > > With metta, > Yasalalaka 21536 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 4:43pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: < snip > According to tradition, the Buddha understood the Abhidhamma completely and explained it in brief to Sariputta who then passed it along to 500 monks. It is Sariputta's version which has been passed down to us. I note that Sariputta started teaching the Abhidhamma while the Buddha was still around (the Buddha was around for another 38 years after Sariputta started teaching Abhidhamma), I believe that the Buddha would correct any incorrect teachings passed along by Sariputta. I believe that Sariputta was more of an intellectual and had accumulations which caused him to be attracted to the Abhidhamma. KKT: I think that the teaching of Abhidhamma as it is actually known to us nowadays is the development of Buddhists after Buddha's Parinibbana. I don't deny that the Buddha actually taught Abhidhamma. Such teachings of the Buddha like the five khandhas (aggregates), the twelve ayatanas (bases), the eighteen dhatus (elements), Paticcasamuppâda are actually Abhidhamma. But the complete & exhaustive analysis and the systematic classification of the ultimates (paramattha dhammas) are, I think, the work of later Buddhist generations. The proofs of my statement are rather << historical >> facts: __The split of Buddhism into eighteen different schools, all under the same banner Hinayana (a pejorative word used by the Mahayanists to call those schools) occurred about 250 years after Buddha's Parinibbana. Each of those schools possessed their own Sutras/Suttas, Vinayas as well Abhidharma/Abhidhamma. Among those 18 schools, there are two schools named Sarvastivada and Theravada which succeed in preserving intact and complete their Tripitaka/Tipitaka in Chinese and Pali respectively. A comparison of their Sutras/Suttas (Agamas for the Sarvastivada and Nikayas for the Theravada) and their respective Vinayas shows that they are not different while a comparison of their Abhidharma/Abhidhamma reveals that they are different. The resemblance of their Vinayas and Sutras/Suttas proves that those scriptures were compiled << before >> the split of the schools while the difference of their Abhidharma/Abhidhamma is the proof that the formation of those documents was made << after >> the split of the schools (ie. around 250 years after Buddha's Parinibbana) __Among the 18 schools, there is a school named Sautrantika. The word 'Sautra' comes from Sutra because the fact is that this school accepted only the the teachings of the Buddha contained in the Sutras and refused to consider the teachings of Abhidharma as the Buddha's teachings. So we see that early in that period, there were already people who refused the authority of the Abhidharma. (I think maybe James was a follower of this school in one of his previous lifetimes. Just joking, hello James :-)) Please note that my argument is not to disparage the teaching of Abhidhamma. The contrary is more true. As I've said, I study Buddhism as a << whole >> (ie. all different schools, Abhidhamma included) Only I have my own vision of Buddhism. I see Buddhism as: Buddhism = the teachings of the Buddha + the teachings of different interpretations of many Buddhist generations after the Buddha. I see Abhidharma/Abhidhamma as the first movement of interpretation. The other two main interpretations following the Abhidharma belong to the Mahayana tradition which are Madhyamika (the Middle-Way school) and Yogacara or Vijnanavada (Mind-Only or Mere-Consciousness school) Following is an excerpt from the book A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana by Hirakawa Akira, p.127: The Sarvastivadin School argued that the abhidharma was preached by the Buddha. Sarvastivadins thus believed that the entire Tripitaka was, in a broad sense, the Buddha's preaching. However, the similarities in the texts of the Sutra-pitakas and Vinaya-pitakas followed by the various schools reveal that the basic contents of these two collections were determined before the divisions of Nikaya Buddhism had occurred. In contrast, the contents of abhidharma literature varies with each of the schools, indicating that this class of literature was compiled after the basic divisions of the schools had occurred. The Abhidharma-pitakas of most of the schools were probably compiled during a period beginning in 250 B.C.E. (after the first major schism) and ending around the start of the common era. Peace, KKT 21537 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, I started this portion of my reply with, "According to tradition, ..." because I find the traditional story to be a little like a fairy tale. You may be correct about the historical development of the Abhidhamma. It is possible that the complete truth as to the origin of the Abhidhamma has been lost in antiquity. Is this important? In my opinion, as long as there are no discrepencies between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma, then the genesis of the Abhidhamma is not a big issue. Many monks are not attracted to the Abhidhamma because it is one of those boring subjects that they have to study with lots of memorization required to pass an exam. In my Sunday morning class, I try to take a different approach. I use the Abhidhamma as a structure to discuss the Dhamma; I do not focus on the Abhidhamma as a subject to be studied for its own sake. In my class, there are no long lists of Pali to be memorized; the approach is not scholarly. In a one year course, I spend eight months reviewing the cetasikas one by one and use each cetasika as a launching pad for discussions on how to apply the Dhamma in daily life. Thanks for the details on the history of Buddhism. I find it an interesting subject, but one that is difficult to relate to daily life and practice. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Rob M, > > > KKT: I think that the teaching > of Abhidhamma as it is actually > known to us nowadays is > the development of Buddhists > after Buddha's Parinibbana. > 21538 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 5:38pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Rob M, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi KKT, I started this portion of my reply with, "According to tradition, ..." because I find the traditional story to be a little like a fairy tale. You may be correct about the historical development of the Abhidhamma. It is possible that the complete truth as to the origin of the Abhidhamma has been lost in antiquity. Is this important? In my opinion, as long as there are no discrepencies between the Suttas and the Abhidhamma, then the genesis of the Abhidhamma is not a big issue. KKT: Agreed. -------------- Many monks are not attracted to the Abhidhamma because it is one of those boring subjects that they have to study with lots of memorization required to pass an exam. In my Sunday morning class, I try to take a different approach. I use the Abhidhamma as a structure to discuss the Dhamma; I do not focus on the Abhidhamma as a subject to be studied for its own sake. KKT: I think this is a wise approach. Using the Abhidhamma to shed light on the Dhamma (and vice versa) ------------ In my class, there are no long lists of Pali to be memorized; the approach is not scholarly. KKT: Thanks to the DSG, I begin to know some key words of Buddhist terminology in Pali :-)) ------------- In a one year course, I spend eight months reviewing the cetasikas one by one and use each cetasika as a launching pad for discussions on how to apply the Dhamma in daily life. KKT: I'm very interested to know how to apply the Abhidhamma in daily life according to your understanding? ------------- Thanks for the details on the history of Buddhism. I find it an interesting subject, but one that is difficult to relate to daily life and practice. Metta, Rob M :-) KKT: I have also to thank you for your "Introduction to the Abhidhamma" It's very clear and this is the proof that you have spent much time to reflect & contemplate over the teaching of Abhidhamma. Metta, KKT 21539 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 6:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Metta Hi, Christine, Many thanks for the reference on Metta. I have downloaded it and will read it. Yes, we often lose sight of metta's real meaning when it becomes just the sign-off at the end of a note or letter. But then, that is true for anything we do when there is no sati arising to keep us aware of a reality at any given moment (and such arisings are ssssooooo few and far between). But the right conditions were present for "you" to be aware of it and wish to learn of its meaning, at least at the pariyatti level, and then, upon reflection, if the conditions arise, "you" will understand it at deeper and deeper levels and be more aware of when it is there in everyday life, and when it isn't. I'm not quite caught up on dsg, but your note about metta was just such a wonderful example of how Dhamma can "work" in our daily lives, how conditions, such as the word metta at the end of a letter, lead you to first read about metta, and now to contemplate on it and "note it" with sanna when it arises or doesn't arise on a daily basis. Wisdom will then allow "you" to "see" just what is metta and what isn't. Then, when it arises more and more, owing to conditions, sanna will note it each time. But it is sooooooooooooo slow! Then, it is hoped, that khanti (patience) will arise too. Anomodhana, dear, Betty PS: And the anomodhana was not just a sign-off, but a genuine feeling of joy at the conditions arising for you. I'm saving it for future reference to possibly show to the monks I teach (English). _____________________ > Dear Group, > > I was ending a letter to a buddhist friend and, as I usually do, I > wrote 'metta, Chris'. The word 'metta' caught my eye and I realised > it had become nothing more than a sign-off, rather meaningless, just > the same as if I'd ended with 'see ya' 'regards' or 'cheers'. I > remember when I first came to Buddhism that, among many things that > made an impact, the practice of metta was one of the most important. > It is talked about so often, and used as a routine closing to > letters and a casual 'blessing' on parting, that it sometimes seems > to have been de-valued. > > So to refresh my understanding I've been reading 'Metta The > Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html > [Isn't that a great phrase 'practice of universal love'?]. It means > friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, > inoffensiveness, loving-kindness, and non-violence. > > I think it is easy to mistake it for the affection (lobha) we have > for friends and congenial people. I think it is a difficult thing to > keep in mind during daily life, with all its irritations and > anxieties. Mostly, I notice after I've spoken, thought or acted that > it > was without metta - it would be a step forward to be mindful of it > more often before speaking, thinking or acting. Is metta meant to > be a feeling, or a behaviour/non-behaviour? From the list above it > would seem more of a behaviour. If we are fearful or angry about > someone - but we smile and behave generously, somehow this doesn't > quite seem in the spirit of metta. And yet feelings are beyond > control. I wonder if there is a way to strengthen this quality in > one's behaviour - routinely pervading it perhaps? :-) > Christine > > > 21540 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 8:21pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Rob M, __Among the 18 schools, there is > a school named Sautrantika. > The word 'Sautra' comes from Sutra > because the fact is that this school > accepted only the the teachings of > the Buddha contained in the Sutras > and refused to consider the teachings > of Abhidharma as the Buddha's teachings. > > So we see that early in that period, > there were already people who > refused the authority of the Abhidharma. > > (I think maybe James was a follower > of this school in one of his previous > lifetimes. Just joking, hello James :-)) Hi KKT, Follower nothing! I founded that school! Go Sautrantika! ;-)) Seriously, I am glad to know that there is some historical precedent for my position, which I didn't know previously. Let me just say that small discrepancies in the Buddha's teaching become larger as time passes, that is why I take the position I do…and sometimes end up seeming like some kinda radical Buddhist! ;-). Metta, James 21541 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:27pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 9-12 for comment The "Character" of the Abhidhamma Slide Contents ============== Philosophy - Defines reality, nature of the universe and nature of knowledge Science - Classifies and models Psychology - Focuses on personal experience Ethics - "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind, that is the teaching of the Buddhas." Speaker Notes ============= Philosophy - The Abhidhamma defines the four ultimate realities; consciousness, mental factors, physical factors and Nibbana. The Abhidhamma defines the nature of the universe; impermanence, unsatisfactoriness and non-existence of self. The Abhidhamma looks at the nature of the mind and the controlling influences; greed, attachment and delusion. Science - The Abhidhamma lists classes and categories. We should avoid temptation to treat the Abhidhamma as an intellectual exercise (analysis paralysis). The Abhidhamma helps us to "see things as they truly are" in the present moment. Psychology - The Abhidhamma is really the science of the mind; in today's terms, this is called Psychology. The focus of the Abhidhamma is on personal experience. Ethics - The title of the first book of the Abhidhamma has been translated as "Buddhist Psychological Ethics". In the Cula- Malunkyovada Sutta, the Buddha was asked a number of theoretical questions; the Buddha refused to answer because the Buddha's teaching is practical in nature. The Buddha's teaching focuses on ethics. In this Sutta, the Buddha gives the analogy of a man pierced with a poison arrow who refuses to allow the surgeon to remove the arrow until he is told the name, height, caste, etc. of the archer who shot the arrow. The man would die before he could learn all of these things. The mission of science is to create a model for the universe. The mission of the Abhidhamma is to free us from suffering. 21542 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 11:29pm Subject: Re: pneumonia --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi James, > > You must know about the outbreak of pneumonia in Hong > Kong. Would Buddhist go to the temple to pray to be > blessed?Are there any teachings that calm people down > when they panic about the pneumonia (well not > necessary to calm down during the outbreak of > pneumonia but any diffuclt or anxiouus times). > > Do the Buddhist have special types of funerals for the > dead?Will their be pneumonia in the second life? Do > you ever think about the pneumonia now when you > meditate? > > I know these are really wierd questions but still I > would love to find out the answers to them. Thanks! > > > Metta, > > Hilary Hi Star Kid Hilary! Yes, I know about the outbreak of the special pneumonia in Hong Kong… and around the world. I am very sorry for you Star Kids and hope you stay safe. Wow! You ask me a lot of different questions in this letter! I will do my best to answer them: Question: Would Buddhist go to the temple to pray to be blessed? Answer: Sure they would. A prayer is like a wish for good things to happen. There is nothing wrong with wanting good things to happen to oneself. However, sometimes we have to accept that sometimes things don't go the way we want, but that might actually be what is best. Question: Are there any teachings that calm people down when they panic about the pneumonia (well not necessary to calm down during the outbreak of pneumonia but any diffuclt or anxiouus times). Answer: Sure there is: The teaching of impermanence…the teaching that nothing lasts. Let me tell you a little story to illustrate. There was once a great King who was always upset. He was upset about the things that happened in his kingdom and the things that happened in his personal life. He wanted to find some peace, just like you want to do. So he decided to climb the highest mountain in the world and ask the wisest person in the world, who lived in a cave at the top, what he should do. When he got there, this wise man listened to the King and then gave him a ring and told him, "This is a magic ring. Whenever you feel really upset about something, you are to look into the ring and you will find the answer. And whenever you feel really happy about something, you are to look into the ring and you will again find the answer." The King thanked the wise man and took the ring home to his kingdom. Shortly thereafter, there was a horrible disease, like SARS, that spread through the kingdom and several people died. The King became very upset so he did as he was told and he held the ring up to his face and looked deep into it. Deep in the colored stone of the ring, the king read the words: "THIS TOO SHALL PASS." And sure enough, after a while the disease went away, everyone was healthy again, and everyone was happy. The King was very happy that his kingdom had escaped the disease so he looked into the ring again, as he was instructed to do, and he read, "THIS TOO SHALL PASS." The King was never upset or bothered about anything again. You see Hilary, nothing in life lasts. Good and Bad will come and go, you just have to let life happen. Remember this and you will remain calm. Question: Do the Buddhist have special types of funerals for the dead? Answer: Not really a special type of funeral for all Buddhists. Many Buddhists get cremated and their ashes scattered or put into an urn. Tibetan Buddhists have a special type of funeral called a `Sky Burial' where the body of the deceased is cut up with a knife (usually by the members of the family), left in the mountains, and buzzards come to eat the remains. Then the bones are burnt after the birds are done eating. I always thought that was a good way to do it, but that is against health regulations here in the US. Question: Will their be pneumonia in the second life? Answer: Yes, there will be. The Buddha taught the Truth of Suffering that is that life is birth, sickness, old age, and death. They cannot be escaped and they will not end as long as humans exist. I don't know if there will be SARS, they might find a cure for that. But there will always be some type of sickness…including pneumonia. Question: Do you ever think about the pneumonia now when you meditate? Answer: Thoughts about the pneumonia come up, yes. But mainly I `feel' the SARS pneumonia in the world. It feels like I am suffocating and I can't breathe. Consequently, I haven't been able to meditate much lately. Hilary, your questions aren't really weird, they are just fine. I have enjoyed answering them. Please take care of yourself and let's both pray that this pneumonia ends soon. Metta, James 21543 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Tue Apr 22, 2003 9:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Astrology Dear Michael, All these monks are Asians and we all monks received money. Yesterday I went to the opening of the Dammakaya new meditation centre in Sydney. There were 35 Theravathan monks and 21 Mahanaya monks, each one of us got $150 dollars donation from the Dammakaya foundation. Tomorrow I am goinmg to a funeral of a monk in Sydney, I will get money, around $ 50.00 dollars, Next Saturday there will be another funeral in Sydney, we get another $50 dollars, except me, they always put an extra $100 dollars to cover for my petrol. I live in Canberra, 300 km away. Dear Michael, maybe the world has change but every single monk here and in Asia handles money. When the monks received the money it is put in an envelop, there it is put on a piece of cloth., but after that in the room, the money goes very quickly into the wallet. Ven. Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: Michael Newton [mailto:garberville83712@y...] Enviado el: Martes, Abril 22, 2003 03:39 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: Re: [dsg] Re: Astrology ... Dear Noble Sangha; I'm not really sure how I feel about Astrology as it relates to the Buddhist path,except that Buddhism teaches living from moment to moment-not putting too much concern about the future,so I wonder about these Lao and Cambodian monks doing these readings and charging $50.It appears to me that monks are not supposed to be handling money in this respect,unless my understanding incorrect.However,it's different in the West on this maybe.Please correct me if I'm wrong. YOURS IN DHAMMA WITH METT,MICHAEL 21544 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:15am Subject: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dhammastudygroup group. File : /Dr. B.R. Ambedkar on Buddhism.doc Uploaded by : mdahiwale Description : Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar on Indian Buddhism You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Dr.%20B.R.%20Ambedkar%20on%20Buddhism.doc To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, mdahiwale 21545 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Smallchap, > > an 'old one', but also from the nature of 'concepts'. That they can > > be used by one person at different times, in different places and by > > any number of persons to refer to something constant. > > Let's listen to the Buddha: > > Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta > ---------------------- > > "Vaccha, the position that 'the cosmos is eternal' is a thicket of > views, a wilderness of views, a contortion of views, a writhing of > views, a fetter of views. It is accompanied by suffering, distress, > despair, & fever, and it does not lead to disenchantment, dispassion, > cessation; to calm, direct knowledge, full Awakening, Unbinding." I am trying to figure out what is it that you want me to see. Are you trying to show me that I should not hold such views or at least making them into one? If so then let me explain my real position with regard to this matter. I wasn't saying that there is permanency anywhere. With regard to conventional objects, I think they do not exist as objects of experience except as mental constructions and reconstructions. The distinctive realities responsible for this are I believe, sanna, vittaka and vichara. Normally I wouldn't bother to ponder over what exists and what does not, my understanding is dictated by my knowledge of satipatthana and what objects can be the objects of sati of this level. In the above when I was asserting permanency, I was referring to concepts, and here I make no distinction between the descriptive word and "things" in Victor's description. For me words and 'things' are in their very nature, permanent, they refer to something that is "there", even if only for a moment. Even the word and description of "impermanence" is not the actual fact of impermanence. So when one uses impermanence to refer to 'things', then it has a different meaning to me. In order to drop the idea of permanence with reference to objects, I now use the idea of impermanence; this understanding can lead to a dead-end. But of course this doesn't have to be the case, that is if one sees in the first place, that those things exist only on the mental level. When making reference to paramattha dhammas it is a bit different. We understand that these exist, but only as conditions which rise and fall immediately along with other conditions. There is no static nature of the concept of impermanence here, since the description of these realities themselves shows this characteristic. Please note that I am not saying that it is wrong to use the word impermanence with reference to conventional objects, just that it wouldn't have the same meaning as when made in reference to paramattha dhammas. Hope I have not confused further, since I feel I am a bit off track because I had something else in mind when earlier I read your response and now have ended up writing something different. In fact I feel some hesitation about sending this, since I have not given some of this much thought at all. best, Sukin 21546 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Victor, > Regarding thinking about impermanence, I would say that I was stating > how I see things such as a chair. I was not trying to see that a > chair is impermanent. It is impermanent. OK I think I see your point. So at least you distinguish between the perception of impermanence and the idea of impermanence. I think we can then say that impermanence with regard to conventional reality is different from that of ultimate reality....?! > Regarding rupa aggregate, this is how I see it: > I would say it includes a very broad range of things such as physical > objects like chairs, tables, computers, apples, body.....Rupa is very > a general term. A chair is rupa, a table is rupa, a computer is > rupa. The word "rupa" refers to physical things/objects. Concept, > on the other hand, is something that is also assembled, fabricated. > A concept about a chair, for instance, is also impermanent. Chair > the physical object and the concept about chair are interdependent, > closely related. A thing is impermanent in the sense that it does > not last, is subject to change, disintegrates. But here I can't agree. I agree though that conventionally speaking; chairs ultimately become something other than chairs. And it may be fair to use the concept of impermanence to apply to this. But I would make the distinction as above and in my post to Smallchap just before this, that this is only an 'idea' of impermanence which may not be the same idea as applied to ultimate realities. This idea will always be dictated by how we understand the object it is being referred to. And referring to conventional things it can bring at best a level of wisdom with regard to those things as KKT has suggested to Jon, namely cause one to be somewhat 'detached from mundane things'. But this is not the goal of Buddha's teachings, nor does it require the Teachings to illustrate. > As I understand it, the perception of impermanence as the Buddha > taught in the discourse is to reflect on the characteristics of the > five aggregates being impermanent. The perception in and of itself, > as I see it, is not of an intellectual nature. Here I agree with you fully, I think. :-)) Thanks for sharing your thoughts (on dsg in general that is), often I find them very to the point and pertinent. Metta, Sukin. 21547 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Mike, Thanks for butting in. I think I often get carried away by my as yet weak understanding of Abhidhamma in particular and Dhamma in general. As you said, "it is important not to make the best (paramattha-sacca) the enemy of the good (sammuti-sacca)." There is a tendency on my part to do this, though not particularly with the Suttanta itself, but my understanding of other's interpretation. In general however I only "react". Sometimes I think I should wait for when I have more metta, and perhaps panna, before responding, but then I may never write at all. Then how will I know if I am tending towards wrong view or not? Mike, you seem to be interested in bridging the gap between Sutta and Abhidhamma. The fact of trying to get across to people the ideas of Abhidhamma using conventional expressions has often crossed my mind. I would therefore be very interested in any insights you have. Please don't hesitate to share them. Metta, Sukin. 21548 From: yasalalaka Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:52am Subject: Re: pneumonia Dear James, That is a beautiful story you recount, I liked reading your post, you answered very well all the questions Hilary had raised. May you be happy, Yasalalaka 21549 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:08am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, Thanks for the message. This is how I see it: I don't adopt the division between conventional reality and ultimate reality in understanding the Buddha's teaching. To me this dichotomy is unnecessary and misleading: it is an extra conceptual layer. However, the distinction I would make is that the term "form" is a very general term, and a chair is form or a specific instance of form, whereas form aggregate is the collection/set of all form. In that sense, the statement "a chair is impermanent" is as true as the statement "form is impermanent." An analogy would be like this: "Victor is mortal" and "human being is mortal." Thanks again for sharing your thoughts. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > OK I think I see your point. So at least you distinguish between the > perception of impermanence and the idea of impermanence. I think we > can then say that impermanence with regard to conventional reality is > different from that of ultimate reality....?! > [snip] > > But here I can't agree. I agree though that conventionally speaking; > chairs ultimately become something other than chairs. And it may be fair > to use the concept of impermanence to apply to this. But I would make > the distinction as above and in my post to Smallchap just before this, > that this is only an 'idea' of impermanence which may not be the same > idea as applied to ultimate realities. This idea will always be dictated by > how we understand the object it is being referred to. And referring to > conventional things it can bring at best a level of wisdom with regard to > those things as KKT has suggested to Jon, namely cause one to be > somewhat 'detached from mundane things'. But this is not the goal of > Buddha's teachings, nor does it require the Teachings to illustrate. > [snip] > > Here I agree with you fully, I think. :-)) > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts (on dsg in general that is), often I find > them very to the point and pertinent. > > Metta, > Sukin. 21550 From: m. nease Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Sukin, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula To: Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 1:45 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) > Hi Mike, > > Thanks for butting in. I think I often get carried away by my as yet weak > understanding of Abhidhamma in particular and Dhamma in general. > As you said, > > "it is important not to make the best (paramattha-sacca) the enemy of > the good (sammuti-sacca)." > > There is a tendency on my part to do this, though not particularly with > the Suttanta itself, but my understanding of other's interpretation. I don't think so at all. I always find your posts well-considered and hope you didn't take mine as a criticism. > In > general however I only "react". Sometimes I think I should wait for > when I have more metta, and perhaps panna, before responding, but > then I may never write at all. For my part, I certainly hope you'll keep posting, more rather than less often. I always find your posts worthwhile and stimulating. > Then how will I know if I am tending > towards wrong view or not? Exactly. I'm not at all sure of my ground either--the greatest benefit I get from dsg (even though I don't always like it) is the frequent correction of my rash comments by those members who have learned, considered and understood more. > Mike, you seem to be interested in bridging the gap between Sutta and > Abhidhamma. The fact of trying to get across to people the ideas of > Abhidhamma using conventional expressions has often crossed my > mind. I would therefore be very interested in any insights you have. > Please don't hesitate to share them. I am interested in this, but mainly, I think, because of my deep attachment to the suttas (and the vinaya, for that matter). I want to bridge this gap, but what is my motivation? Kusala? Not much, I suspect. I hope there may be some virtue in this, but the jury's still out, as far as I'm concerned. > Metta, > Sukin. Always great to hear from you, man. mike 21551 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi KKT & All, Apologies for any delays - we took advantage of fine weather over the long Easter weekend to hike and swim in the sea away from masks. Now students are beginning to trickle back and I’m having to spend extra time on precautionary SARS measures and long reassurance phone calls with nervous parents;-) ..... --- phamdluan2000 wrote:> > KKT: Thanks for your long post > with many quotes, Sarah. > > I see now that the importance > of making the distinction between > concepts and paramattha dhammas > is << inherently >> in the teaching > of Abhidhamma. Sujin just points > out this important point. ..... ;-) ..... > I have some more questions > but before asking I want to draw > the whole picture to see more clearly > (correct me if I'm wrong) > > __The Buddha taught 2 truths: > Conventional Truth and Ultimate Truth. ..... I would say that the Buddha taught the Ultimate Truth using different kinds of language (conventional and ultimate) according to circumstances and in particular, according to what was appropriate for the listeners at the time. ..... > All the two Truths lead to enlightenment, > to liberation. ..... The Truth of ultimate dhammas and the characteristics of these dhammas, i.e. anicca, dukkha and anatta, leads to enlightenment. ..... > __Abhidhamma treats << exclusively >> > the Ultimate Truth. ..... I don’t understand the Truth taught to be any different in the Abhidhamma from the Suttas. In both it is the truth about the 5 khandhas and so on. ..... > The Ultimate Truth is about > the << true >> reality that is > rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana. ..... Yes ..... > But because the Buddha's > main concern is to liberate man > (my teaching has only one taste, > the taste of liberation) > therefore what He taught should > lead man to detachment, to be > dispassionate, to the ending of tanha. ..... Yes ..... > My question is: > > What is the << concrete, practical >> way > of Abhidhamma to realize this objective? > > What is the << tool >> of Abhidhamma? ..... The <> way or <> as taught by the Buddha to realize this objective is the development of satipatthana. In other words the development of the eightfold/factor path. In order for satipatthana or the path to develop, however, there needs to be a clear understanding of the objects of sati, i.e. these same Ultimate Truths (paramattha dhammas), as clarified with the assistance of the Abhidhamma imho. Otherwise, in my view, there will be the idea that computers and other concepts can be directly known and as a result satipatthana will not develop. I appreciate that others here have different understandings ;-) Look forward to more of your comments and questions, KKT. Metta, Sarah ===== 21552 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 7:03am Subject: How The Buddha Indeed Taught Abhidhamma Dear Dhamma friends The following is my reply to Pali questions asked by Rene Salm. I hope you also find it useful. Please view my translation of an Anguttara Nikaaya quote (with Abhidhamma terms!) to illustrate the uses of (-assa) and (-aaya). As a spin-off, in this quote, we can witness beyond doubt that the Buddha indeed taught Abhidhamma, if partially. Regards, Suan _______________ __ ____ ______ ___ Dear Rene Salm How are you? You wrote: "I am trying to figure out the use of -assa vs. aaya (dative)." The use of (-aaya) should be noted as your quote from WARDER (p.67) : "In all declensions genitive forms are used for the dative also, but a special dative inflection exists alongside [the genitive] for the singular of masculines and neuters in -a: -aaya." He then becomes more specific: "The inflection -aaya has the specialized meaning of purpose." He gives the example: gaama.m pi.ndaaya paavisi (He entered the village for alms.) As for the use of (-assa) for dative, we could stick to the normal uses where the sense of recipient is conveyed, usually (to) in English. Please view the following quote from Anguttara nikaaya where the Buddha used both -assa form and -aaya form in the same sentence. "Liinacittassa, bhikkhave, anuppannañceva thinamiddham uppajjati uppannañca thinamiddham bhiyyobhaavaaya vepullaaya samvattatii"ti." "Monks, to the withdrawing mind, potential sloth and torpor duly arise, and the arising sloth and torpor are also in for increase and for expansion." Section 13, Ekakanipaatapaali, Anguttara Nikaaya. In the above sentence, we cannot say "Liinacittaaya". Nor can we say "bhiyyobhaavassa" or "vepullassa" without changing the original intended meanings. With regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org ---------------------------------- Dear Abhidhammika, I am trying to figure out the use of -assa vs. aaya (dative). ....... Rene 21553 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, James and KKT - In a message dated 4/22/03 11:48:14 PM Eastern Daylight Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" > wrote: > >Dear Rob M, > __Among the 18 schools, there is > >a school named Sautrantika. > >The word 'Sautra' comes from Sutra > >because the fact is that this school > >accepted only the the teachings of > >the Buddha contained in the Sutras > >and refused to consider the teachings > >of Abhidharma as the Buddha's teachings. > > > >So we see that early in that period, > >there were already people who > >refused the authority of the Abhidharma. > > > >(I think maybe James was a follower > >of this school in one of his previous > >lifetimes. Just joking, hello James :-)) > > > Hi KKT, > > Follower nothing! I founded that school! Go Sautrantika! ;-)) > Seriously, I am glad to know that there is some historical precedent > for my position, which I didn't know previously. Let me just say > that small discrepancies in the Buddha's teaching become larger as > time passes, that is why I take the position I do…and sometimes end > up seeming like some kinda radical Buddhist! ;-). > > Metta, James > > ============================ While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, I've read (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their own. Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who adopted the pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that events proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, like the frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That is, they were among the founders of a position that some believe is characteristic of Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, but which is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not attribute the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts of) the commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having directly read from the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', meaning "time" or "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is that of an imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a discrete point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been pluralistic realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas the perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the suttas allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of reality. The terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later occasions to arise as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, earlier conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of presuming contiguous, discrete point-moments. 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) 21554 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? ----- Original Message ----- From: "buddhatrue" To: Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:57 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Are there any teachings about anti-war? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi James, > > You know the war now between America and Iraq. I > absolutely hated it, the other day during lunch my > family and I were watching war news. Suddenly a big > drip of blood slid across the camera. I screamed, I > mean a real scream. > > Are the Buddhists against war? Has there been any war > against Buddhism. Are there any teachings about > anti-war? > > If Saddam Hussein died or Osama Bin Laden dies, will > they be recarnated even if they don't believe in it, > if yes, most likely into what? > Metta, > > Hilary Hi Star Kid Hilary In general I agree with James that the Buddha did not teach about how nations should interact. He taught about the beginning and ending of suffering. But there is some information in the Canon on the subject. There are Suttas where the Buddha did lay out the consequences of war to a king who was going to attack and the king decided it was better not to. There is a Sutta where the Buddha talks about how a king should rule, and I believe non-aggression to neighbors was one of the suggestions listed. There is a Sutta where the Buddha says that soldiers who kill with anger or hate are bound for the hell realms after death. But there is also a sutta where a General asks if defending his country is blameworthy, and the Buddha said it was not. In general I would say the Buddha's teachings are teachings of nonviolence both for laypersons and certainly for those who become monks and nuns. The Canon is full of examples where the Buddha supports nonviolence by monks, even if they are attacked. The Buddhist precepts clearly state that one should not kill. So while there is little in the Canon about how nations should act, it is clear that individuals who follow the Buddha's teachings should cultivate loving kindness, compassion and a nonviolent approach to the world. The Canon says that this approach lays the foundation from which concentration and insight can develop. I hope this helps.....Ray 21555 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 10:48am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 20 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 20 Everybody should know for himself what degree of kusala he wants to develop and to what extent. If someone does not listen to the Dhamma and he does not accumulate all kinds of good qualities he may not even be intent on the development of kusala. He may only be infatuated by pleasures and perform very few good deeds. Whereas if someone has listened also in past lives to the Dhamma of former Buddhas, if he has contemplated the Dhamma and acquired more understanding, he will be inclined to develop kusala. Some people may, throughout life, have no inclination to develop kusala as much as they are able to. They may not have the accumulated conditions to even think of kusala, and therefore, they cannot perform it. Someone may not be intent on helping others, or he has wrong understanding about kusala; he may wonder why he should tire himself or take the trouble to help others. This shows us the diverse nature of the cittas we accumulate day after day. Some people, even if they have listened to the Dhamma, may not be able to forgive others, because they cannot apply the Dhamma. We have to accumulate kusala from now on so that it can be further developed. We can begin to be intent on forgiving others, not disapproving of them. All of us who traverse the cycle of birth and death have many defilements and hence we should develop all the different ways of kusala so that defilements can be eradicated. If we merely think about developing kusala, kusala will not be strong enough to be a condition for sincerity and truthfulness so that we practise in conformity with our resolutions. The accumulation of wholesome qualities are the condition for truthfulness in action and speech. We have to continue to accumulate kusala so that we shall not be neglectful in applying kusala, in practising it. It is difficult to know the truth, also in worldly matters. For example, when we hear news through different media about an event that occurred near to us or far away, it is difficult to find out whether it is true. What we hear is sometimes not true, but we take it for the truth. Our confusion, our defilements make it most difficult to know what is true. To know realities as they are is even more difficult than knowing the truth of worldly matters. We should see the value of truthfulness, including sincerity with regard to ourselves. We should develop truthfulness in action, speech and thoughts, even in seemingly unimportant matters. This means, truthfulness in speech, also when it regards appointments or promises. One may believe that these matters are unimportant. We should know what type of citta arises when we feel that with regard to unimportant matters we do not need to be truthful to act in accordance with our speech and thoughts. The citta of each person is most intricate, and if there is no paññå accompanying sati, the subtle defilements that arise because of our accumulations will not be known. They have been accumulated not only during this life but also in past lives. Our life today is conditioned by past lives and the accumulation of defilements will continue from life to life. Someone who earnestly develops paññå should not only be intent on truthfulness, intent on knowing the truth, but he should also strive after the eradication of his defilements, so that he is truthful in action and speech. He should be steady and firm in the development of kusala, including the following perfection: the perfection of determination, aditthåna påramí. ******* The end of Ch 8, the Perfection of Truthfulness. 21556 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Howard / James / KKT, In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has three pages of explanation on this subject in the section titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the twelfth century - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather than a theory of moments - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the static phase. - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the continuation of a personality without the help of a soul - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" phase and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth of the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's Abhidhammathasangaha). - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of moments in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and not to be found in the Suttas. My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas that were current at his time. The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious student" must differentiate between what is found in the original texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================ > While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, I've read > (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their own. > Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who adopted the > pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that events > proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, like the > frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That is, they > were among the founders of a position that some believe is characteristic of > Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, but which > is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not attribute > the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts of) the > commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having directly read from > the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', meaning "time" or > "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is that of an > imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a discrete > point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been pluralistic > realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas the > perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the suttas > allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of reality. The > terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later occasions to arise > as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, earlier > conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of presuming > contiguous, discrete point-moments. > > 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) > 21557 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:14pm Subject: Re: Metta Hi Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Would you say that the accumulations we often hear mentioned > on this list, are these same habits formed from some repeated > behaviour or thought (kusala or akusala)? ===== Yes, absolutely! ===== > I know that mostly these > are unintentional, simply arising from doing what we *want* to do - > but, perhaps, the same principle could work for modelling what we > want to achieve. And is this the same as 'ayuhana'? ===== They are all intentional; the greater the intention, the greater the kamma formed and the greater the imprint on the accumulations. We can use this understanding of accumulations to motivate us to continue the practice, even when there is no short-term immediate benefit visible to us. Yes, 'ayuhana' is the commentarial term for accumulations. ===== > > As regards metta not being 'psychic lightning' ... didn't the Blessed > One tell Ananda [who was trying to put himself in front of the Buddha > to protect him from the full charge of an attacking elephant] to step > aside, as all that was needed to bring the elephant to its knees was > the pervading of metta? Or is that an apocryphal story? ===== I don't see this story as apocryphal. Frankly, looking at a statue of the Buddha causes feelings of calmness to arise in me. The effect of looking on the Buddha himself must have been very powerful (for those with the accumulations). My interpretation is that the Buddha asked Ananda to step aside so that the elephant could properly see the Buddha and the reaction to seeing the Buddha in the mind of the elephant was the arising of extreme metta; enough to cause the animal to fall to its knees. Metta, Rob M :-) 21558 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 2:46pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: I'm very interested > to know how to apply > the Abhidhamma in daily life > according to your understanding? > ------------- Are we studying Abhdidhamma to learn classifications of reality? To learn new words in Pali? To learn that greed, hatred and delusion are bad things? No. Most of us study Abhidhamma to gain a Buddhist perspective on life. Perspective is extremely important. Changing our perspective causes a fundamental shift in our perception of the world. As we gain a Buddhist perspective, the nature of the mind (lobha, dosa, moha) and the characteristics of reality (anicca, dukkha, anatta) will be obvious to us; not just at a "knowledge level" but at a deeper, "belief / confidence level". An untrained ear hears a melody. A trained ear instantly recognizes notes, structure, chord progressions, etc. in the music. The trained ear has a different, deeper perspective when listening to music. A "trained ear" requires considerable study of music theory followed up by practice of listening to music. Studying Abhidhamma is the first step in getting a "trained mind". The next step, which should be done in parallel with study, is the practice of Dana, Sila and Bhavana (meditation). With a "trained mind" we will see things as they truly are. A single day of practice of the Dhamma is more valuable than a hundred years of theoretical study. When I prepare my lecture each week, I often start with an objective; what I want the students to take back with them after the class. My "objective" is ususally framed in terms of giving them a different perspective on day to day life which encourages more practice. For example, this Sunday's class will cover the four universal akusala cetasikas (moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca). I plan to start by defining these terms so that the students can immediately recognize them in their own minds when they arise. I will then explain how these four are the foundation of all akusala cittas; I will quickly review greed, wrong view, conceit, aversion, envy, selfishness, remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt to show how each of these akusala states has the four universal akusala cetasikas as a base. I will give an example of a person having greed and I will show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca work as a team to support this greed. I will then take the opposite of greed (generosity) and show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca cannot arise in a mind filled with generosity. At the end of the class, I hope that the students will have a different prespective on their own mind-states. My experience in vipassana is that noting something is often enough to make it go away (at least temporarily). Metta, Rob M :-) 21559 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 3:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- Dear RobM, Are you saying that the Abhidhammathasangaha had wrong view. Is this because your book by mr Sarachchandra suggests so? . RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Howard / James / KKT, > > In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has > three pages of explanation on this subject in the section > titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: > - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the > twelfth century > - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather > than a theory of moments > - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness > was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for > example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of > consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two > phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the > static phase. > - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the continuation > of a personality without the help of a soul > - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" phase > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth of > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > Abhidhammathasangaha). > - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of moments > in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and > not to be found in the Suttas. > > My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than > summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the > Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas > that were current at his time. > > The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible > (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi > and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious > student" must differentiate between what is found in the original > texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > ============================ > > While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, > I've read > > (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their > own. > > Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who > adopted the > > pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that > events > > proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, > like the > > frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That > is, they > > were among the founders of a position that some believe is > characteristic of > > Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, > but which > > is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not > attribute > > the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts > of) the > > commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having > directly read from > > the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', > meaning "time" or > > "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is > that of an > > imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a > discrete > > point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been > pluralistic > > realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas > the > > perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the > suttas > > allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of > reality. The > > terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later > occasions to arise > > as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, > earlier > > conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of > presuming > > contiguous, discrete point-moments. > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > 21560 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Robert K, I believe that the Abhidhammathasangaha has "extra stuff added". I do not think that this "extra stuff" contradicts anything in the Suttas, so I don't think it can be classified as "wrong view". I would say the same for Buddhaghosa's works as well. This is the nature of commentaries (and why they are called "commentaries"). My remarks were not in any way intended to question the value of the contents of the Abhidhammathasangaha. I am suggesting that a "serious student" of the Abhidhamma should be aware of what was in the original seven volumes and what was "added later". Because my class is for beginners, I don't talk about this in my class and therefore have not researched it thoroughly. I note, however, that the appendix to Nyanatiloka's dictionary mentions that most of the specific terms for the cittas in the citta process are not found in the Tipitaka (though the concepts are there). For example, according to Nyanatiloka, the term "bhavanga" only appears two or three times in the Tipitaka (in the Patthana). I don't have a problem with the "extra stuff"; when I read one of Nina's books, most of it is "extra stuff" that is extremely useful in helping me to understand the message of the Buddha. I don't consider it to be "wrong view", I see it as "modern commentaries". Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- > Dear RobM, > Are you saying that the Abhidhammathasangaha had wrong view. Is > this because your book by mr Sarachchandra suggests so? . > RobertK > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > wrote: > > Hi Howard / James / KKT, > > > > In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has > > three pages of explanation on this subject in the section > > titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: > > - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the > > twelfth century > > - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather > > than a theory of moments > > - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness > > was common between all schools with minor technical variations; > for > > example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of > > consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two > > phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added > the > > static phase. > > - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the > continuation > > of a personality without the help of a soul > > - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" > phase > > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth > of > > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > > Abhidhammathasangaha). > > - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of > moments > > in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and > > not to be found in the Suttas. > > > > My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than > > summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the > > Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting > ideas > > that were current at his time. > > > > The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible > > (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi > > and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious > > student" must differentiate between what is found in the original > > texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > ============================ > > > While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, > > I've read > > > (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of > their > > own. > > > Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who > > adopted the > > > pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that > > events > > > proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, > > like the > > > frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. > That > > is, they > > > were among the founders of a position that some believe is > > characteristic of > > > Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin > commentaries, > > but which > > > is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does > not > > attribute > > > the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts > > of) the > > > commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having > > directly read from > > > the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', > > meaning "time" or > > > "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense > is > > that of an > > > imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than > a > > discrete > > > point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been > > pluralistic > > > realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, > whereas > > the > > > perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in > the > > suttas > > > allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of > > reality. The > > > terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later > > occasions to arise > > > as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, > > earlier > > > conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of > > presuming > > > contiguous, discrete point-moments. > > > > > > 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) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 21561 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Buddhism 2 Hi Philip, Thanks for writing! > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > To: dsg > > 1. Did the Buddha create us? Suppose that I tell you that Buddha created us. How do you know what I am saying to you is true? When people tell you something and they say it is true, do you always believe in it? What do you do to find out if what is said is true? > 2. Did the Buddha create the universe and all the > living things? > 3. Is the Buddha holy? When you are kind to somebody, at that moment, the kindness is "holy": it cannot be faulted. Same thing when you help people who are in need, or joyful when they receive good things. The Buddha is immeasurably kind for he teaches us knowledge of great depth impossible to learn otherwise, and for that, he is very holy. > 4. According to the Buddha, is there a devil and a > hell? The Buddha said there is no being that lives forever. So, there wouldn't be a devil (a being) that lives forever. The true devil is the defilements within us. When we are angry, greedy, jealous, stingy, then at the moment, we are the devil. Bad deeds, done because of anger, greed, jealousy, and stinginess, can cause one to be born in an unhappy plane of existence. Look at some animals around you (like chicken, for example), they have pretty tough lives. The Buddha teaches about hell, a birth place that is even unhappier than an animal realm. > > Thank you for answering. > No problem. Asking questions is a very good thing; otherwise, one doesn't learn anything.... kom 21562 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 4:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- Dear RobM, Thaks for clarifying. Glad you find that the Abhidhammthasangaha agrees with the suttas. In your post you wrote that ."Anuruddha also added material reflecting > > ideas > > > that were current at his time" and refer to such ideas as perhaps coming outside theravada: "The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" > > phase > > > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one > sixteenth > > of > > > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > > > Abhidhammathasangaha)."" I must admit I don't know the Yogacara school or what it believed. Could you explain it in more detail. If you like I could add something about 'momentariness' as it is explained in Theravada, including the Abhidhammatthasangaha. RobertK >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > I believe that the Abhidhammathasangaha has "extra stuff added". I > do not think that this "extra stuff" contradicts anything in the > Suttas, so I don't think it can be classified as "wrong view". I > would say the same for Buddhaghosa's works as well. This is the > nature of commentaries (and why they are called "commentaries"). > > My remarks were not in any way intended to question the value of the > contents of the Abhidhammathasangaha. I am suggesting that > a "serious student" of the Abhidhamma should be aware of what was in > the original seven volumes and what was "added later". > > Because my class is for beginners, I don't talk about this in my > class and therefore have not researched it thoroughly. I note, > however, that the appendix to Nyanatiloka's dictionary mentions that > most of the specific terms for the cittas in the citta process are > not found in the Tipitaka (though the concepts are there). For > example, according to Nyanatiloka, the term "bhavanga" only appears > two or three times in the Tipitaka (in the Patthana). > > I don't have a problem with the "extra stuff"; when I read one of > Nina's books, most of it is "extra stuff" that is extremely useful > in helping me to understand the message of the Buddha. I don't > consider it to be "wrong view", I see it as "modern commentaries". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > >been removed] 21563 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, Rob - Excellent! Thank you for the following. BTW, I had ordered "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, but there was a foul-up, and I never got it. With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/23/03 7:32:11 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard / James / KKT, > > In "Buddhist Psychology of Perception" by E. R. Sarachchandra, has > three pages of explanation on this subject in the section > titled, "Developments in the Twelfth Century". In brief: > - Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the > twelfth century > - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather > than a theory of moments > - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness > was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for > example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of > consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two > phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the > static phase. > - The Sautrantika school used the theory to explain the continuation > of a personality without the help of a soul > - The Yogacara school took over the theory, added the "static" phase > and postulated that the duration of a thought to be one sixteenth of > the duration of matter (i.e. the form taken in Anuruddha's > Abhidhammathasangaha). > - The Vibhangatthakatha commentarly discusses the theory of moments > in some detail, saying that it is particular to the Abhidhamma and > not to be found in the Suttas. > > My take-away from this discussion is that Anuruddha did more than > summarize the seven books of the Abhidhamma when he wrote the > Abhidhammathasangaha; Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas > that were current at his time. > > The material in the Abhidhammatthasangaha is far more accessible > (especially with recent translations / commentary by Bhikkhu Bodhi > and Dr. Mon) than the original seven books. However a "serious > student" must differentiate between what is found in the original > texts and what was added fifteen hundred years later. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > /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) 21564 From: Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi KKT, Regarding "what is the <> of abhidhamma" you might consider the following from "Way 79": The Contemplation of Feeling The Blessed One having in this way set forth the Arousing of Mindfulness through the fourteenfold method of body-contemplation, now said, "And now, o bhikkhus," in order to expound the ninefold method of contemplation of feeling. There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is different. Knowledge of pleasure possessed by infants lying on their backs and other similar kinds of knowledge of pleasure do not cast out the belief in a being, do not root out the perception of a being, do not become a subject of meditation and do not become the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is wisely understood through inquiry. L: One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self"). Larry 21565 From: robmoult Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 8:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Robert K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I must admit I don't know the Yogacara school or what it believed. > Could you explain it in more detail. Thanks for the prompting. I have run across references to the Yogacara school a few times, but never investigated further. Courtesy of Google, I found "Yogacara Buddhism Research Association" with interesting information at: http://www.human.toyogakuen-u.ac.jp/~acmuller/yogacara/ > If you like I could add something about 'momentariness' as it is > explained in Theravada, including the Abhidhammatthasangaha. I have read some material on this subject, but I would be interested in knowing more. Metta, Rob M :-) 21566 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 23, 2003 9:16pm Subject: transl. Vinaya Co. Dear Sarah, Do you have the Inception of Discipline, and is the contents of this part the Bahira nidana, about the sources of the scriptures and the Council, you quoted from before? Or is there more in it? This is the only part of the Vinaya co in English I believe. I am thinking of ordering it, but I like to know what is in it. Thank you, Nina. 21567 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:04am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear RobM, In the 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga) ... It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that consciousness is known by this or that name: if consciousness is know by this or that name: if consciousness arises because of eye and material shapes, it is known as seeing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of ear and sounds it is known as hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of nose and smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting- consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, it is known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of mind and mental objects, it is known as mental consciousness. " Ya~n~nadeva1 bhikkhave paccaya.m pa.ticca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m tena teneva sa"nkha.m gacchati: cakkhu~nca pa.ticca ruupe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, cakkhuvi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Sota~nca pa.ticca sadde ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, sotavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Ghaana~nca pa.ticca gandhe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, ghaanavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati, jivha~nca pa.ticca rase ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, jivhaavi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati. Kaaya~nca pa.ticca pho.t.thabbe ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, kaayavi~n~naa.nantevasa"nkha.m gacchati. Mana~nca pa.ticca dhamme ca uppajjati vi~n~naa.na.m, manovi~n~naa.nanteva sa"nkha.m gacchati You see in the suttas the Buddha was very careful to help people to see that each moment is different from the last. The eye- consciousness has different conditions than the ear consciousness. Someone, before they heard the teaching, might imagine that the same consciousness lasts and could take two or three objects at about the same time. But it can be seen that this is not so. The sutta continues: "Monks, as a fire burns because of this or that appropriate condition, by that it is known: if a fire burns because of sticks, it is known as a stick-fire; and if a fire burns because of chips, it is known as a chip-fire; and if a fire burns because of grass, it is known as a grass-fire; and if a fire burns because of cowdung, it is known as a cowdung-fire ... Even so, monks, when because of a condition appropriate to it consciousness arises, it is known by this or that name ...'"" The commentaries stress this so much more – they explain that in the time it takes to snap a finger ..kotis of mindmoments have arisen and passed, each one not the same but conditioned by different conditions, and none of these conditions is exactly the same either. Take a moment of seeing: For seeing to arise there must be cakkhu pasada (seeing base). This is the extremely refined rupa that arises in the center of the eye. This special rupa is the result of kamma. reason we can keep seeing is that at this moment the force of the kamma is still working to continue replacing the cakkhu pasada. The visible eye, the eyeball, and the surrounding matter, the rest of the body, are also conditioned by different conditions - not only kamma- and these rupas also only last for a moment before vanishing forever. Every conditioning factor is simarly evanescent as is every conditioned moment. Your book by Mr. Sarachchandra, says " the Theory of moments was introduced into Abhidhamma around the twelfth century - Early Buddists texts reflect a doctrine of momentariness rather than a theory of moments - By the time of the third council, the doctrine of momentariness was common between all schools with minor technical variations; for example, the "Points of Controversy" discusses if a "moment" of consciousness lasts a whole day. Rupa was described as having two phases (nascent and cessant); the theory of moments later added the static phase.""" This 'static' phase is far from static according to the Theravada commentaries, and also the later tikas. For example The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis" Note that vedana (feeling) arises and passes together with consciousness and all other mental elements.Any words we use to describe the nature of realities –impermanent, momentary, temporary, instant by instant- cannot convey the actual rapidity of the arising and passing away. But to explain the dhamma it is useful to use such words as 'moments' when ,say, explaining the difference between a moment of seeing and a moment of hearing. In the Patthana - the last book of the Abhidhamma , the importance of which is greatly stressed in the commentaries and Abhidhammathasangaha is all about conditions. Here we learn that "moments" are extraordinarily complex instants in time with influences from past and present factors. The dhammas themselves are not different from the quality they posses. In fact the Atthasalini says that "there is no other thing than the quality born by it" . And no moment is identical with another-It is true that such dhammas as sanna(perception) or vedana (feeling) or vinnana (consciouness) are classified under the same heading but the actual quality is influenced by so many diverse factiors that not even one moment of feeling is exactly the same. Also because similar conditions arise repeatedly nor are succeeding moments totally different. The same feeling can appear [and I stress appear] to last for seconds because of this. The Abhidhamma allows us to understad that this is illusion and to learn to study directly the present moment so that eventually this idea of permenance is broken. You wrote that "Anuruddha also added material reflecting ideas that were current at his time." I don't think so. He put, in a simple way, what was already well rehearsed by generations of great monks from the time of the Buddha. Although sometimes the commentaries added extra useful material a great deal of them came from the time of the Buddha. The Atthakattha to the Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma) the Atthasalini: from the introductory discourse "The ancient commentary therof was sang By the First council, Mahakassapa Their leader, and later again by seers, 13. Yaa Mahaakassapaadiihi vaasiih'a.t.thakathaa puraa sa"ngiitaa anusa"ngiitaa pacchaa pi ca isiihi yaa It then says "Mahinda bought it to the peerless isle, Ceylon,.."endquote RobertK 21568 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:23am Subject: Re: pneumonia --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > > Dear James, > > That is a beautiful story you recount, I liked reading your post, you > answered very well all the questions Hilary had raised. > > May you be happy, > > Yasalalaka Thank you Yasalalaka, I am glad that you enjoyed it. Metta, James 21569 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] transl. Vinaya Co. Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Do you have the Inception of Discipline, and is the contents of this > part > the Bahira nidana, about the sources of the scriptures and the Council, > you > quoted from before? Or is there more in it? ..... Yes to all these questions;-) We have the older 1962 edition (reprint in 1986 accord. to PTS catalogue). For others - this is the translation of Buddhaghosa’s commentary to the Vinaya - the introductory section. It is a very useful volume and a good translation (easy to read) by Jayawickrama with lots of helpful cross references and detailed footnotes, esp. to the rest of the Vinaya commentary which is untranslated as yet. Also for you, Nina, it has the Pali at the back as well for the whole text and it’s very easy to locate the passages quickly. Much of the detail about the First Council is also contained in the Mahavamsa and Atthasalini, but if I remember, when I was writing the series, there was more detail here. Also it is one of the earliest accounts of the Second and Third Councils and there is a lot of detail on the latter, in particular and about the schisms etc. Unlike the Mahavamsa, this is definitely a scripture and commentary to the Vinaya, so any references to kings are in passing and there are a lot of cross-references to the suttas, vinaya and abhidhamma instead. It also details the succession of teachers down to the bringing of the bo tree to Anuradhapura. I don’t believe there are any discrepancies with the Mahavamsa to this point which suggests they were both referring to the same ancient (Sinhalese) commentaries for reference, I think. In the introduction it is suggested that the Vinaya commentaries were written by Buddhaghosa after the Abhidhamma commentaries and Visuddhimagga (which was first), but before the sutta commentaries. This text was probably written in AC 429-430. ..... >This is the only part of the > Vinaya co in English I believe. I am thinking of ordering it, but I like > to > know what is in it. ..... As you say, it’s the only part in English. B.Bodhi seemed surprised when I suggested it would be very useful for the entire Samantapasadika (comy to Vinaya) to be translated. Perhaps if there is more interest, it will be;-) Pls let me know if there is anything in particular you'd like me to check meanwhile. Metta, Sarah ====== 21570 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Swee Boon --- nidive wrote: > Hi Jonothan Abbott, > > But how can the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts be > discerned if concepts cannot be "directly known" as suggested by > Sarah? I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by 'the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts'. However, I'll make some general comments on desire/clinging and insight, as I understand it, and hope that it's to the point. Desire/clinging is one of the conditioned phenomena that make up the five aggregates, and hence its characteristic can be directly known by understanding that is of the level of insight. When desire/clinging appears and is directly known, its characteristic is the same regardless of the object of the desire or clinging. Likewise, when desire/clinging is absent, that too can be known by insight. Clinging to concepts is an aspect of wrong view. This particular kind of attachment is eradicated by the stream-winner. To my understanding, the stream winner still conceptualises, but does so without wrong view, that is, without taking the concept for being something. I hope this relates to your comment. > I think it is better to treat concepts as under the aggregate of > fabrications. Concepts are fabricated things anyway. They depend on > the ultimate reality of fabrications. Concepts "arise" and "fall > away" together with the ultimate reality of fabrications. > > I think in one sense concepts are real. In another sense, they are > not real. I hope you get what I mean. I think I know what you mean when you say there is a sense in which concepts s are real. We all tend to think in terms of concepts as a kind of 'thing', whereas in fact they are not. They are mere conceptualisations of the mind. There is no 'thing' to be made up (fabricated) at that moment. The 4th aggregate (sankhara khandha) has a very specific meaning. In the suttas it is described as the mental factor of intention (cetana), while in the Abhidhamma this is further elaborated to mean all the mental factors not encompassed by the 2nd and 3rd aggregates of feeling and perception. "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...." S. XXII, 56 (as quoted in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' under the entry for 'Khandha') (The expression 'sankhara khandha' is translated by Nyanatiloka here as 'group of mental formations'; Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it as 'aggregate of volitional formations'.) To my understanding, neither the sutta nor the Abhidhamma definition allows for concepts to be regarded as forming part of sankhara khandha. > I do not think that the distinction between concepts and ultimate > realities is that crucial. Otherwise the Buddha would have merely > taught the ultimate teaching. I'm not sure that I agree with the logic here. Different listeners were capable of responding to the teachings presented in different ways. A vast proportion of the teachings can be seen as the same thing expressed in different ways (e.g., khandhas vs. dhatus vs. ayatanas vs. nama and rupa vs. citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana) Later in your post you say: > Why would the Buddha > present both conventional and ultimate teachings in one single > sutta? A similar situation applies here. The truths taught by the Buddha are ultimate truths, but the teaching about those truths is presented in the suttas using both conventional expression and ultimate expression. I gave an example of this is a recent post to Victor which you will have seen. My views, anyway. Jon 21571 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT & All, < snip > > The Ultimate Truth is about > the << true >> reality that is > rupa, citta, cetasika, nibbana. ..... Yes ..... > But because the Buddha's > main concern is to liberate man > (my teaching has only one taste, > the taste of liberation) > therefore what He taught should > lead man to detachment, to be > dispassionate, to the ending of tanha. ..... Yes ..... > My question is: > > What is the << concrete, practical >> way > of Abhidhamma to realize this objective? > > What is the << tool >> of Abhidhamma? ..... The <> way or <> as taught by the Buddha to realize this objective is the development of satipatthana. In other words the development of the eightfold/factor path. In order for satipatthana or the path to develop, however, there needs to be a clear understanding of the objects of sati, i.e. these same Ultimate Truths (paramattha dhammas), as clarified with the assistance of the Abhidhamma imho. Otherwise, in my view, there will be the idea that computers and other concepts can be directly known and as a result satipatthana will not develop. I appreciate that others here have different understandings ;-) Look forward to more of your comments and questions, KKT. Metta, Sarah KKT: Thanks for your answer, Sarah. So the point is: __Abhidhamma is the << theory >> part. __Satipatthana is the << practice >> part. (to realize what is exposed in the Abhidhamma) Is it correct? I think the practice of Satipatthana for you means << to observe paramattha dhammas arising and falling at the 6 sense-doors >> Is it correct? Another very important point I want to ask is Panna (insight, wisdom) Is the following definition of Panna correct? Panna = to see things as they really are ie. making clearly the distinction between concepts and paramattha dhammas. Since everything arises by conditions, so does Panna. Is the practice of Satipatthana the main condition for Panna to arise? Panna should have the power of liberation ie. making one free from defilements, free from attachments, free from craving, becoming. Therefore Panna should be much more than a merely intellectual understanding. This is what I think about Panna. Can you talk more about Panna according to Abhidhamma? Thank you, Sarah. Metta, KKT 21572 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:48am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear RobM, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: Hi KKT, < snip > When I prepare my lecture each week, I often start with an objective; what I want the students to take back with them after the class. My "objective" is ususally framed in terms of giving them a different perspective on day to day life which encourages more practice. For example, this Sunday's class will cover the four universal akusala cetasikas (moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca). I plan to start by defining these terms so that the students can immediately recognize them in their own minds when they arise. I will then explain how these four are the foundation of all akusala cittas; I will quickly review greed, wrong view, conceit, aversion, envy, selfishness, remorse, sloth & torpor and doubt to show how each of these akusala states has the four universal akusala cetasikas as a base. I will give an example of a person having greed and I will show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca work as a team to support this greed. I will then take the opposite of greed (generosity) and show how moha, ahirika, anottappa and uddhacca cannot arise in a mind filled with generosity. At the end of the class, I hope that the students will have a different prespective on their own mind-states. My experience in vipassana is that noting something is often enough to make it go away (at least temporarily). Metta, Rob M :-) KKT: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. It's very interesting. I have a question: Do we need to << name >> a cetasika while noting it? We know that rupa, citta, cetasika arise and fall away very quickly. Therefore the fact of << naming >> makes the process of noting too late, doesn't it? For example: By inadvertence, we touch the stove, the sensation is so acute that we remove right away our hand. We don't need to name it << hot >> :-)) Metta, KKT 21573 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:02am Subject: Re: concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: Hi KKT, < snip > L: One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self"). Larry KKT: Agreed. This is why the Buddha analysed the body/mind into five aggregates and why Abhidhamma made a classification of 82 paramattha dhammas. Metta, KKT 21574 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, This is great! Could you please be more specific as to the source, translation etc.? What is 'Way 79'? mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 8:32 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence > Hi KKT, > > Regarding "what is the <> of abhidhamma" you might consider the > following from "Way 79": > > The Contemplation of Feeling > > The Blessed One having in this way set forth the Arousing of Mindfulness > through the fourteenfold method of body-contemplation, now said, "And > now, o bhikkhus," in order to expound the ninefold method of > contemplation of feeling. > > There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as > follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant > feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." > > Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the > breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know > that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is > different. Knowledge of pleasure possessed by infants lying on their > backs and other similar kinds of knowledge of pleasure do not cast out > the belief in a being, do not root out the perception of a being, do not > become a subject of meditation and do not become the cultivation of the > Arousing of Mindfulness. But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the > belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of > meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. > Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is > wisely understood through inquiry. > > L: One might wonder how the study of citta process could facilitate this > wise understanding. As the Buddha showed in several metaphors, the more > clearly you can see your system as discrete functioning parts or events, > to that extent you can uproot the perception of a being (ego or "self"). > > Larry > 21575 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Robs K & M, Well asked and well answered. Rob M, I think you hit the nail on the head, in a way. I'm not familiar except in passing with the history of the abhidhamma, and of course have no way of knowing exactly what was and wasn't present at the creation, or what was added afterwards. Usually when the history of the various schools is cited it's as a challenge to the validity (by way of historicity) of abhidhamma. This is why I've never been particularly interested in the history itself (and because I've no scholarly 'accumulations'--thanks, by the way for 'aayuuhana'--I've been using 'anusaya' for 'accumulation'). I came some time ago to the same conclusion as yours below, but have never articulated it so well as you did when you wrote, > I do not think that this "extra stuff" contradicts anything in the > Suttas, so I don't think it can be classified as "wrong view". I > would say the same for Buddhaghosa's works as well. This is the > nature of commentaries (and why they are called "commentaries"). Such details as 'momentariness' vs. 'moments' etc. are of no significance to me at all (maybe because of my lack of detailed understanding). I suspect this may be more important if one is looking for some kind of continuous 'consciousness' or 'awareness' underlying experience--not sure. For me, though, the abhidhamma 'model' works just as well either way and either way is perfectly compatible with the suttanta/vinaya. That's how it seems to me, anyway. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: robmoult To: Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2003 4:38 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment > Hi Robert K, ... > I don't have a problem with the "extra stuff"; when I read one of > Nina's books, most of it is "extra stuff" that is extremely useful > in helping me to understand the message of the Buddha. I don't > consider it to be "wrong view", I see it as "modern commentaries". > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > --- > > Dear RobM, > > Are you saying that the Abhidhammathasangaha had wrong view. Is > > this because your book by mr Sarachchandra suggests so? . > > RobertK 21576 From: Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, Robert K (and Rob M) - In a message dated 4/24/03 4:08:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > > Dear RobM, > In the > 'Greater Discourse on the Destruction of Craving' > (Mahatankhasankhaya-sutta, majjhima Nikaya I, Mahayamaka-vagga) ... > It is because, monks, an appropriate condition arises that > consciousness is known by this or that name: if consciousness is > know by this or that name: if consciousness arises because of eye > and material shapes, it is known as seeing-consciousness; if > consciousness arises because of ear and sounds it is known as > hearing-consciousness; if consciousness arises because of nose and > smells, it is known as smelling-consciousness; if consciousness > arises because of tongue and tastes, it is known as tasting- > consciousness; if consciousness arises because of body and touches, > it is known as tactile-consciousness; if consciousness arises > because of mind and mental objects, it is known as mental > consciousness. " > ========================= Certainly hearing and seeing etc don't co-occur. But any "moment" of seeing, for example, arises gradually from a state of relative subliminality, to a peak of awareness, and back down again, grading off into the next. When there is a visual process, a whole successive series of such risings, peakings, and diminishings proceeds without gap. Such a process is a continuous process, being gap-free. According to Abhidhamma, the cittas comprising that process may differ due to changes in accompanying factors, the cetasikas. These arise gradually, peak, and diminish, along with the level of conscious awareness. The fact that an entire process is incredibly fast compared to the flow of conventional worldly objects constructed by sankharic processes doesn't turn that process into a film-frame phenomenon. Bhavanga cittas don't make much of an appearance in the Abhidhamma and none in the Sutta Pitaka, and there is no need for them. As I see it, they are unnecessarily imposed by scholars who were troubled by the empirical approach of the Buddha and wanted to impose a more analytical scheme. Now, the film-frame perspective isn't contradictory, as I see it. I have no problem with "action-at-a-distance" at all. I just don't see it as a logical necessity or as implied by the teachings in the Sutta Pitaka, or even (probably) by the teachings of the 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) 21577 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: While they were officially accepting only of the suttas, I've read (from Kalupahana) that they did engage in some innovation of their own. Specifically, they were the ones, more than the Theravadins, who adopted the pointillistic, David Hume-like notion of momentariness, so that events proceed as a sequence of separate, instantaneous point-frames, like the frames of a film, with sharp, not fuzzy or gradating, edges. That is, they were among the founders of a position that some believe is characteristic of Theravada Abhidhamma, and moreso, of the Theravadin commentaries, but which is not put forward in the Sutta Pitaka. [Kalupahana, BTW, does not attribute the discreteness interpretation to the Abhidhamma, but to (parts of) the commentaries. I give no comment on this myself, not having directly read from the Abhidhamma Pitaka.] In the suttas, the term 'samaya', meaning "time" or "occasion", as in "on that occasion", is used, where the sense is that of an imprecise interval of time without sharp boundaries, rather than a discrete point-moment of time. The Sautrantikas seem to have been pluralistic realists, with a sort of billiard-ball view of causality, whereas the perspective of "occasions" and "conditionality" put forward in the suttas allows for the avoidance of a stop-motion interpretation of reality. The terminology of the suttas allows for the content of later occasions to arise as it does merely upon the occurence of, and conditioned by, earlier conditions having come into place, but without the necessity of presuming contiguous, discrete point-moments. With metta, Howard KKT: What you wrote about the Sautrantika is correct. But I'm always unclear about the position of the Theravada on those matters. An excerpt from A History of Indian Buddhism From Sakyamuni to Early Mahayana by Hirakawa Akira, p.118: In the discussions of Buddhism found in Brahmanical philosophical texts, the Mahayana Madhyamika and Yogacara schools and the Nikaya Buddhist Vaibhasika (Sarvastivadin) and Sautrantika schools are often mentioned. Vedanta scholars probably chose these four schools of Buddhism because they represented a variety of positions and could be presented in a diagrammatic fashion. The Sarvastivadins were said to regard the external world as real (bahyartha-pratyaksatva). The Sautrantikas were said to regard the external world as having only an instantaneous existence and thus to have argued that its existence could be recognized only through inference (bahyarthanumeyatva). The Yogacarins were said to recognize only consciousness as existing and to deny the existence of the external world (bahyarthasunyatva). Finally, the Madhyamikas claimed that both subject and object were nonsubstantial (sarvasunyatva). What is the position of the Theravada regarding the external world ? (Does the 'computer' exist or not ? :-)) Metta, KKT 21578 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, Swee Boon and all, Pardon me for jumping in. Jon, I would think that you had hit the point with the following: Concepts are simply assembled ('created') by the mind from already experienced sense-door impressions (with the help of the recollection of previously assembled concepts). http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21179 I would say that what is assembled is impermanent. This is how I see it: Clinging to concept leads to dukkha. Seeing concept thus: "This is impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." one grows dispassionate toward concept. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Swee Boon > > --- nidive wrote: > Hi Jonothan Abbott, > > > > But how can the abandonment of desire/clinging to concepts be > > discerned if concepts cannot be "directly known" as suggested by > > Sarah? > > I'm not sure exactly what you have in mind by 'the abandonment of > desire/clinging to concepts'. However, I'll make some general > comments on desire/clinging and insight, as I understand it, and hope > that it's to the point. > > Desire/clinging is one of the conditioned phenomena that make up the > five aggregates, and hence its characteristic can be directly known > by understanding that is of the level of insight. > > When desire/clinging appears and is directly known, its > characteristic is the same regardless of the object of the desire or > clinging. > > Likewise, when desire/clinging is absent, that too can be known by > insight. > > Clinging to concepts is an aspect of wrong view. This particular > kind of attachment is eradicated by the stream-winner. To my > understanding, the stream winner still conceptualises, but does so > without wrong view, that is, without taking the concept for being > something. > > I hope this relates to your comment. > > > I think it is better to treat concepts as under the aggregate of > > fabrications. Concepts are fabricated things anyway. They depend on > > the ultimate reality of fabrications. Concepts "arise" and "fall > > away" together with the ultimate reality of fabrications. > > > > I think in one sense concepts are real. In another sense, they are > > not real. I hope you get what I mean. > > I think I know what you mean when you say there is a sense in which > concepts s are real. We all tend to think in terms of concepts as a > kind of 'thing', whereas in fact they are not. They are mere > conceptualisations of the mind. There is no 'thing' to be made up > (fabricated) at that moment. > > The 4th aggregate (sankhara khandha) has a very specific meaning. In > the suttas it is described as the mental factor of intention > (cetana), while in the Abhidhamma this is further elaborated to mean > all the mental factors not encompassed by the 2nd and 3rd aggregates > of feeling and perception. > > "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...." > S. XXII, 56 (as quoted in Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary' under > the entry for 'Khandha') > > (The expression 'sankhara khandha' is translated by Nyanatiloka here > as 'group of mental formations'; Bhikkhu Bodhi translates it as > 'aggregate of volitional formations'.) > > To my understanding, neither the sutta nor the Abhidhamma definition > allows for concepts to be regarded as forming part of sankhara > khandha. > > > I do not think that the distinction between concepts and ultimate > > realities is that crucial. Otherwise the Buddha would have merely > > taught the ultimate teaching. > > I'm not sure that I agree with the logic here. Different listeners > were capable of responding to the teachings presented in different > ways. A vast proportion of the teachings can be seen as the same > thing expressed in different ways (e.g., khandhas vs. dhatus vs. > ayatanas vs. nama and rupa vs. citta, cetasika, rupa and nibbana) > > Later in your post you say: > > Why would the Buddha > > present both conventional and ultimate teachings in one single > > sutta? > > A similar situation applies here. The truths taught by the Buddha > are ultimate truths, but the teaching about those truths is presented > in the suttas using both conventional expression and ultimate > expression. I gave an example of this is a recent post to Victor > which you will have seen. > > My views, anyway. > > Jon 21579 From: Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, KKT (and Rob M) - In a message dated 4/24/03 8:50:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > KKT: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. > It's very interesting. > > I have a question: > > Do we need to <>a cetasika > while noting it? > > We know that rupa, citta, cetasika > arise and fall away very quickly. > > Therefore the fact of <>makes > the process of noting too late, doesn't it? > > For example: > > By inadvertence, we touch the stove, > the sensation is so acute that > we remove right away our hand. > > We don't need to name it <>:-)) > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > > ============================ It seems to me that wordless recognition is a function that can be trained, and that pariyatti can play a role in that. I agree with you that attempting to think about what one is observing at the time one is observing it is is an exercise in futility that actually interferes with proper attention. But sa~n~na conditioned in part by correct study has a better chance at being (or leading to) pa~n~na than does sa~n~na not so trained. This, for example, is why it is worthwhile to study the Buddha's suttas in which he teaches dependent arising, the four noble truths, the three characteristics, etc. 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) 21580 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:19am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: Co mahaaraahulovadasutta, no 9. Commentary Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, no. 9 Relevant passage of the sutta: ``katamaa ca, raahula, aakaasadhaatu? aakaasadhaatu siyaa ajjhattikaa, siyaa baahiraa. katamaa ca, raahula, ajjhattikaa aakaasadhaatu? ya.m ajjhatta.m paccatta.m aakaasa.m aakaasagata.m upaadinna.m, seyyathida.m -- ka.n.nacchidda.m naasacchidda.m² "And what, Rahula, is the space element? The space element may be internal or external. And what, Rahula, is the internal space element? That, internally, and individually, is space, empty, and clung to, namely: the orifice of the ear, nose, mouth.² Commentary: eva.m kirassa ahosi -- ``raahulassa attabhaava.m nissaaya chandaraago uppanno, It must have occurred to him thus: ³Since for Rahula attachment has arisen on account of the body, he.t.thaa cassa sa"nkhepena ruupakamma.t.thaana.m kathita.m. I have explained to him before in brief (sa²nkhepena) the meditation subject on materiality. idaanissaapi dvicattaaliisaaya aakaarehi attabhaava.m viraajetvaa visa"nkharitvaa ta.mnissita.m chandaraaga.m Now, after I have analysed the body in fortytwo ways and I have made him get rid of (visa"nkharitvaa) attachment that is dependent on it, anuppattidhammata.m aapaadessaamii''ti. I shall now make him understand what he did not grasp according to the truth.² atha aakaasadhaatu.m kasmaa vitthaaresiiti? Why did he then explain the element of space? upaadaaruupadassanattha.m. In order to show the derived material phenomena. he.t.thaa hi cattaari mahaabhuutaaneva kathitaani, na upaadaaruupa.m. Before he had spoken about the four great Elements, not about the derived physical phenomena. tasmaa iminaa mukhena ta.m dassetu.m aakaasadhaatu.m vitthaaresi. Therefore, in order to show these he explained in detail the element of space. apica ajjhattikena aakaasena paricchinnaruupampi paaka.ta.m hoti. He made known also the matter that is delimitated by the internal space. ³aakaasena paricchinna.m ruupa.m yaati vibhuutata.m. He proceeds (yaati) to clarify matter that is delimitated by space. tasseva.m aavibhaavattha.m, ta.m pakaasesi naayako. the Guide makes known what is unclear of this.² ettha pana purimaasu taava catuusu dhaatuusu ya.m vattabba.m, ta.m mahaahatthipadopame vuttameva. But here what should be said with regard to the preceding four (great) elements, that was said in the ³Discourse on the great Elephant¹s Footprint². aakaasadhaatuya.m aakaasagatanti aakaasabhaava.m gata.m. As to the words ³with regard to the element of space, connected with (gata) space², this means, having the characteristic of space. upaadinnantiaadinna.m gahita.m paraama.t.tha.m, sariira.t.thakanti attho. clung to, means, grasped and misapprehended, it means, belonging to the bodily frame. ka.n.nacchiddanti ma.msalohitaadiihi asamphu.t.thaka.n.navivara.m. cavity in the ear, meaning, opening in the ear, not touched by flesh and blood, etc. naasacchiddaadiisupi eseva nayo. With regard to cavity in the nose etc. this is also (according to) this system (of teaching). ***** Remarks: In the first book of the Abhidhamma (Dhammasangani) § 638, aakaasa is listed among the derived physical phenomena. There are 28 kinds of physical phenomena, four of which are the four principle rupas or mahaabhuuta ruupas, of solidity (earth), cohesion (water), heat (fire) and motion (wind). The rupas other than these four are the 24 derived rupas, upaadaaruupa. These arise in dependence on the four great elements. Sound, for example, is a derived rupa arising in a group of rupas consisting among others of the four great elements. Sound does not float in the air by itself, it needs the four great elements and other rupas. We read about space in the Dhammasangani: In Buddhaghosa's Commentary to the first Book of the Abhidhamma (Atthasaalinii, tr as Expositor, 326) and also in Buddhaghosa's Visuddhimagga (XIV, 63) more details are given as to its function. We read in the "Visuddhimagga": Nina. 21581 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 10:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 79, It feels. Abhidhamma teaching. Dear Larry and all, this passage of the Way on feeling I find most helpful. See below, interspersed. op 23-04-2003 00:55 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > There, the meaning of "pleasant feeling" = sukham vedanam, is as > follows: The bhikkhu when experiencing a bodily or mental pleasant > feeling knows, "I experience a pleasant feeling." > Certainly, while they experience a pleasant feeling, in sucking the > breast and on similar occasions, even infants lying on their backs know > that they experience pleasure. But this meditator's knowledge is > different. .... N: This reminds us that just noting feeling is not the same as understanding the characteristic of feeling. It is just as we read under mindfulness of body, about the passage:I am standing, etc. and he knows that he is standing. Jackals also know this, this is not awareness and understanding. We are bound to make mistakes in this area and take a quick noting for awareness. There may be a subtle clinging to thinking of or concentration on feeling. But a degree of detachment in the development of understanding is essential right from the beginning. Otherwise we shall never know that "it feels", no "I" who feels. The way: But the knowledge of this bhikkhu casts out the > belief in a being, uproots the perception of a being, is a subject of > meditation and is the cultivation of the Arousing of Mindfulness. > Indeed, the knowledge meant here is concerned with experience that is > wisely understood through inquiry. N: listening to the Dhamma, inquiry, asking questions, consideration of the Dhamma, these are conditions for the growth of understanding. The way: Who feels? No being or person. Whose is the feeling? Not of a being or > person. Owing to what is there the feeling? Feeling can arise with > (certain) things -- forms, sounds, smells and so forth -- as objects. > That bhikkhu knows, therefore, that there is a mere experiencing of > feeling after the objectifying of a particular pleasurable or painful > physical basis or of one of indifference. N: Feeling arises because of its own conditions: the objects are among these conditions. Also the physical base, vatthu, is a condition. Feeling is very complex. It is difficult to know the difference between bodily painful feeling arising on account of an object impinging on the bodysense, and the unpleasant mental feeling accompanying the citta rooted in aversion (dosa) which may arise shortly afterwards. Happy and unhappy (mental) feelings can in their turn condition physical phenomena. It is thanks to the Abhidhamma that we can learn what we do not know, otherwise we may believe that we have a great deal of understanding, we may accumulate even more conceit than we have already. The Abhidhamma shows how intricate realities and their conditions are. The way: (There is no ego that > experiences) because there is no doer or agent [kattu] besides a bare > process [dhamma]. The word "bare" indicates that the process is > impersonal. The words of the Discourse, "I experience (or feel)", form a > conventional expression, indeed, for that process of impersonal feeling. > It should be understood that the bhikkhu knows that with the > objectification of a property or basis he experiences a feeling. N: There are bare processes going on, they are all proceeding according to their own conditions. It depends on the individual to what extent he wants to study the details of the Abhidhamma, but it is beneficial to keep in mind some basic principles. The Abhidhamma teaches that all realities of our daily life are mere elements, each performing their own function and proceeding according to their own conditions. The four great elements (solidity, cohesion, heat, and motion) perform each their own function, as is also taught in the suttas, such as the Maha-Rahulovada sutta. We digest our food because these elements perform each their own function, it has nothing to do with us. Nobody uses a ladle to push the food through, nobody lights a fire in the stomach so that heat causes our food inside to be digested. There are cavities and holes in the belly, and these have a function, nothing to do with us. Also cittas perform each their own function. The cittas that arise in processes proceed according to conditions and arise in a specific order, nobody can change this order and ask cittas to stop or to slow down. The cetasikas that accompany cittas each perform their own function, they are mere elements. Understanding realities as elements each performing their own function, as taught in detail in the Abhidhamma, can be our guiding principle in the development of vipassana. Sati of satipatthana has the function of being mindful of an object, and panna has the function of understanding. Right from the beginning we should see them as elements performing their own functions. This leads to abandoning of the idea of "I am practising, I am developing vipassana". Vipassana, insight, develops according to its own conditions in different stages. There is no person to be found who meditates or tries to concentrate on specific namas and rupas. As I said before, the word yogavacara, meditator, means the citta that develops insight, not a person. It is very momentary. If there is only a moment of sati and panna, which is right, devoid of an idea of self who is guiding, this can be accumulated, so that there will be conditions again for their arising. We should not underestimate the force of panna that is accumulated. The dependant origination and also hetu and phala we discussed before can only be understood when stages of insight have been reached accordingly, not before. At the second stage of insight dhammas can be understood more clearly as conditioned realities. Before that stage is reached we can only have intellectual understanding of conditions, of hetu and phala. Nina. 21582 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] transl. Vinaya Co. and Pali text. Dear Sarah, Thank you very much, I shall order it. Very interesting what you write about. Here is a short text for memorizing Pali you may like: Nina. op 24-04-2003 10:49 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > > It is a very useful volume and a good translation (easy to read) by 21583 From: m. nease Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 4:31 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities > Clinging to concepts is an aspect of wrong view. This particular > kind of attachment is eradicated by the stream-winner. To my > understanding, the stream winner still conceptualises, but does so > without wrong view, that is, without taking the concept for being > something. This makes sense to me, but I can't put my finger on 'clinging to concepts' as an aspect of wrong view. Bhikkhu Bodhi's guide to The Unwholesome Factors, p. 84 CMA has it as: "Di.t.thi here means seeing wrongly. Its characteristic is unwise (unjustified) interpretation of things. Its function is to preassume [I like this bit--the 'a priori'--mn]. It is manifested as a wrong interpretation or belief. Its proximate cause is unwillingness to see the noble ones (ariya) and so on." Do you extrapolate 'clinging to concepts' from this, or is it from a different source? Thanks, mike 21584 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 2:21pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: Thank you for sharing your thoughts. > It's very interesting. > > I have a question: > > Do we need to << name >> a cetasika > while noting it? > > We know that rupa, citta, cetasika > arise and fall away very quickly. > > Therefore the fact of << naming >> makes > the process of noting too late, doesn't it? > > For example: > > By inadvertence, we touch the stove, > the sensation is so acute that > we remove right away our hand. > > We don't need to name it << hot >> :-)) > ===== "Seeing things as they truly are" does not mean analyzing the current citta and listing the concomittant cetasikas. "Seeing things as they truly are" means having a habit of reacting to what is presented to us based on the object being anicca, dukkha and anatta. If we like what we see, this is fertile soil for lobha to take root. If we dislike what we see, this is fertile soil for dosa to take root. If we ignore what we see, this is fertile soil for moha to take root. The kind of soil that does not allow lobha, dosa or moha to take root is seeing what is presented to us as anicca, dukha and anatta. So then, why do we spend all this time learning lists of cetasikas? Analyzing mind states helps us intellectually understand the truth of anatta. We break the mind state into citta and so many cetasikas and can see intellectually that none of the pieces has any "self". It therefore makes sense that, since none of the components has any "self", the whole has has no "self". The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - these are states that are good." The list of the Dhammasangani does not include cetasikas such as desire (chanda), decision (adhimokkha), attention (manasikara), neutrality of mind (tatramajjhattata), compassion (karuna), appreciative joy (mudita), and the three abstinences (right speech, right action, right livelihood). Again, this supports my earlier point that the serious student of Abhidhamma should know the difference between the Abhidhamma and the Abhidhammathasangaha. Did Anuruddha get the list of cetasikas exactly correct? Are there exactly 52? Certainly the canonical Abhidhammatha Pitaka does not support this position (i.e. *EXACTLTY* correct, *EXACTLY* 52 cetasikas). It is true that the Abhidhammathasangaha does not contradict the Abhidhamma Canon, but it "adds stuff in" (in this case, it combined certain cetasiksas from the Dhammasangani, it added some cetasiksas to an open-ended list and it made an open-ended list to be closed). What if Anuruddha got it wrong? What is there are not exactly 52 cetasikas? Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal. What is important is seeing mental states as non-self and supporting an intellectual understanding of non-self through analysis of mind- states into citta and a bunch of cetasikas (each of which is non- self). Does this make sense to you? Metta, Rob M :-) 21585 From: Michael Newton Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 1:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya --- buddhatrue wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael > Newton > wrote: > > > > Greetings and Salutations to the Noble Sangha; > > > > The vinaya of the Early Buddhists prohibits monks > from > > going to battlefields during wars.Not killing is > > central to Buddhism.If a monk killed human beings- > > or supported-the killing of human beings-that monk > > would be disrobed. > > There seems to be convincing scriptural passages > > against supporting wars which would apply to both > > Monks and Lay Buddhists. > > Wars begin with ignorance,which supports greed,and > > fear,and hatred. > > There are non-violent alternatives for dealing > with > > the issues.This is what a buddhist would do. > > A Buddhist would not support war. > > MAY ALL BEINGS BE FREE FROM SUFFERING,MICHAEL > > Hi Michael, > > Then by your definition, the Lord Buddha wasn't a > very good > Buddhist. Please read the beginning part of this > sutta "The Last > Days of the Buddha": > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html > > Vassakara and the Lord Buddha discuss an upcoming > war against the > Vajjis. The Lord Buddha ultimately tells Vassakara > to do whatever he > sees fit in waging war against the Vajjis. The Lord > Buddha, contrary > to popular opinion, wasn't anti-war. > > Metta, James > Hi James, Thank you for your clarification,I have looked at the Mahaparinibbana Sutta,and I would refer you to line 5,just before line 6.The Buddha,simply responds to brahmin Vassakara,who asked,permission to depart,then tells him,to depart as it seems fit to him.This is simply a goodbye,and doesn't appear to be a permission for war.Maybe I stand to be corrected.Check that last section out.Thank you,for your communication. May all beings be Happy,Michael > 21586 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 3:27pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The > Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by > listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and > concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other > incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - > these are states that are good." ______________ Dear RobM, I think the Dhammasangani has considerably less than 57 cetasikas. _____________________ The list of the Dhammasangani does > not include cetasikas such as desire (chanda), decision > (adhimokkha), attention (manasikara), neutrality of mind > (tatramajjhattata), compassion (karuna), appreciative joy (mudita), > and the three abstinences (right speech, right action, right > livelihood). Again, this supports my earlier point that the serious > student of Abhidhamma should know the difference between the > Abhidhamma and the Abhidhammathasangaha. Did Anuruddha get the list > of cetasikas exactly correct? Are there exactly 52? Certainly the > canonical Abhidhammatha Pitaka does not support this position (i.e. > *EXACTLTY* correct, *EXACTLY* 52 cetasikas). It is true that the > Abhidhammathasangaha does not contradict the Abhidhamma Canon, but > it "adds stuff in" (in this case, it combined certain cetasiksas > from the Dhammasangani, it added some cetasiksas to an open-ended > list and it made an open-ended list to be closed). _________- You seem to be implying that Anuruddha invented this list. . The Abhidhamma (Dhammasangani) says "yevapana...dhamma" ( , or whatever other..dhammas).And this includes the ones listed by Anuruddha. These factors have all been included since long before Anuruddha. Chanda, Adhimokkha, manisikara, metta, tatramajjhattata and karuna - these are all in the list of mental factors in the Visuddhimagga (see for example XiV 133). The Visuddhimagga was written centuries before Anuruddha wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha. Nina Van gorkom http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas11.html notes about adhimokkha: "The Dhammasangani does not mention adhimokkha in its list of dhammas, but it adds:"or whatever other factors there are"(1). The Atthasalini and the Visuddhimaga classify adhimokkha among the nine "whatsoevers" (ye va panaka)."" Manasikara is also classified among the "whatsoevers". Manasikara and adhimokkha are mentioned in the "Discourse on the Uninterrupted" (Middle Length Saying III, no.111) ."" endquote. RobertK 21587 From: Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:04pm Subject: Way 80, Feeling cont. Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Feeling, continued Thus the Blessed One when expounding the non-corporeal subject of meditation after the corporeal subject of meditation, expounds it by way of feeling. For twofold is the subject of meditation: the subject of meditation of corporeality or materiality and the subject of meditation which is non-corporeal or non-material. This twofold subject of meditation is also spoken of as the laying hold of the mental and the laying hold of the material. While the Blessed One is expounding the material subject of meditation by way of brief or lengthy reflection he expounds the discernment of the four modes (or elements) of materiality [dhatu]. Both those ways of reflection are pointed out fully, in the Path of Purity. While expounding, however, the mental subject of meditation generally the Master expounds it by way of the contemplation on feeling. Threefold, indeed, is the establishing in the mental subject of meditation: by way of sense-impression, feeling and mind. How? To some meditator, indeed, when the material subject of meditation is laid hold of, when there is the first impact of mind-with-mental-characteristics on the object (or the first Apprehension of that object), the sense-impression that arises with the contacting of that object becomes clear. To another the feeling that arises with the experiencing of that object becomes clear. To yet another the consciousness that arises with the knowing of that object becomes clear. When sense-impression becomes clear, not only does sense-impression arise; together with that sense-impression, arise feeling, perception, volition and consciousness. When feeling becomes clear the other four too arise. Also when consciousness becomes clear the other four arise. The bhikkhu, on reflecting thus: "Dependent on what is this group of five things?" knows as follows: "Dependent on the (coarse) corporeal base (vatthu)." That coarse body [karaja kaya] about which it is said: "And indeed this consciousness of mine is depending on, is bound up with this body," that, in its actual nature consists of the four great physical things, the four great primaries, and the physical qualities sourcing from the four great primaries. These physical qualities are called derived materiality. Here, the bhikkhu sees mind and body, thinking, "The (coarse) corporeal base aforesaid is body; the five beginning with sense-impression are mind." In this connection there are the five aggregates because the body is the aggregate of materiality, and the mind, the four aggregates of non-material things. There is neither a fivefold aggregation separate from the mind and body nor a mind and body separate from the fivefold aggregation. The bhikkhu who tries to find out what the cause of these five aggregates is sees that these are due to ignorance, etc. Henceforth the bhikkhu lives with thorough knowledge thinking that this thing, the fivefold aggregation, is only something conditioned and includes what is produced from conditioning. It is a congeries of bare formations, indeed, of bare processes. He applies to it, by way of the mind and body that exist together with conditions, according to the gradual succession of insight-producing knowledge, the words: "impermanent,", "subject-to-suffering," and "soulless". 21588 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 4:22pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear RobM, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: "Seeing things as they truly are" does not mean analyzing the current citta and listing the concomittant cetasikas. "Seeing things as they truly are" means having a habit of reacting to what is presented to us based on the object being anicca, dukkha and anatta. If we like what we see, this is fertile soil for lobha to take root. If we dislike what we see, this is fertile soil for dosa to take root. If we ignore what we see, this is fertile soil for moha to take root. The kind of soil that does not allow lobha, dosa or moha to take root is seeing what is presented to us as anicca, dukha and anatta. So then, why do we spend all this time learning lists of cetasikas? Analyzing mind states helps us intellectually understand the truth of anatta. We break the mind state into citta and so many cetasikas and can see intellectually that none of the pieces has any "self". It therefore makes sense that, since none of the components has any "self", the whole has has no "self". < snip > What if Anuruddha got it wrong? What is there are not exactly 52 cetasikas? Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal. What is important is seeing mental states as non-self and supporting an intellectual understanding of non-self through analysis of mind- states into citta and a bunch of cetasikas (each of which is non- self). Does this make sense to you? Metta, Rob M :-) KKT: Yes, this makes sense. One of the objectives of Abhidhamma is to uproot unwholesome mental factors. Until now what you present is rather an << intellectual understanding >> of non-self through analysis of mind-states. Could you talk a little bit about Panna according to your understanding? I think Panna should be something more than a merely intellectual understanding? Thank you, RobM. Metta, KKT 21589 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:03pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Rob K, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The > > Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by > > listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and > > concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other > > incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - > > these are states that are good." > ______________ > Dear RobM, > I think the Dhammasangani has considerably less than 57 cetasikas. > _____________________ ===== I pulled out my PTS version of the Dhammasangani (1997 printing). I looked at Book I, Chapter I, paragraph 1 (page 3-4). There are 56 cetasikas listed. They are described in the following paragraphs (paragraph 2 - 57; this is how I mistakenly said 57 cetasikas). ===== > The list of the Dhammasangani does > > not include cetasikas such as desire (chanda), decision > > (adhimokkha), attention (manasikara), neutrality of mind > > (tatramajjhattata), compassion (karuna), appreciative joy > (mudita), > > and the three abstinences (right speech, right action, right > > livelihood). Again, this supports my earlier point that the > serious > > student of Abhidhamma should know the difference between the > > Abhidhamma and the Abhidhammathasangaha. Did Anuruddha get the > list > > of cetasikas exactly correct? Are there exactly 52? Certainly the > > canonical Abhidhammatha Pitaka does not support this position > (i.e. > > *EXACTLTY* correct, *EXACTLY* 52 cetasikas). It is true that the > > Abhidhammathasangaha does not contradict the Abhidhamma Canon, but > > it "adds stuff in" (in this case, it combined certain cetasiksas > > from the Dhammasangani, it added some cetasiksas to an open- ended > > list and it made an open-ended list to be closed). > _________- > You seem to be implying that Anuruddha invented this list. . ===== My belief is that Anuruddha, like Buddhaghosa, "reformatted" a lot of material available to him at the time. I suspect that Anuruddha, like Buddhaghosa, had so much respect for the material that he was working with, that he took pains not to introduce too many of his own interpretations. It is quite possible that the list of cetasikas was fixed at 52 before Anuruddha wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha, but that fixing the quantity at 52 is not in the Dhammasangi or the other six books of the Abhidhamma Canon. Somebody in the approximately 17 centuries between the Abhidhamma Canon and Anuruddha's time fixed the quantity at 52. It might have been Anuruddha or it might have been somebody else. I don't mean to "pin the blame" on Anuruddha for "inventing this list". Metta, Rob M :-) 21590 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 5:25pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > > > > The Abhidhammathasangaha has a fixed list of 52 cetasikas. The > > > Dhammasangani (first book of the Abhidhamma Canon), starts by > > > listing cetasikas in kusala cittas; it lists 57 cetasikas and > > > concludes with the phrase, "Now these - or whatever other > > > incorporeal, causally induced states there are on that occasion - > > > > these are states that are good." > > ______________ > > Dear RobM, > > I think the Dhammasangani has considerably less than 57 cetasikas. > > _____________________ > > ===== > > I pulled out my PTS version of the Dhammasangani (1997 printing). I > looked at Book I, Chapter I, paragraph 1 (page 3-4). There are 56 > cetasikas listed. They are described in the following paragraphs > (paragraph 2 - 57; this is how I mistakenly said 57 cetasikas). > > __ Dear Rob, I don't have the Dhammasangani with me but I think there is less. Remember some are repeated. For example Vitakka ( as vitakka and as samma sankappa). Saddha (as saddhindriya and as saddhabala ) Alobha (as alobha and as anabhijjha). Viriya has 4 terms: as viriyindriya, as sammavayama, as viriyabala, and as paggaha. RobertK 21591 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi KKT, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > KKT: Yes, this makes sense. > > One of the objectives of > Abhidhamma is to uproot > unwholesome mental factors. > > Until now what you present > is rather an << intellectual > understanding >> of non-self > through analysis of mind-states. > > Could you talk a little bit about > Panna according to your understanding? > > I think Panna should be something > more than a merely intellectual understanding? People might think that I paid you to ask such a leading question that fits perfectly into my next posting (slides 13-16) :-) Metta, Rob M :-) 21592 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 8:27pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 13-16 for comment Why do people study the Abhidhamma? Slide Contents ============== A stick figure of a man: Study ----- Leg: Nature of mind - Greed (lobha) - Hatred (dosa) - Delusion (moha) Leg: Characterisitics of existence - Impermanence (anicca) - Suffering (dukkha) - No Self (anattā) Lower Torso: Five Aggregates - How the mind and the body interact Practice -------- Arm: Giving (Dāna) - Do good Arm: Virtue (Sīla) - Avoid evil Upper Torso (with a heart): Meditation (Bhāvanā) - Purify the mind Realization ----------- Head: Wisdom (Paññā) Speaker Notes ============= The foundation of the Abhidhamma is an understanding of the nature of reality. This includes the nature of mind, the three characteristics of existence and the realities which constitute a being – the five aggregates. Abhidhamma provides a framework for the understanding of our everyday experience and this understanding is a condition for the arising of insight. The mind plays a central role in Buddhism. The first verses of the Dhammapada: "Mind is the forerunner of all evil states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with a wicked mind, because of that, suffering follows one, even as the wheel follows the hoof of the draught-ox. Mind is the forerunner of all good states. Mind is chief; mind-made are they. If one speaks or acts with a pure mind, because of that, happiness follows one, even as one's shadow that never leaves." "Avoid evil, do good, purify the mind, that is the teaching of the Buddhas." Abhidhamma is the study of the mind, and this will lead to a more effective practice and eventually a "trained mind". The Bhumija Sutta (Mn126) explains that results are obtained, not because of strong desire for results, but rather because of proper practice. The practice of dāna, sīla and bhāvanā will l= ead to wisdom. Abhidhamma is meant for practical use in following the Eightfold Path, rather than for abstract theorizing. We start by studying the nature of reality. We follow this with putting the theory into practice through dāna, sīla and bhāvanā. The correct pr= actice will lead us to realization or wisdom. 21593 From: robmoult Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Abhidhammathasangha, Abhidhamma Canon and Heisenberg Hi Rob K (and all), If you ask the vast majority of people to explain their concept of an atom, you will get descriptions of minature solar systems with the nucleus of the atom as the sun and the electrons as planets. This is what is explained to us in high school. A "serious student" of physics knows that this model is a simplification and sees electrons (and all matter), not as discrete particles but rather as probability waves. The high school science book gives an introduction to the subject. The author simplifies so that the intended audience can understand; knowing that the "serious student" will eventually discard this simple model as they progress in their studies. Why did Anuruddha write the Abhidhammathasangaha? He was writing an introduction to the Abhidhamma to make it easier to learn/memorize. I view Anuruddha as being like the author of that high school science textbook. I feel that a "serious student" of the Abhidhamma has to be ready (at some point) to tackle the Abhidhamma Canon and recognize that the Abhidhammathasangaha is a simpified version of something much bigger. It must be simplified; the Abhidhammatthasangaha is only about 50 pages long, compared to the thousands of pages in the Abhidhamma Canon. Speaking of modern physics, one of my favourite quotes is by Werner Heisenberg (one of the creaters of quantum mechanics). He said, "The 'path' comes into existence only when we observe it." It sounds like a very Buddhist kind of thing to say, but Heisenberg was, in fact talking about the path of movement of atomic particles! Metta, Rob M :-) 21594 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: The Vinaya --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > > Hi James, > > Thank you for your clarification,I have looked at the > Mahaparinibbana Sutta,and I would refer you to line > 5,just before line 6.The Buddha,simply responds to > brahmin Vassakara,who asked,permission to depart,then > tells him,to depart as it seems fit to him.This is > simply a goodbye,and doesn't appear to be a permission > for war.Maybe I stand to be corrected.Check that last > section out.Thank you,for your communication. > May all beings be Happy,Michael Hi Michael, Your interpretation of the Buddha's words is really far out, I must say. Why would the Buddha, as you paraphrase, "then tells him, to depart as it seems fit to him"? Was he suggesting that maybe Vassakara could leave him hopping upside down on one hand? Or maybe both hands? Or maybe he could have moonwalked out of the Blessed One's presence? ;-). Please understand, no one would say that kind of thing to someone unless it had a deeper meaning. I really don't want to seem sarcastic to you, because you are a really sweet person, but I don't know any other way to put it! Wake up and smell the coffee! The Lord Buddha told Vassakara to go ahead and conspire against the Vajjis in order to wage war against them... ultimately he knew that Vassakara and his King wouldn't be successful anyway. But why didn't he just state that outright? Because he wasn't anti-war like you suggest; he didn't get out his peace beads, put on his tie-dye shirt, and make a stance for no more war anywhere! If you know what I mean… but maybe you won't. Honestly, I have had this type of discussion many times with those Buddhists who are 'VEGETARIANS', and believe everyone else should be also, but get upset when I tell them that the Lord Buddha wasn't vegetarian nor did he believe in that! Well! Throw the baby out with the bathwater!! ;-)) Believe it or not, any kind of peace reguires more toughness and suffering than war does! Metta, James 21595 From: Sarah Date: Thu Apr 24, 2003 11:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > In the "Analysis of Concepts" chapter p. 325 in CMA I don't see where it > says mental images are concepts. ..... OK, what is says is “what remains are concepts” (tato avasesa pa~n~natti)apart from the 5 aggregates and nibbana. Which aggregate would you classify mental image under if you don’t think it is a concept? ..... >The reference to jhana is unclear but I > take it to be confined to counterpart signs only and not mental images > such as occur in dreams and memories. Certainly the shape of a computer > or the red light of a stop sign are not concepts any more than the sound > of speech is a concept. ..... If we consider the classification of 28 rupas, visible object and sound are included, but ‘shape of a computer’ or ‘red light of a stop sign’ are not. These would definitely be included under the various kinds of concepts as I understand. Furthermore, I believe it can be tested at this moment that seeing consciousness merely sees visible object and hearing hears sound. ..... > Concepts are dhammas so they are real. ..... ‘Dhammas’ have different meanings in different contexts. In some contexts, the word includes concepts. This is a quote about just a few of them from another post of mine. Cy refers to the commentary to the Mulapariyaya Sutta: >>We read further about the various meanings of dhamma (here translated as ‘things’) in the suttas: “Cy. The word “dhamma” is found used in the following senses: the scriptures (pariyatti), the (Four Noble) Truths (sacca), concentration (samaadhi), wisdom (pa~n~na), nature (pakati), things endowed with a specific nature (sabhava), emptiness (su~n~nataa), merit (pu~n~na), a disciplinary offense (aapatti), the knowable (~neyya) etc.”<< ..... >I think the expression "no > own-nature" simply means there is no hardness in the concept of > hardness, for example. To say the *meaning* of a concept has no > own-nature is _not_ to say the *referent* of a concept has no > own-nature. Hardness has its own nature (characteristic) but "hardness" > is a concept. I think there is considerable confusion in the texts > regarding this point. ..... Comy to Mulapariyaya Sutta: “here the word occurs in the sense of things endowed with a specific nature. This is the word-meaning: “They bear their own characteristics, thus they are dhammas” (attano lakkha.na”m dhaarentii ti dhammaa”. Sub Comy clarifies further that concepts, “mere expressions of conventional discourse (lokavohaaramatta), cannot be discovered as ultiamtely real actualities (saccika.t.thaparamatthato), whereas those with sabhava can. I think the confusion may be in our minds;-) Just to clarify, at the moment of touching ‘hardness’, the hardness has sabhava or the characteristic of pathavi that is directly experienced and can at that instant be the object of satipatthana. Now we’re having a discussion about ‘hardness’ and in this case it is the concept of ‘hardness’, just as it would be a concept if it were ‘shape of a computer’ or ‘red stop sign’ being considered. In these cases, the ‘unreal’ object or pannatti has no characteristic or nature. ..... >Some concepts have a real referent and some do > not. .... yes. .... Some concepts are true but have no paramatta dhamma as a referent > (impermanence, for example). ..... Impermanence is a characteristic (as in tri-lakhana) of reality. It is not a concept, except now when we consider it. ..... >All concepts have no own nature. In other > words, their meaning can't be experienced. We can't experience "Sarah" > or the *meaning* of "hardness" ..... Correct ..... >but we can talk to you and experience > hardness. ..... We think we can talk to a person, but whenever there is this impression there are many concepts involved. As we know from ‘Way’, talking consists of various cittas, cetasikas and rupas. Still, I think I know what you are saying. ..... > I don't see abhidhamma making a big issue out of the discrimination of > concept and reality ..... I think that mostly the texts are just looking at realities - khandhas, ayatanas, dhatus and so on. The reason we need to ‘make a big issue’ is that concept and reality are confused and so even when we read about rupas or sankhara khandha for example, there is an idea of concepts in these classifications of realities. Rupa khandha consists of the 28 rupas, sankhara khandha consists of 50 cetasikas, but we need to understand what these rupas and cetasikas are in order to undestand there is no computer, stop sign or any other concept included. No beings or things - this is the truth of anatta. ..... >but most meditative traditions do use this > discrimination in a conventional sense to get beginning meditators to > recognize discursive thinking and wandering mind. So there is no reason > why abhidhammikas shouldn't engage in a similar practice. I think it is > a beginning step in recognizing thinking as not self. However, as a > philosophical issue, there are many subtle and controversial points. I > don't find it particularly helpful to say concepts don't exist or are > not real. ..... I think that what is important is the direct knowledge and understanding of what is real or experienced at this moment. This is the way to eradicated any idea of self and in the process it becomes apparent that concepts don’t exist. ..... > It is my understanding that A. Sujin teaches this discrimination by > focusing mainly on the sense of touch, probably because touch isn't > mixed with concept very much. A similar emphasis on touch can be seen in > the preliminary stages of anapanasati. ..... I’m not quite sure where these comments about what A.Sujin teaches are coming from??? I think it’s helpful to hear and consider all realities, but the reason that we read so much in the texts about visible object, sound, taste, odour, hardness/softness, temperature, pressure/movement is because these are the rupas that are readily apparent. However, any focus or wish/attempt/intention to be mindful or focus on any of them in particular, would merely suggest more clinging or an idea of selection as I see it. I also think we can see more and more subtle ideas of self-view at times of selecting an object. Controversial, I realise ;-) ..... >I think it would be beneficial > to extend this discrimination to the other khandhas but trying to be > absolutely paramatta in one's analysis would just lead to confusion and > be useless. The main idea is that feeling, recognizing, and intending > could be separated from concept. ..... As panna develops, there is less and less confusion and no need to try and be ‘absolutely paramatta’ or anything else. As you suggest, these various mental factors can be known as they are (distinct from concepts). I also think the careful considering and reflecting that you (and everyone else) are doing in your posts is very helpful and cannot be underestimated in terms of the light it will shed on all these phenomena. ..... >Even a little bit of looseness could > result in seeing "this feeling is not self" or "this concept is not > self", for example. That is the main point, imo. ..... I’m not sure I’m quite clear here, so I’ll let it pass. You ask another leading question which I think I’ll put in a follow-up post as I know I’m already past my Larry-limit with this one;-) Apologies for the delay and also for not replying in your preferred format with 100% trim;-) Metta, Sarah ====== 21596 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 0:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Larry, cont. > Is there anything you would care to share regarding A. Sujin's approach > or your own experience with this practice? ..... Speaking personally, A.Sujin has been my guide or sign-post over the years, as well a greatest friend and inspiration in all regards. I don’t consider (and nor does she) an ‘A.Sujin approach’, though I understand why you or others might. For me, she is merely pointing out what is evident in the texts under our noses if we care to investigate. She definitely does not encourage attachment or dependence on her in anyway or any ‘approach’ being named after her;-) In my case, unless I'm directly quoting her or mention I'm summarising something I've just heard, what I say is according to what I understand and wouldn't wish her or anyone else to be held responsible for any of my mistakes or misunderstandings of the Teachings;-) Investigating, checking and careful considering whilst understanding the value of all kinds of kusala is perhaps how I’d consider the practice. The greatest kusala (wholesome state) is of course the understanding and detachment from the reality conditioned at this moment. I think this is incredibly liberating - liberating because there need not be any other time or any other reality. Whatever our lifestyle or circumstances there are namas and rupas appearing now and the opportunity to really understand the Buddha’s teachings. Did I answer satisfactorily? If not please ask more. ..... > It is my understanding that A. Sujin teaches this discrimination by > focusing .... ..... I laughed to myself just now as I replied to the comment, because I’ve just received a hostile letter from a parent (whom I’ve never met) accusing me of discrimination, a real SARS buzz-word here at the moment. It's the first time in my career I've ever been accused of this. In brief, the parent is a doctor in an ICU unit in one of the large public hospitals here, desperately and valiantly trying to contain the SARS spread. Each day we here about numbers of front-line staff falling sick themselves. She wished her daughter (like others, now out of school for weeks) to join one of my classes, re-starting today. Only having made all the arrangements, belatedly and after my probing, did she inform me of her position. I discussed it with Jon (who of course informed me of the legal implications from other parents if I put their children at obvious extra risk) and I considered the nervous states we’re all already in and my responsibility to the children I already take care of. So with much regret I told her I wouldn’t accept her daughter and she’s now threatening her own campaign of action against my discrimination, including letters to the press. Besides using this as an excuse for keeping a few friends posted on the current situation here, it’s a good opportunity for me to reflect further on the dhamma and practice you ask about. I went off to Tai-chi yesterday evening feeling quite stressed and forgetting all my steps after just finding out about it on the phone and feeling unhappy about any decision I might reach. Again, it is the thinking and proliferating that is the problem. The worry, aversion and other unwholesome states rather than the ‘story’ or the possible, unknown future akusala vipaka. There are so many opportunities for kusala and it can show in the way one responds. Opportunities sometimes just for equanimity in face of hostility. Kindness and compassion for those who are working on the front-line and who are obviously stressed out. Different moments of seeing and hearing, no personality - just different ever-changing namas and rupas and so much ignorance and wrong view giving rise to the illusion of a being or person acting this or that way. I hope this just gives some indication of how I don't see the practice as in anyway separate from daily life however it unfolds, usually quite unpredictably in a conventional sense but always consisting of just the same paramattha dhammas (absolute realities)as taught by the Buddha. Metta, Sarah p.s if you or anyone else would like to listen to a few tapes of discussion with A.Sujin in order to come to your own conclusions, pls contact me or Sukin off-list. 21597 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:07am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Rob, You ask what is wisdom (panna). That is an interesting question from the point view of Dhamma. It is different from knowlege, which wehave accumulated through, reading, listening and discussing. All knowledge is of the past. If one talks of the future, or of some thing one does not know, it will be based on the knowlge which is of the past.No thought is new. Wisdom(panna) is not the understanding, but realising or being aware of a truth,by oneself. It is knowing the impermanance, unsatisfactoryness, and no-self, not according to what we have read or heard, but but through a sudden awakening to the truth about it. What one has realised by wisdom cannot be related to another, because the language we use being conceptual, the words are inadequate to describe it. Wisdom(panna)is a mental awakening to a truth. One cannot transfer wisdom to another by way of knowledge, as one who has no knowlege of it, will not understand it the same way, as the one who lealised it. It is a sudden awakening to it. Like awakening to Satori in Zen. In satori it is said that if there is no element of suddenness, it is not satori. We have of course instances of it in Buddhist teachings. Venerable Ananda, was doing walking meditation and being tired wanted to lay down. He took his legs on to the bed and was about to lay his head on the pillow, when he attained the state of arahat. Patachar, saw the water with which she had washed her feet trickle down and disappear on to the earth and was awakened to the truth. Even Lord Buddha did not explain what Nirvana is, he left it for us to realize. He did not even say what exactly happened at the foot of the Bodhi tree, awakening to panna...the enlightenment, it is only a Buddha who could understand the wisdom of a Buddha. with metta, Yasalalaka 21598 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:14am Subject: Re: Abhidhammathasangha, Abhidhamma Canon and Heisenberg --- Dear Rob, I agree that venerable Anuruddha wrote the Abhidhammathasangaha as an introductory text. I'm not sure your comparison with atomic models as being something one discards is correct, as the knowledge as the ABh..sangaha is quite in accordance with the Abhidhamma. What I think is true is that someone might read the A..sangaha and - because of its highly compact format- draw incorrect conclusions, such as you highlighted with the book by mr. S... RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Rob K (and all), > > If you ask the vast majority of people to explain their concept of > an atom, you will get descriptions of minature solar systems with > the nucleus of the atom as the sun and the electrons as planets. > This is what is explained to us in high school. A "serious student" > of physics knows that this model is a simplification and sees > electrons (and all matter), not as discrete particles but rather as > probability waves. The high school science book gives an > introduction to the subject. The author simplifies so that the > intended audience can understand; knowing that the "serious student" > will eventually discard this simple model as they progress in their > studies. > > 21599 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 1:46am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, Well said! I agree with almost everything you have written. Where I have a bit of a problem is your focus on "suddenness". I started by Buddhist practice with Zen and this was the problem that I had at that time as well. I see the journey to "panna" as requiring 10,000 steps. The last step is the most exciting, but it cannot be made before 9,999 steps of groundwork have been done. Ananda achieved enlightenment as he began lay down. Does that mean that beginning to lay down is the technique to achieve enlightenment? No. After spending almost his entire adult life listening to the Buddha and memorizing every word the Buddha said, conditions and Ananda's accumulations were ripe for the event of enlightenment to occur. As it says in the Bhumija sutta, proper practice is a requirement for results. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > You ask what is wisdom (panna). That is an interesting question from > the point view of Dhamma. It is different from knowlege, which wehave > accumulated through, reading, listening and discussing. All > knowledge is of the past. If one talks of the future, or of some > thing one does not know, it will be based on the knowlge which is of > the past.No thought is new. Wisdom(panna) is not the understanding, > but realising or being aware of a truth,by oneself. It is knowing > the impermanance, unsatisfactoryness, and no-self, not according to > what we have read or heard, but but through a sudden awakening to the > truth about it. What one has realised by wisdom cannot be related > to another, because the language we use being conceptual, the words > are inadequate to describe it. Wisdom(panna)is a mental awakening to > a truth. > > One cannot transfer wisdom to another by way of knowledge, as one who > has no knowlege of it, will not understand it the same way, as the > one who lealised it. It is a sudden awakening to it. Like awakening > to Satori in Zen. In satori it is said that if there is no element of > suddenness, it is not satori. > > We have of course instances of it in Buddhist teachings. Venerable > Ananda, was doing walking meditation and being tired wanted to lay > down. He took his legs on to the bed and was about to lay his head > on the pillow, when he attained the state of arahat. Patachar, saw > the water with which she had washed her feet trickle down and > disappear on to the earth and was awakened to the truth. Even Lord > Buddha did not explain what Nirvana is, he left it for us to > realize. He did not even say what exactly happened at the foot of > the Bodhi tree, awakening to panna...the enlightenment, it is only a > Buddha who could understand the wisdom of a Buddha. 21600 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:44am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Rob, Thankyou, for commenting on my post. You say well, what you have to say, and that is encouraging. Yes, about the suddenness of panna. It happens not necessarily when you begin to lay down. That I quoted as an example not to say that it is while laying down you can get panna ! Wisdom (panna) can arise at any moment. For that the mind has to be extremely clear and alert. A mind which reaches samadhi and absorbs jhana, have this characteristic. Even without that high level of samadhi, perhaps you may have, yourself, experienced this quick alertness, say while " comfortably seated, typing on the keyboard, keep your back straight, close your eyes and watch your breath....as it comes in slowly ...and goes out slowly, you may see the space in the mind undisturbed by fleeting thoughts."......that is just a few seconds of samadhi....The story of Venerable Ananda is very significant. It is not the learning and knowledge, but assiduous, meditation, that finally gave him the break through. There are so many stories like the two I related, about attaining freedom in a quick moment. There is the story of the Bikkhu, who was given a white peace of cloth to roll and unroll on the palms of his hands and when the cloth became dirty in its being rolled and unrolled, realised the anicca, dukkha and anatma. At the first sermon of the Buddha, Kondanna, became a stream entrant. Even the Buddha after six years of striving sat at the Bodhi tree, and that night he was enlightened. It is the clear understanding of the three lakkhana, that paves the path to freedom. In Zen a master gives a pupil who has meditated long enough, when the hour is propitious a koan, which is an" absurdity". The pupil, concentrates on the koan turning it over in his mind, and suddenly understands it. And the master knows when he has attained satori. That is said to be satori. It is meditation that leads to it , the " ekayano maggo". These are all within paramatta dhamma. When the mind goes beyond "self " it is illuminated by itself... with metta, Yasalalaka 21601 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:12am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" . Ananda achieved enlightenment as he > began lay down. Does that mean that beginning to lay down is the > technique to achieve enlightenment? No. After spending almost his > entire adult life listening to the Buddha and memorizing every word > the Buddha said, conditions and Ananda's accumulations were ripe for > the event of enlightenment to occur. > >_________ Good points, RobM. The commentary to the Mahanidana sutta (Bodhi page 63) notes that learning was to "repeatedly studying the texts under revered teachers, listening to explnations of their meaning, questioning about knotty points and retaining in mind their meaning." It says "for those who are highly learned, namarupaparichedda nana (distinguishing of nama and rupa) becomes as evident as a bed and chair in a small room illuminted by a lamp, and Ananda was chief of those who are highly learned." It also explains his great parami from past lives; such as 100,000 aeons of time ago, when he aspired to be become the personal attendant of a Buddha. "..thus he was endowed with decisive supporting conditions (pubekata punnata )from the past..".. RobertK 21602 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Victor & Jon, > I would say that what is assembled is impermanent. > > This is how I see it: > Clinging to concept leads to dukkha. Seeing concept thus: "This is > impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not mine. This I am not. > This is not my self." one grows dispassionate toward concept. Yes, I agree. But some say that concepts cannot be "directly known". If so, how do we know that concepts are impermanent? But it is a fact that I do know that concepts are impermanent. They are fabricated things. They are born of fabrications. They depend on fabrications. They have no real essence outside of the ultimate realities of fabrications. Thus they are impermanent, dukkha, not-self. Swee Boon 21603 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:28am Subject: Hi!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dear James, I am so sorry I didn't type to you for so long!!!!!!! I spent most of my Easter holidays in San Francisco!!!!!!! Thank you for answering my questions!!!! But, here are some new ones: Are there Buddhist temples in Egypt? Do you like learning about Buddhism? Is learning the Arabic language something like the Buddha's special language that you explained to me before? Well that is it!!!!!! Metta, Janice 21604 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:30am Subject: Hi Again!!!!!!!!!!!! Hi Kom, Sorry I did not write to you for so long as I spent most of my time in San Francisco during my Easter holidays!!!!! I think you are right about the statement that if you do not pay attention about something scary then you would not remember or think about it. Here are some questions: Did the Buddha die because of illness or sacrificed himself? What is the dhamma anyways? How does mindfulness help you when you are frustrated or if you cannot solve a problem? That is it for now!!!!!! Metta, Janice 21605 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:33am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Rob M, I agree that "Seeing things as they truly are" does not mean analyzing the current citta and listing the concomittant cetasikas. I would say that analyzing mind states in and of itself does not help one understands, intellectually or otherwise, the truth of anatta. Each mind state is not self. Each mind state is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." And that is not the same as trying to see, intellectually or otherwise, that mind state has no self by analyzing it. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi KKT, > [snip] > > "Seeing things as they truly are" does not mean analyzing the > current citta and listing the concomittant cetasikas. "Seeing things > as they truly are" means having a habit of reacting to what is > presented to us based on the object being anicca, dukkha and anatta. > > If we like what we see, this is fertile soil for lobha to take root. > If we dislike what we see, this is fertile soil for dosa to take > root. If we ignore what we see, this is fertile soil for moha to > take root. The kind of soil that does not allow lobha, dosa or moha > to take root is seeing what is presented to us as anicca, dukha and > anatta. > > So then, why do we spend all this time learning lists of cetasikas? > Analyzing mind states helps us intellectually understand the truth > of anatta. We break the mind state into citta and so many cetasikas > and can see intellectually that none of the pieces has any "self". > It therefore makes sense that, since none of the components has > any "self", the whole has has no "self". > [snip] > What if Anuruddha got it wrong? What is there are not exactly 52 > cetasikas? Frankly, I don't consider this a big deal. What is > important is seeing mental states as non-self and supporting an > intellectual understanding of non-self through analysis of mind- > states into citta and a bunch of cetasikas (each of which is non- > self). > > Does this make sense to you? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21606 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:41am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalka, Hope you don't mind an opinion from someone unversed in the texts. Maybe you can correct me. I think there are many levels of panna. Two people hearing the texts for the first time, one does not make head or tail out of it, the other is impressed by it. I think it is the accumulated panna which cause the second to see some sense in what has been heard. Then it requires another level (no clear cut distinction) from hearing and being impressed, to seeing enough value to pursue it. Intellectual understanding is a level of panna which is a prerequisite for higher levels to be attained. It is 'panna' as a mental factor which is accumulated and which results in enlightenment, not without accumulated parami though. Concentration conditions the habit of concentration, calm is just calm. In and of itself, these do not lead to panna of the level of vipassana nor do they have anything to do with the development of satipatthana. I do not know about satori only that it is a kind of awakening. I wonder though what those people who have experienced satori, have come to know. In other words what have they been awakened to? Do you have any writing which shows that those who have experienced satori have become enlightened? I feel inclined to conclude at this point, that those who view enlightenment as something coming out of the blue, or on the other hand who believe that it is the result of concentration practice over time, is missing the point that panna through pariyatti and patipatti cannot be ignored. And patipatti here means "satipatthana". Hope I have not been too assertive. ;-) Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > Dear Rob, > > Thankyou, for commenting on my post. You say well, what you have to > say, and that is encouraging. > > Yes, about the suddenness of panna. > > It happens not necessarily when you begin to lay down. That I quoted > as an example not to say that it is while laying down you can get > panna ! Wisdom (panna) can arise at any moment. For that the mind 21607 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:55am Subject: Panna Dear everybody, I think the discussion on Panna interests many people on the list. Since I have no access to the books of Abhidhamma, I would like to read what was said about Panna in those books (ie. the original description) Could someone post some extracts? Thank you very much. Metta, KKT 21608 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 5:17am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Sukin, Pardon me for jumping in. Regarding concentration, I would say that although not sufficient, it is a necessary condition for wisdom and liberation. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Yasalalka, [snip] Concentration conditions the habit of > concentration, calm is just calm. In and of itself, these do not lead to > panna of the level of vipassana nor do they have anything to do with the > development of satipatthana. [snip] > > Best wishes, > Sukin. 21609 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:26am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sukin, I appreciate your point of view, Sukin, you are certainly not assertive,you are welcome to your opinion. Thank you for posting a reply. I do not think there is half way in wisdom(panna). You have it or you haven't got it. There is no,high or medium or subtle panna. This is panna in the Buddhist sense. That is the highest level of understanding and when you have come to it, you see through the anicca, dukkha and anatma, and the mind rises to the level of an Arahat. Intellectual undertanding , is the level of comprehension, intelligence, achieved through accumulated knowledge. These pertain to worldly matters. Panna is paramatta nana, beyond self and the conceptual surroundings. Therefore, it has a spiritual level. It is not even understanding, but an insight, a mental experience. These are ofcourse, as you said conditioned, through accumulations. In Abhidhamma, you read that nothing can be certain. Which Kamma, conditions which, patisandhi-citta, is speculative. At what point of time you will break through into panna is also not certain. You may accumulate knowledge about all the Dhamma ( Venerable Ananda for an example), but some one who dedicates himself to meditation, with a comparatively lesser knowledge of dhamma, may break away from the bonds of samasara, before you do. Our karmic tendencies, play a great part in the directions our lives are taking. It is not every body, who takes a devotional interest in studying Abhidhamma, as some of us do here. Why ? Only explanation may be that we have been doing the same thing in our past lives. It seems, Venerable Sariputta heard the Abhidhamma from the Buddha and taught it to the 500 of his disciples. We may have been perhaps, the followers of these disciples in our distant past..! I am sorry, I did not say that Enlightenment is some thing that comes out of the blues... It takes a long and arduous mental training, perhaps many lives OR who knows in this very life. You know it is very good to learn the Dhamma, and have a sound knowledge of the Buddha's teachings. That will create saddha and there are scriptural evidence, which say that learning the dhamma could even make you a stream entrant. About Zen Buddhism, they also follow the Buddha' teachings, four noble truths, eightfold path, four foundations,etc. and devote more time for meditation, than scriptural study. The following are the two books I have read on Zen Buddhism. Essays in Zen Buddhism by D.T.Zuzuki and Zen Buddhism by D.T.Suzuki. But Meditation should not be neglected, and learning Abhidhamma makes meditation more meaningful. With metta, Yasalalaka 21610 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > > It turned out to be more like a conversation, really. I gave up on my > list pretty early and it just sat there on the table... Sarah again, > reminding me that it wasn't about me... and was surprised that I'd > mentioned as much from it as I had. ..... Glad it went so well. Flexibility helps a lot, I think - in other words, having the program fit into the students and their needs, rather than the other way round;-) The questions below were interesting. What were the answers???? Thanks for sharing your notes - I think it's great that Rob M is working further on them. Hope to hear more, Metta, Sarah ======= Some of the questions: > Can you practice Buddhism and another religion? > Does the goal of this lifetime have to be nirvana? > If you're for non-attachment, do you think it's it wrong for people to > want to get married? > How does chanting relate to meditation? > Is it ok to drink as long as you stay mindful? > Is karma worse for someone who knows better than for someone innocent? > Can you explain the Tibetan Book of the Dead? 21611 From: m. nease Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna Dear Luan, ----- Original Message ----- From: phamdluan2000 To: Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:55 AM Subject: [dsg] Panna > I think the discussion on Panna > interests many people on the list. > > Since I have no access to the books > of Abhidhamma, I would like to read > what was said about Panna in those books > (ie. the original description) > > Could someone post some extracts? Here's one: From Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of Abhidhammathasangaha ('CMA'), Compendium of Mental Factor, Guide to Non-Delusion (amoha) (p.90): Pa~n~naa is wisdom, or knowing things as they really are. It is here called a faculty because it exercises predominance in comprehending things as they really are. In Abhidhamma, the three terms--wisdom (pa~n~naa), knowledge (~naa.na) and non-delusion (amoha)--are used synonymously. Wisdom has the characteristic of penetrating things according to their intrinsic nature (yathaasabhaavapa.tivedha). Its function is to illuminate the objective field like a lamp. It is manifested as non-bewilderment. Its proximate cause is wise attention (yoniso manasikaara). 21612 From: Sarah Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 6:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi KKT, KKT: Thanks for your answer, Sarah. So the point is: __Abhidhamma is the << theory >> part. __Satipatthana is the << practice >> part. (to realize what is exposed in the Abhidhamma) Is it correct? ..... S: I would not define Abhidhamma as <> anymore than I would Satipatthana. What I read in the suttas is also about abhidhamma and the development of satipatthana. It just depends on conditions whether any understanding develops when reading them. I don’t consider suttas, abhidhamma and satipatthana separately. ..... KKT: I think the practice of Satipatthana for you means << to observe paramattha dhammas arising and falling at the 6 sense-doors >> Is it correct? ..... S: Rather than <>, I would use <> or <>. I don’t believe the arising and falling away of paramattha dhammas can be known in the beginning. The various dhammas (namas and rupas) have to be known and distinguished very clearly, over and over again. ..... KKT: Another very important point I want to ask is Panna (insight, wisdom) Is the following definition of Panna correct? Panna = to see things as they really are ie. making clearly the distinction between concepts and paramattha dhammas. ..... S: Yes, it’s so important to clarify that it is panna that knows, not your or me or this or that person even in the beginning. ‘See things as they really are’ means knowing directly the characteristics of paramattha dhammas when we are referring to panna of satipatthana (as opposed to panna at moments of samatha development).No thought or idea of concepts at moments of panna. ..... KKT: Since everything arises by conditions, so does Panna. ..... S: Yes. ..... KKT: Is the practice of Satipatthana the main condition for Panna to arise? ..... S: Yes - well, moments of sati are the condition for panna to arise together with it and for satipatthana to then develop. In other words, I don’t think we can refer to the initial and occasional moments of sati and panna as the development of satipatthana which is not yet established. ..... KKT: Panna should have the power of liberation ie. making one free from defilements, free from attachments, free from craving, becoming. ..... S: Eventually, but not at the kindergarten stage of development;-) ..... KKT:Therefore Panna should be much more than a merely intellectual understanding. This is what I think about Panna. ..... S: Exactly. But even intellectual considering of these details like now or of the distinction between concepts and realities or the classifications of rupas and so on can help to at least clarify misconceptions. I think James and others have a good point when they point out, however, that mana and all the other kilesa can get in the way and progress or development are by no way assured. Any development or understanding is bound to be very weak for us in the beginning. I like the reminders from the Jatakas that have been quoted recently in the series on the Perfections. They show how even after aeons of wholesome accumulation, the latent kilesa can take us off-track at any time. .... KKT:Can you talk more about Panna according to Abhidhamma? ..... S: Your questions are a real treat! I may add more later (and I think the Robs and others are too - I'm a bit behind on my reading;-)), but as it’s getting late and I have a very long day of teaching tomorrow, making up for lost classes, let me just direct you to the chapter on panna in ‘Cetasikas’ first which includes references from the texts as well: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas36.html I’ll be delighted to hear any further comments or questions. Metta, Sarah ======= 21613 From: Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Swee Boon, Victor, and Jon - In a message dated 4/25/03 7:15:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time, nidive@y... writes: > Victor &Jon, > > >I would say that what is assembled is impermanent. > > > >This is how I see it: > >Clinging to concept leads to dukkha. Seeing concept thus: "This is > >impermanent. This is dukkha. This is not mine. This I am not. > >This is not my self." one grows dispassionate toward concept. > > Yes, I agree. > > But some say that concepts cannot be "directly known". If so, how do > we know that concepts are impermanent? > > But it is a fact that I do know that concepts are impermanent. They > are fabricated things. They are born of fabrications. They depend on > fabrications. They have no real essence outside of the ultimate > realities of fabrications. Thus they are impermanent, dukkha, > not-self. > > Swee Boon > =========================== When we think we are looking at a tree, we actually are not. What has happened is that there has been (and continues to unfold) a sequence of visual perceptions which the mind sums up and upon which it superimposes the 'tree' concept, generating a mind-constructed percept we call "the tree". All the images and recognitions actually occurred, the summing up occurred, and the superimposition of the 'tree' concept occurred, but we have, in principle, no basis for presuming the existence of some thing that is "the tree out there". This alleged "tree out there" is not directly apprehended and cannot be assumed to exist, and thus cannot be assumed to arise or cease. However, the internal processes did arise and cease, including the arising and ceasing 'tree' concept, and the constructed 'tree' percept. The 'tree' concepts are generalized mental constructs, built and rebuilt from memories of many perceptions, and which arise from time to time; the 'tree' percepts are more particularized mental constructs that arise from time to time. They are fabricated, built by sankharic functions. It seems to me that you, Jon, and some others here, conflate the internal 'tree' concepts and percepts with the alleged external "trees" which cannot be assumed to exist, and, in fact, are never directly observed. All the actually observed internal phenomena I mentioned do, indeed, arise, and hence also cease. Tree concepts and percepts *do occur*, they are events that arise and cease, and the locus for them is the internal realm, not the presumed and projected external world. This is my take on 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) 21614 From: Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Suddeness, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment to Yasalalaka and Rob M :-) and Sukin In a message dated 4/25/03 1:48:23 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: << Hi Yasalalaka, Well said! I agree with almost everything you have written. Where I have a bit of a problem is your focus on "suddenness". I started by Buddhist practice with Zen and this was the problem that I had at that time as well. I see the journey to "panna" as requiring 10,000 steps. The last step is the most exciting, but it cannot be made before 9,999 steps of groundwork have been done. Ananda achieved enlightenment as he began lay down. Does that mean that beginning to lay down is the technique to achieve enlightenment? No. After spending almost his entire adult life listening to the Buddha and memorizing every word the Buddha said, conditions and Ananda's accumulations were ripe for the event of enlightenment to occur. As it says in the Bhumija sutta, proper practice is a requirement for results. Metta, Rob M :-) >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well said by both of you fine yogis. I, like Rob M, had some trouble with the Zen concept of sudden enlightenment because, being a Theravadan/vipassana practitioners, I am committed to practice, or what Chan/Zen would call gradualism. It wasn't until I had recently read the Bodhidharma Anthology, trans. Jeffrey L. Broughton; the Platform Sutra, trans. Philip B. Yampolsky, and misc. other Chan/Zen texts, that I realized that Chan/Zen's construct of "enlightenment" is based on the cessation of thought, or what Bodhidharma called 'no-mind' and what Huineng called 'emptiness.' I do agree with Yasalalaka, when he says, <> Where I believe these two concepts merge, is in penetrating what the condition of 'no-thought' is about. And, like Yasalalaka, I can accept that it can occur at anytime, but I also believe 'no-thought' can be gradually cultivate through contemplative practice, as did a number of the Chan/Zen masters, or otherwise they would not have practiced Zazen. Also, just because one has a moment of 'no-thought' or insight, doesn't mean it is permanent. I believe the condition of 'no-thought' which supports insight requires maintenance. And, I believe it is maintained by rigorous practice and cultivation. "Tsung-mi followed Shen hui (two Chan patriarchs) in criticizing the Northern line for its sole emphasis on a graduated meditative regimen to the neglect of sudden enlightenment altogether. Yet, while he maintained Shen-hui's teaching was "sudden," he held that it contained a gradual component as well. In fact, he described Shen-hui's teaching in regard to practice and enlightenment as advocating the necessity of a sudden experience of enlightenment to be followed by a gradual process of cultivation, in which the practitioner's initial insight (vipassana) into his true nature is systematically deepened until it becomes integrated into every aspect of his (or her) life." (Peter N. Gregory, "Sudden Enlightenment followed by Gradual Cultivation UH press 1987). While I would agree with Gregory's central interpretation of Tsung-mi's thesis, and indeed Tsung-mi may have only had this in mind, I think one principle which is glaringly missing, is not just the process of cultivation, but the necessity of maintaining one's enlightenment. I believe there is a common misconception that once one becomes "enlightened," one has no further work to do. But, on the contrary, even the historic Buddha is recorded to have maintained a daily practice of meditation. If a daily practice is no longer needed after enlightenment, then what is the point in engaging in it after enlightenment? I believe the historic Buddha's lifestyle emphasized that enlightenment was not a momentary and final experience, but a process of awakening, as well as a lifestyle which enables the awakening, and then supports the enlightenment after the initial awakening. So, what is this 'no-thought' or 'instant enlightenment?' I believe Yasalalaka's definition is pretty good, which describes for me the condition or state of 'vipassana' (insight), if he only added the key phrase "to see things as they really are." I believe it is well understood in the Theravadan world that the condition or state of 'vipassana' (insight) requires the precondition of samadhi, which is acknowledged as a meditative absorption state which is free from thought. Therefore I hope I haven't leapt too far forward in this argument to say that Bodhidharma's instant enlightenment is vipassana (insight), and that the state or condition of 'no-thought' does not require meditative absorption, but can take place at anytime. Where I believe the Chan/Zen world misses the boat a little is that insight 'no-mind' is not the same thing as nibbana (annihilation of the self). best to all, layman Jeff 21615 From: nidive Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard, > It seems to me that you, Jon, and some others here, conflate the > internal 'tree' concepts and percepts with the alleged external > "trees" which cannot be assumed to exist, and, in fact, are never > directly observed. All the actually observed internal phenomena I > mentioned do, indeed, arise, and hence also cease. Tree concepts > and percepts *do occur*, they are events that arise and cease, and > the locus for them is the internal realm, not the presumed and > projected external world. You have made me see that I am talking about the internal realm while Jon and Sarah are talking about the external realm (which doesn't exist). I think focusing on the internal realm is critical. And focusing on the external realm has no real value. In fact, it is not possible to focus on the external realm. I think this clarifies the matter. Thank you. Swee Boon 21616 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:34am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Victor, > Pardon me for jumping in. Regarding concentration, I would say that > although not sufficient, it is a necessary condition for wisdom and > liberation. Yes, that is if we are talking about the path moment. However the reason I mentioned 'in and of itself' with reference to concentration, was not in reference to this. I was talking about deliberate practice, which may be what you are talking about too. If so, then I am not sure how much concentration practice plays a part in deciding the depth of understanding during path moment. I do know from theory however, that at the time of path consciousness there is a degree of high concentration which *is* necessary. But this wouldn't have been the product of previous practice in concentration, but as a result of having Nibanna as object. And as I understand, this is just one citta moment which never arises again ever, since it has done its job in the corresponding level of sainthood. So it seems that concentration practice has no bearing to this. The resultant phala citta may depend on previous practice, I don't know. However, I don't think this resultant citta is that important? > Your feedback is appreciated. Now I wait for your feedback. I just remembered about your comment in a letter before this one to which I wanted to say something. Hope you don't mind me saying it here. You said that the distinction between concept and reality is an unnecessary intellectual overlay. You seemed to imply that the important point was to see all experiences as this is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self. Or that whatever it is, it's 'impermanent'. The distinction between concept and reality on the level of contemplation may be intellectual, but when something is experienced, it can be "recognized" as concept or reality. Of course it would be unrealistic to say that this would be the case for beginners like me, and even if it did, there will surely be papanca following it, wondering "What that was….?" But it seems to me rather, that what you suggest is more like an intellectual overlay. It seems to be like forcing an idea on to an experience? Now you will give me feedback I am sure! ;-) Best wishes, Sukin. 21617 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:35am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, Thanks for your response. I would like to comment on parts of your post. > I do not think there is half way in wisdom(panna). You have it or > you haven't got it. There is no,high or medium or subtle panna. This > is panna in the Buddhist sense. That is the highest level of > understanding and when you have come to it, you see through the > anicca, dukkha and anatma, and the mind rises to the level of an > Arahat. Are you saying then that there is no difference in the panna of a sotapana, sakadagami, anagami and arahata? Do you believe in intellectual right view? Do you think there is no difference between different understading of say kamma/vipaka? One person may believe in this quite blindly, one may not be able to distinquish between the two, one may not know that kamma = cetana and vipaka = seeing, hearing, smelling etc., one may make sense of all this intellectually, another may be able to actually perceive the difference. What decides the difference in understanding of all these cases if not different degree of panna? > Intellectual undertanding , is the level of comprehension, > intelligence, achieved through accumulated knowledge. These pertain > to worldly matters. Does 'knowledge' get passed on from life to life, or is it understanding which does? > Panna is paramatta nana, beyond self and the > conceptual surroundings. Therefore, it has a spiritual level. It is > not even understanding, but an insight, a mental experience. I think you are referring here to the very high level of panna of an enlightened person. > example), but some one who dedicates himself to meditation, with a > comparatively lesser knowledge of dhamma, may break away from the > bonds of samasara, before you do. What is meditation? What is it about this that causes "break away from the bonds of samsara"? ---Hope I am not too direct?! > Our karmic tendencies, play a great part in the directions our lives > are taking. It is not every body, who takes a devotional interest in > studying Abhidhamma, as some of us do here. Why ? Only explanation > may be that we have been doing the same thing in our past lives. It > seems, Venerable Sariputta heard the Abhidhamma from the Buddha and > taught it to the 500 of his disciples. We may have been perhaps, the > followers of these disciples in our distant past..! I find it reasonable to think so too. But surely none of us were Sariputta's disciples, I think…?! > I am sorry, I did not say that Enlightenment is some thing that > comes out of the blues... It takes a long and arduous mental > training, perhaps many lives OR who knows in this very life. I wasn't refering to you, I had in mind what little I know about Zen attitude regarding this. Out of the blue could mean 'one life time' as compared to billions. Some of the people who have his idea about 'in this very life' etc. forget that it took the Buddha and his disciples zillions of years to accumulate enough panna to attain liberation. I find many who believe in the practice with the aim of attaining it in this lifetime, are the same people who are most attached to it, which is actually attachment to self. > About Zen Buddhism, they also follow the Buddha' teachings, four > noble truths, eightfold path, four foundations,etc. and devote more > time for meditation, than scriptural study. The following are the two > books I have read on Zen Buddhism. Essays in Zen Buddhism by > D.T.Zuzuki and Zen Buddhism by D.T.Suzuki. Thanks for this, but I am not much of a reader. I was hoping for some short article or essay. :-) > But Meditation should not be neglected, and learning Abhidhamma makes > meditation more meaningful. Hope Abhidhamma does help you. I feel that it has helped me a great deal. Nice talking to you. Metta, Sukin. 21618 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:46am Subject: Re: Suddeness, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Layman Jeff, I have read some where that, the stream entrants until they become an arahant should continue to meditate as the neglect of regular meditation may diminish the high state of mental power thus far attained. But once the mind has stablished itself in Nibbana, it may not be necessary to continue to meditate, as others would do.However,they may sit to enjoy the bliss of nibbana, which Buddha, himself is said to have done for one week seated under th Bodhi tree immediately after his enlightenment. It was thereafter on the seventh day that he thought out the paticcasuppada. With regard to the point you raised about the necessity for the Buddha to practice meditation after his enlightenment, there is a pertinant question on the Tathagata's Solitary Meditation, raised by King Milinda in the Milindapanha,"...........there was then nothing further he(tathagata) had to do , nothing he had to do to add to what he had already done But then there is also talk of three months solitary meditation.......Solitary meditation is for one who still has something to be done....." and the Venerable Nagasena replied "...All Tathagatas when they have attained omniscience have meditated in solitude. It is while they are recollecting these special qualities of what was well done that they practice solitary meditation.........Tathagatas practice solitary meditation beacause of their realisation of the divers advntages of its special qualities. with metta, Yasalalaka 21619 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 0:48pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalaka and Sukin, Here is another (perhaps contraversial) perspective on "partial" panna. Within a specific citta, panna is either there or it is not. But a citta only lasts for a moment. The citta process in an Arahant includes the javana stage, but the javana cittas for an arahant are functional (kiriya); they do not generate kamma. From an Abhidhamma perspective, this means that the cetasika cetana plays only a coordinating role, not a driving role. I heard in an Abhidhamma lecture once that, in the citta process of an Arahant, panna replaces cetana as the "driver". I have never researched the special role of panna in the javana cittas of Arahants because I try (with varying success) to focus on Abhidhamma in Daily Life. Perhaps some of the other DSGrs may know of relevant texts that support or refute this idea. Here is an analogy; a spark creates light for a moment. A flame creates continuous light. It is true that at any moment there is a presence or an absence of light, but I certainly wouldn't be able to read a book if my only source of light was a spark. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > > > Sukin, > > I appreciate your point of view, Sukin, you are certainly not > assertive,you are welcome to your opinion. Thank you for posting a > reply. > > I do not think there is half way in wisdom(panna). You have it or > you haven't got it. There is no,high or medium or subtle panna. This > is panna in the Buddhist sense. That is the highest level of > understanding and when you have come to it, you see through the > anicca, dukkha and anatma, and the mind rises to the level of an > Arahat. > 21620 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 2:38pm Subject: Re: Panna --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear everybody, > > > I think the discussion on Panna > interests many people on the list. > > ___________ Dear KKT, In the 'Majjhima nikaya' I (no. 43, Mahavedalla Kotthita asked Sariputta: "'But what is intuitive wisdom for, your reverence?' 'Your reverence, intuitive wisdom is for super-knowledge, for apprehending, for getting rid of.' 'But how many conditions are there, your reverence, for bringing right understanding into existence?' 'There are two conditions, your reverence, for bringing right understanding into existence: the utterance of another (person) and wise attention. Your reverence, there are the two conditions for bringing right understanding into existence.'" The other person is the Buddha or his disciples, by listening carefully to the right person, by considering and applying what we have heard are the conditions for right understanding built up. Until fairly recently I put emphasis on listening and studying as I believed that anyone who did enough of this would gradually learn what insight is. But through meeting someone(not on this list) who had studied much and who had developed obvious conceit rather than insight I would now stress wise attention and what that really means. Robertk 21621 From: Michael Newton Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya > > > > Dear James; Actually,James,it's not my interpretation.I'm just saying what I actually am directly reading in this sutta.I'm unclear, where The Buddha actually commands Vassakara to-wage war with the Vajjis as I am going over the text which I have a hard copy of. Seems nowhere to be found.Maybe in your next response. You can give me a direct quotation from this sutta where Lord Buddha makes this command-if I've overlooked something let me know.As for your comment,"wake up and smell the coffee"I'm not sure what you mean there.I am sure there are deeper meanings,as you say,but guess I'm not sure what that is,but I'm learing-hopefully-maybe you can clear up a few more things here. Yours in the Dhamma with Metta, > > > Michael > > > > > > > Hi Michael, > > Your interpretation of the Buddha's words is really > far out, I must > say. Why would the Buddha, as you paraphrase, "then > tells him, to > depart as it seems fit to him"? Was he suggesting > that maybe > Vassakara could leave him hopping upside down on one > hand? Or maybe > both hands? Or maybe he could have moonwalked out of > the Blessed > One's presence? ;-). Please understand, no one would > say that kind of > thing to someone unless it had a deeper meaning. I > really don't want > to seem sarcastic to you, because you are a really > sweet person, but > I don't know any other way to put it! Wake up and > smell the coffee! > The Lord Buddha told Vassakara to go ahead and > conspire against the > Vajjis in order to wage war against them... > ultimately he knew that > Vassakara and his King wouldn't be successful > anyway. But why didn't > he just state that outright? Because he wasn't > anti-war like you > suggest; he didn't get out his peace beads, put on > his tie-dye shirt, > and make a stance for no more war anywhere! If you > know what I mean… > but maybe you won't. > > Honestly, I have had this type of discussion many > times with those > Buddhists who are 'VEGETARIANS', and believe > everyone else should be > also, but get upset when I tell them that the Lord > Buddha wasn't > vegetarian nor did he believe in that! Well! Throw > the baby out > with the bathwater!! ;-)) Believe it or not, any > kind of peace > reguires more toughness and suffering than war does! > > > Metta, James 21622 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:41pm Subject: Re: Panna Dear RobertK and Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I think the discussion on Panna > interests many people on the list. > > ___________ Dear KKT, In the 'Majjhima nikaya' I (no. 43, Mahavedalla Kotthita asked Sariputta: "'But what is intuitive wisdom for, your reverence?' 'Your reverence, intuitive wisdom is for super-knowledge, for apprehending, for getting rid of.' 'But how many conditions are there, your reverence, for bringing right understanding into existence?' 'There are two conditions, your reverence, for bringing right understanding into existence: the utterance of another (person) and wise attention. Your reverence, there are the two conditions for bringing right understanding into existence.'" The other person is the Buddha or his disciples, by listening carefully to the right person, by considering and applying what we have heard are the conditions for right understanding built up. Until fairly recently I put emphasis on listening and studying as I believed that anyone who did enough of this would gradually learn what insight is. But through meeting someone(not on this list) who had studied much and who had developed obvious conceit rather than insight I would now stress wise attention and what that really means. Robertk KKT: Thank you two for your quotes. It's very interesting. Here Panna is translated by Intuitive Wisdom. Abhinna = super-knowledge, direct knowledge. Parinna = full understanding, here is translated by apprehending. Is there some quote talking about the causes for Panna to arise? Metta, KKT 21623 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya There are Suttas where this formulation of a statement of leaving is obviously not meant as support for whatever action has been talked about. There are some Suttas where the Buddha will exhort a monk to do some action one, two then three times and the monk resists and then the Buddha uses this line...Go and do as you see fit. Probably the most famous example is in the Maha-parinibbana Sutta C:\Access to Insight (new)\html\canon\digha\dn16.html "3. And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it. [21] The Tathagata, Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain throughout a world-period or until the end of it." 4. But the Venerable Ananda was unable to grasp the plain suggestion, the significant prompting, given by the Blessed One. As though his mind was influenced by Mara, [22] he did not beseech the Blessed One: "May the Blessed One remain, O Lord!. May the Happy One remain, O Lord, throughout the world-period, for the welfare and happiness of the multitude, out of compassion for the world, for the benefit, well being, and happiness of gods and men!" 5. And when for a second and a third time the Blessed One repeated his words, the Venerable Ananda remained silent. 6. Then the Blessed One said to the Venerable Ananda: "Go now, Ananda, and do as seems fit to you." "Even so, O Lord." And the Venerable Ananda, rising from his seat, respectfully saluted the Blessed One, and keeping his right side towards him, took his seat under a tree some distance away. " ----- Original Message ----- From: "buddhatrue" To: Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2003 6:49 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Michael Newton wrote: > > Hi James, > > Thank you for your clarification,I have looked at the > Mahaparinibbana Sutta,and I would refer you to line > 5,just before line 6.The Buddha,simply responds to > brahmin Vassakara,who asked,permission to depart,then > tells him,to depart as it seems fit to him.This is > simply a goodbye,and doesn't appear to be a permission > for war.Maybe I stand to be corrected.Check that last > section out.Thank you,for your communication. > May all beings be Happy,Michael Hi Michael, Your interpretation of the Buddha's words is really far out, I must say. Why would the Buddha, as you paraphrase, "then tells him, to depart as it seems fit to him"? Was he suggesting that maybe Vassakara could leave him hopping upside down on one hand? Or maybe both hands? Or maybe he could have moonwalked out of the Blessed One's presence? ;-). Please understand, no one would say that kind of thing to someone unless it had a deeper meaning. I really don't want to seem sarcastic to you, because you are a really sweet person, but I don't know any other way to put it! Wake up and smell the coffee! The Lord Buddha told Vassakara to go ahead and conspire against the Vajjis in order to wage war against them... ultimately he knew that Vassakara and his King wouldn't be successful anyway. But why didn't he just state that outright? Because he wasn't anti-war like you suggest; he didn't get out his peace beads, put on his tie-dye shirt, and make a stance for no more war anywhere! If you know what I mean. but maybe you won't. Honestly, I have had this type of discussion many times with those Buddhists who are 'VEGETARIANS', and believe everyone else should be also, but get upset when I tell them that the Lord Buddha wasn't vegetarian nor did he believe in that! Well! Throw the baby out with the bathwater!! ;-)) Believe it or not, any kind of peace reguires more toughness and suffering than war does! Metta, James 21624 From: yasalalaka Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sukin, It is indeed good to be able to exchange these views, with you. I hope this exchange will provide you useful material to chew on. It does help me to understand different ideas, and certain experiences I have by discussing these issues. In my mind there is a difference in wisdom as far as its development is concerned. The wisdom (panna) ,begins with samadhi, concentration, jhana, insight, stream entry and matures to break through to the state of Arahat. We may call the intellectual understanding of right view, difference between Kamma/vipaka etc. worldly wisdom, they are merely knowing the each stage of the path as we traverse it to-wards Nibbana. Like the citta that conditions the cuti-citta, panna conditions the break away from Samsara to reach Nibbana. I really don't know whether it is the knowlege or the understanding that passes from one life to the other, but I take it to be the accumulated knowledge of the past life that make us understand , related matters, in this life. You say" I think you are referring to the very high level of panna of an enlightened one." Here we go to an unknown area. Panna is that which takes our mind to the state of Nibbana. An enlightened one has entered Nibbana, his panna is certainly of a higher quality. We speak of a Tathagata nana, in reference to the Buddha. "What is meditation ? What is it about this that causes the break away from the bonds of samasara ?" Meditation or bhavana is called the cultivation of the mind. Whole of Buddha's teaching is to lead us to develop the mind (nama). It is the diligent meditation that will make us experience paramatta dhamma, and understand that all conceptual things are subject to change and perish, and they are unsatisfactory, and 'self' is a delusion. We will understand that it is attachment (lobha), aversion (dosa) and delusion(moha) that keep us bound to the samasara,and that knowledge (panna), will cause the break away from samasara. Abhidhamma is Buddha's teachings in ultimate terms, opposed to convential terminology he used in Sutta Pitaka. It is a difficult Dhamma to undertand, but which becomes evident in Insight Meditation through experiencing the arising and falling away of nama-rupa and so on. Lord Buddha in the conclusion of his discourse on the Four Foundations of Mindfulness-Mahasatipatthgana Sutta says: "Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. "Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. "'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the four frames of reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said." You can become an Arahat in this very life,if you follow the instructions for meditation given in this Sutta. Learning Abhidhamm, will be a great advantage in making a success of vipassana meditation. with metta, Yasalalaka 21625 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:10pm Subject: Re: Suddeness, Introduction to yasalala KKT --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > > I have read some where that, the stream entrants until they become an > arahant should continue to meditate as the neglect of regular > meditation may diminish the high state of mental power thus far > attained. But once the mind has stablished itself in Nibbana, it may > not be necessary to continue to meditate, as others would > do.However,they may sit to enjoy the bliss of nibbana, +++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear Yasalalaka (and also KKT might be interested, I think you are you referring to the Samyutta Nikaya (Khandha- vagga, Last Fifty, Virtue) where Maha-Kotthita asked Sariputta what the objects of awareness are for a monk who is a beginner; or a sotapanna, or sakadagami or anagami or arahant. Sariputta explained that the objects are the khandhas - (i.e paramattha dhammas) 'The five khandhas of grasping, friend Kotthita, are the conditions which should be pondered with method by a virtuous monk, as being impermanent, suffering, sick, as a boil, as a dart, as pain, as ill-health, as alien, as transitory, empty and not self... Indeed, friend, it is possible for a virtuous monk so pondering with method these five khandhas of grasping to realize the fruits of stream-winning.' 'But, friend Sariputta, what are the things which should be pondered with method by a monk who is a sotapanna?' 'By a monk who is a sotapanna, friend Kotthita, it is these same five khandhas of grasping which should be so pondered. Indeed, friend, it is possible for a monk who is a sotapanna ... by so pondering these five khandhas ... to realize the fruits of once-returning.' 'But, friend Sariputta, what are the things which should be pondered with method by a monk who is a sakadagami .......method by one who is an anagami (non-returner)?' 'By such a one, friend Kotthita, it is these five khandhas of grasping which should be so pondered. It is possible, friend, for an anagami by so pondering to realize the fruits of arahatship'. 'But, what, friend Sariputta, are the things which should be pondered with method by one who is an arahat?' 'By an arahat, friend Kotthita, these five khandhas should be pondered with method as being impermanent, suffering, sick, as a boil, as a dart, as ill-health, as alien, transitory, void and not self. For the arahat, there is nothing further to be done, nor is there return to upheaping of what is done. Nevertheless, these things, if practised and enlarged, conduce to a happy existence to self- possession even in this present life.'End sutta _________ It is not a matter of whether one is sitting or lying or walking or standing as to whther these khandas(paramattha dhammas) can be insighted. It depends on understanding. Without understanding what is paramattha and what is concept I think very difficult to have wise attention , to understand what meditation means in the Buddhist sense. The Udanaatthakatha (trans. masefield p.878)Blind from birth chapter:"since they do not know Dhamma, they do not know that which is not Dhamma either. ....... they neither know dhamma to be a thing having an owm nature (sabhava), nor do they know that which is not dhamma to be a thing lacking an own nature.(Dhammam sabhavadhammam..adhammam asabhavadhammam) And as such they declare a thing having an own nature as though it were a thing lacking an own nature....""endquote And (p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter) "it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist [i.e.men, women] and since it does not dart among those things that do exist [i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas]." If satipattha is correctly developed in the way explained by Sariputta in the sutta above then: "perception of not-self becomes anchored (anattasanna santhathi): ..reckoned as the perception of not-self as follows, viz 'All dhammas are not self' on account of their being devoid of esssence, on account of their proceeding uncontrolled, on account of their being other, on account of their being vacant, on account of their being void and empty, becomes anchored in the heart, becomes established extremely firmly"endquote from The Udanatthakatha (translation masefield p595) And "when the resolution of the compact is effected by resolution into elements (dhatus ie. paramattha dhammas), the characteristic of not-self become apparent in its true nature: Visuddhimagga xx15 This resolution into elements can only be developed by insight into the present moment: Bhaddekaratta sutta: Paccuppanna~n ca yo dhamma.m tattha tattha vipassati."These dhammas [khandas, paramattha dhammas, robk] of the present, see them with insight as they arise" ______________________________ YAsalala: which Buddha, > himself is said to have done for one week seated under th Bodhi tree > immediately after his enlightenment. It was thereafter on the seventh > day that he thought out the paticcasuppada."" ________ Just a small correction. The Buddha understood Paticcasamuppada in the third watch of the night he attained enlightenment. It was at that very time that he attained. Later he contemplated the extremely deep 24 conditions of the Patthana. In the Atthasaliní it says "during the fourth week after his enlightenment, he sat in the "Jewel House", in the north west direction, and contemplated the Abhidhamma. But when, coming to the Patthana, he began to contemplate the twenty-four universal causal relations of condition, of presentation, and so on, his omniscience certainly found its opportunity therein."" RobertK 21626 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Dear Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: When we think we are looking at a tree, we actually are not. What has happened is that there has been (and continues to unfold) a sequence of visual perceptions which the mind sums up and upon which it superimposes the 'tree' concept, generating a mind- constructed percept we call "the tree". All the images and recognitions actually occurred, the summing up occurred, and the superimposition of the 'tree' concept occurred, but we have, in principle, no basis for presuming the existence of some thing that is "the tree out there". This alleged "tree out there" is not directly apprehended and cannot be assumed to exist, and thus cannot be assumed to arise or cease. KKT: You are a Yogacarin, Howard :-)) What you describe here is exactly the theories of the Yogacara. Since all we know about the 'tree' are only perceptions received at the 6 sense-doors, the Yogacarins say that the tree does not exist << out there >> :-)) ie. they deny the existence of the external world. But they go farther than the Theravadins by saying that since the paramattha dhammas as 'tree' are perceived at the 6 sense-doors by << CITTA >> therefore they include those paramattha dhammas in Citta and postulate that << Only Citta (Consciousness) Exists >> Thus the name of their school << Mind-Only oy Mere-Consciousness school >> They define a new concept, Alaya-Vijnana (Storehouse-consciousness) which is << a continuous FLOW of Citta >> (this notion is very near to the Bhavanga of Theravada) Alaya is a << stream of consciousness >> in constant (and violent) movement. Only Alaya exists! The external world doesn't exist! :-)) Everything else (rupa, cetasika) are << IN (or contained in) >> Alaya-vijnana (ie. Citta/Consciousness) Metta, KKT 21627 From: Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi Sarah, Consider this: perception of a being is not a concept. It is a view (sakkaya ditthi). Perhaps all apparent wholes could be similarly classified. I have no idea how to classify mental images, but then memory isn't classified either. If you want to think of anatta as "no concept" that is okay with me. I'm sure you will achieve some success on the path with that idea. Larry 21628 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > . Probably the most famous example is in the > Maha-parinibbana Sutta C:\Access to Insight > (new)\html\canon\digha\dn16.html > > "3. And the Blessed One said: "Whosoever, Ananda, has developed, practiced, > employed, strengthened, maintained, scrutinized, and brought to perfection > the four constituents of psychic power could, if he so desired, remain > throughout a world-period or until the end of it. [21] The Tathagata, > Ananda, has done so. Therefore the Tathagata could, if he so desired, remain > throughout a world-period or until the end of it." > > 4.___ Dear Ray, Completly off the topic. I just noticed the translation of kappa above; "if he so desired, remain > throughout a world-period or until the end of it." Kappa- translated as 'world-period'- here has several meanings. the Theravada tradition noted that some misunderstood this to mean an aeon in this sutta. But kappa also means lifespan and in this case it meant that the Buddha could have lived out a full lifespan as a human of that time (perhaps 160 years or so I guess). Robertk 21629 From: Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 4:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Hi again Sarah, Thanks for the remarks on your own practice. Well said. I really feel sorry for the woman whose child is being excluded. Are all the children of parents who work at hospitals in the same boat? Larry 21630 From: Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 3:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, KKT - In a message dated 4/25/03 7:32:42 PM Eastern Daylight Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > When we think we are looking at a tree, we actually are not. > What has happened is that there has been (and continues to unfold) > a sequence of visual perceptions which the mind sums up and upon > which it superimposes the 'tree' concept, generating a mind- > constructed percept we call "the tree". All the images and > recognitions actually occurred, the summing up occurred, and > the superimposition of the 'tree' concept occurred, but we have, > in principle, no basis for presuming the existence of some thing > that is "the tree out there". This alleged "tree out there" is not > directly apprehended and cannot be assumed to exist, and thus cannot > be assumed to arise or cease. > > > > > KKT: You are a Yogacarin, Howard :-)) > > What you describe here is exactly > the theories of the Yogacara. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Guilty as charged! (Sort of.) I'm a Yogacarin as Vasubandhu was (but not in the substantialist sense of the Lankavatara Sutra), and I'm a Madhyamikan as Nagarjuna was, and I'm a Theravadin who sees a phenomenalist perspective there, especially in Abhidhamma. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Since all we know about the 'tree' > are only perceptions received at the 6 sense-doors, > the Yogacarins say that the tree > does not exist <>:-)) > ie. they deny the existence of the external world. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I don't exactly deny the so-called external world. It is simply unknowable in principle, and, thus, a pragmatic, Occam's-razor attitude leads one to dismiss it. ------------------------------------------------------- > > But they go farther than the Theravadins > by saying that since the paramattha dhammas > as 'tree' are perceived at the 6 sense-doors > by <>therefore they include those > paramattha dhammas in Citta and postulate > that <> > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I consider that perspective somewhat dangerous. It can be wrongly grasped, turning citta into a kind of self. Certain forms of cittamatra philosophy tend to take the subjective pole of contact as a kind of self. This sort of philosophy takes MIND or CONSCIOUSNESS (usually all in caps! ;-)) as a kind of substantialist reality. But discernment of an object (or contact) is just a function/operation, with subjective pole and objective pole co-occurring and interdependent. The subjective pole is no more real than the objective pole - they are mutually dependent and both empty. There is a difference between phenomenalism and idealism, and the idealist perspective leads one towards substantialism, I believe. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Thus the name of their school > <> > > They define a new concept, Alaya-Vijnana > (Storehouse-consciousness) which is > <> > (this notion is very near to the Bhavanga of Theravada) > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that as Vasubandhu defined it, it is just the ordinary flow of experience, the ordinary flow of citta, aramanna, and cetasika. Recall that Vasubandhu was an Abhidhammika before being a Yogacarin. --------------------------------------------------- > > Alaya is a <> > in constant (and violent) movement. > > Only Alaya exists! > The external world doesn't exist! :-)) > Everything else (rupa, cetasika) > are <> > Alaya-vijnana (ie. Citta/Consciousness) > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: One could say pretty much the same about the Theravadin Abhidhammika perspective, so long as one stays away from making vi~n~nana some sort of fundamental, substantial "principle" instead of the mere operation that it is. --------------------------------------------------- > > > Metta, > > > KKT > ================================= 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) 21631 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 8:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya Hello Michael, James, Ray, RobK and All, When reading the suttas, I'm sure we have all noticed the description of little ritualistic behaviours as people come to the Buddha and do respectful things and seat themselves at an appropriate distance, circling around and keeping their right side to him etc. There were specific formulas when engaging in discussion and debate as well - I remember Andrew sending me an extremely informative post (off-list) on this when we were in the depths of the thread about the Buddha saying some unflattering things about women. One has to understand the rules of courtesy and social discourse of the time, or one can misunderstand the suttas. I was reading Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of 'The Worship of Householders (or Sakka's Worship) Sutta, S.11.18(8) Samyutta Nikaya and came across this note to an expression at he end ot the sutta. Note 650: the expressioon 'yassa dani kalam mannasi' occurs frequently in the suttas - it is a "Departure Formula". In the Samyutta Nikaya it occurs in S. 11.18; S.35:88 (IV, 62.31); 35:243 (IV, 183.15 + 30); 44:1 (IV 379, 29); 54:9 (V 321, 16-17) and 55:6 (V 348.27), - and I have no doubt, in many places in the other Nikayas. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" 21632 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Panna Dear KKT and Mike, op 25-04-2003 15:56 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > Wisdom has the > characteristic of penetrating things according to their intrinsic nature > (yathaasabhaavapa.tivedha). Its function is to illuminate the objective > field like a lamp. It is manifested as non-bewilderment. Its proximate > cause is wise attention (yoniso manasikaara). I add something now from the Second Book of the Abhidhamma, the Book of Analysis, Vibhanga, §525, where wisdom is translated as awareness, but it is sampaja~n~na, another word for panna: N: I like especially: subtlety. It has to make fine discriminations, the Dhamma is so subtle and deep. And this impresses me: light of wisdom, lustre of wisdom, splendour of wisdom, jewel of wisdom. It was so dark before we heard the Dhamma, we did not know anything. I did not know that absentmindedness and ignorance were akusala, I did not know what conceit was. I did not know that one can develop metta, patience, and understanding of the dhammas within me and around me. And even though wisdom is very weak, not much developed, we can still appreciate that it is like a lamp, illuminating darkness. Gradually we gain more confidence in the Dhamma the Buddha taught and we can see wisdom as a jewel, we regard it as supreme, do not want to exchange it for anything else. Nina. Nina. 21633 From: robmoult Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:10pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Sarah and Connie, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Thanks for sharing your notes - I think it's great that Rob M is working > further on them. There is a good glossy magazine called "Eastern Horizon", which is a publication of the Young Buddhists Association of Malaysia (YBAM). They just published my article "Introduction to Abhidhamma" and have asked me to contribute another article. I gave them a list of possible topics including "Buddhism by the Numbers" but they haven't gotten back to me with which topic they are interested in. I will update you as I get more news. Metta, Rob M :-) 21634 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 9:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Howard Thanks for this post, which I have added to my (rather lengthy) queue of posts to be replied to. On a quick reading, however, I wasn’t able to grasp the meaning of your remarks about conflating the mental constructs that are 'tree' concepts and 'tree' percepts with what you call the 'alleged external "trees"'. Could you expand on this a little, please? Thanks. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: ... > The 'tree' concepts are generalized mental constructs, built > and > rebuilt from memories of many perceptions, and which arise from > time to time; > the 'tree' percepts are more particularized mental constructs that > arise from > time to time. They are fabricated, built by sankharic functions. It > seems to > me that you, Jon, and some others here, conflate the internal > 'tree' concepts > and percepts with the alleged external "trees" which cannot be > assumed to > exist, and, in fact, are never directly observed. All the actually > observed > internal phenomena I mentioned do, indeed, arise, and hence also > cease. Tree > concepts and percepts *do occur*, they are events that arise and > cease, and > the locus for them is the internal realm, not the presumed and > projected > external world. This is my take on the matter. > > With metta, > Howard 21635 From: smallchap Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 10:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Sukin, Thank you foryour well thought out reply. --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Hi Smallchap, > I am trying to figure out what is it that you want me to see. > Are you > trying to show me that I should not hold such views or at > least making > them into one? S: I was merely pointing you to the sutta in which the Buddha stated clearly his position on such view. If so then let me explain my real position with > regard to > this matter. > I wasn't saying that there is permanency anywhere. With regard > to > conventional objects, I think they do not exist as objects of > experience > except as mental constructions and reconstructions. The > distinctive > realities responsible for this are I believe, sanna, vittaka > and vichara. S: Thank you very much for your explanation. Certainly I have learnt something from you. > Normally I wouldn't bother to ponder over what exists and what > does > not, my understanding is dictated by my knowledge of > satipatthana and > what objects can be the objects of sati of this level. S: :-) > For me words and > 'things' are in > their very nature, permanent, they refer to something that is > "there", > even if only for a moment. S: I have much difficulties trying to understand this statement. Could you elaborate further? You mean everything(concept) that is there is permanent? There are arising, presence and disolution in a "moment". The same must apply to concept. Even the word and description > of "impermanence" is not the actual fact of impermanence. So > when > one uses impermanence to refer to 'things', then it has a > different > meaning to me. In order to drop the idea of permanence with > reference > to objects, I now use the idea of impermanence; this > understanding can > lead to a dead-end. S: There is such thing as right view about phenomena as oppose to wrong view. I will cite a few examples of how the idea of impermanece of things(concepts) that did not lead to dead end. 1. Prince Siddattha after seeing the four signs, decided to make the Great Renunciation. 2. Khema, Queen of King Bimbisara, after seeing the beautiful woman created by the Buddha turned into bones, came to understand that there was no beauty in form, and subsequently became as arahat. 3. Ven Cula Panthaka, saw the clean cloth created by the Buddha turned soiled in his hands after rubbig it, reflected on impermanence and attained arahatship. There are many more examples like this in the Dhamapada stories. You can find them in "Buddhist Legends" by Eugene Watson Burlingame. > Please note that I am not saying that it is wrong to use the > word > impermanence with reference to conventional objects, just that > it > wouldn't have the same meaning as when made in reference to > paramattha dhammas. S: But you said it can lead to dead end?!?! > > Hope I have not confused further, since I feel I am a bit off > track > because I had something else in mind when earlier I read your > response > and now have ended up writing something different. S: I am confused. smallchap 21636 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:01pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, smallchap wrote: > >Sukin: If so then let me explain my real position with > > regard to > > this matter. > > I wasn't saying that there is permanency anywhere. With regard > > to > > conventional objects, I think they do not exist as objects of > > experience > > except as mental constructions and reconstructions. The > > distinctive > > realities responsible for this are I believe, sanna, vittaka > > and vichara. > > SMal: Thank you very much for your explanation. Certainly I have > learnt something from you. > > > Sukin:Normally I wouldn't bother to ponder over what exists and what > > does > > not, my understanding is dictated by my knowledge of > > satipatthana and > > what objects can be the objects of sati of this level. > > > Sm: I have much difficulties trying to understand this statement. > Could you elaborate further? > You mean everything(concept) that is there is permanent? There > are arising, presence and disolution in a "moment". The same > must apply to concept. ________________ Dear Smallchap, This is a post I sent last year which might help. Concepts (pannati) cannot arise or pass away, they are simply non-existent. Also see my post about suddeness ealier today. The Dhamma Theory Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA Y. Karunadasa The Wheel Publication No. 412/413 Karunadasa: """because pannattis are without corresponding objective reality, the commentaries call them asabhava-dhammas -- things without a real nature -- to distinguish them from the real elements of existence.Since sabhava, the intrinsic nature of a dhamma, is itself the dhamma, from the point of view of this definition what is qualified as asabhava amounts to an abhava, a non-existent in the final sense. It is in recognition of this fact that the three salient characteristics of empirical reality -- origination (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga) -- are not applied to them. For these three characteristics can be predicated only of those things which answer to the Abhidhammic definition of empirical reality. Again, unlike the real existents, pannattis are not brought about by conditions (paccayatthitika). For this same reason, they are also defined as "not positively produced" (aparinipphanna). Positive production (parinipphannata) is true only of those things which have their own individual nature (avenika-sabhava). Only a dhamma that has an own- nature, with a beginning and an end in time, produced by conditions, and marked by the three salient characteristics of conditioned existence, is positively produced. Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter are delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the pannattis can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva sambhonti); and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." Pannattis have no own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, presence, and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these three phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and future do not apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time (kalavimutta). For this self-same reason, they have no place in the traditional analysis of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is included in the khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality and be subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to be so described. Since the two categories of the conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of underscoring their unreality."">> robertK 21637 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Apr 25, 2003 11:14pm Subject: Three Cheers!!! Hello Jon, Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday dear Jon ... Happy Birthday to you! And SarahF is 22 today! How could she get to be older than her mother? :-) Many happy returns Jon - and may they be in happier years than this one. much metta, Chris 21638 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 0:21am Subject: Re: Suddeness, Introduction to yasalala KKT RobertK, Thank you for posting the Sutta. That was the one I had in mind. with metta, Yasalalaka 21639 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Cheers!!! Chris You're not supposed to know these things, but thanks anyway! Wishing SarahF all the best, too. (And I'm sure she appreciates how fortunate she is to have such a lovely, charming Mum.) Now, back to the list ... ;-)) Jon --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Jon, > > Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday dear > Jon ... Happy Birthday to you! > > And SarahF is 22 today! How could she get to be older than her > mother? :-) > > Many happy returns Jon - and may they be in happier years than this > one. > > much metta, > Chris 21640 From: nidive Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) RobertK, > Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot > be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned > (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to > be so described. Since the two categories of the conditioned and > the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of > pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of > underscoring their unreality. But do pannattis (concepts) condition conditioned dhammas? I know this is a stupid question; something which does not exist cannot condition something which does exist. But I cannot reconcile this with what the Blessed One said: "'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? ... ... Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the third sextet. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html If pannattis do not exist, then consciousness at the intellect cannot arise. (You may interpret "ideas" in the above quoted sutta as excluding pannattis. In that case, please ignore me.) Furthermore, I have sutta evidence that suggests that pannattis do "arise" and "fall away". "If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that wouldn't be tenable. The arising & falling away of ideas are discerned. And when their arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self.' Thus the intellect is not-self and ideas are not-self. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html [text in ellipsis expanded by me] (Again, you may interpret "ideas" in the above quoted sutta as excluding pannattis. In that case, please ignore me.) Swee Boon Illusions do exist. But what is alluded to by that illusion does not exist. And without the object of illusion, how can there be the illusion in the first place? 21641 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:19am Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 17-21 for comment Do People Really Exist? Slide Contents ============== M: By what name shall I know you, Sir? N: My companions call me Nâgasena. But the name and the person to whom the name refers do not really exist. M: If Nâgasena and the person do not exist, to whom do people offer alms and who receives these offerings? Since you receive them, you really exist. N: Your Majesty, did you come to this monastery on foot or by chariot? M: I came by chariot. N: Well then, what is a chariot? Is the horse the chariot? Is the wheel the chariot? Is the axle the chariot? Is the carriage the chariot? M: I must answer "No" to all of your questions. N: Is there a thing called chariot beside the horse, the wheel, the axle, the carriage, etc.? M: There is no chariot beside the horse, the wheels, the axle and the carriage. Just a combination of these things has been named a chariot. N: Very well, your Majesty, you should understand Nâgasena as you understood the chariot. Speaker Notes ============= "The Questions of King Milinda" was written in the first century BC. The book takes the form of questions from a philosopher king, King Milinda, to a Buddhist monk, Nâgasena. King Milinda was based on King Menander, a famous historical figure. King Menander was a Greek who ruled Bactria (present day Afghanistan) between 150 - 110 BC, about 200 years after Alexander the Great conquered the area. The Bactrians later became Buddhist. In fact, it is in Bactaria that the first statues of the Buddha (obviously with a Greek influence) were created in the first century AD. Prior to this, the Buddha was represented by footprints, an empty throne or a stupa. The dialogue above takes place when they first meet and illustrates the idea that concepts do not ultimately exist and apparent realities can be broken into ultimate realities. According to the Visuddhi Magga (Path of Purification), "… So in many hundred Suttas there is only mentality-materiality which is illustrated, not a being, not a person. Therefore, just as when the component parts (of a chariot) such as axles, wheels, frame, poles… are arranged in a certain way, there comes to be the mere conventional term 'chariot', yet in the ultimate sense, when each part is examined, there is no chariot… so too, when there are the five khandhas of clinging there comes to be the mere conventional term 'a being', 'a person', yet in the ultimate sense, when each component is examined, there is no being as a basis for the assumption 'I am' or 'I'; in the ultimate sense there is only mentality-materiality. The vision of one who sees in this way is called correct vision." 21642 From: smallchap Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Robert K, Your speed of reply is amazing. --- rjkjp1 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, smallchap > Dear Smallchap, > This is a post I sent last year which might help. Concepts > (pannati) > cannot arise or pass away, they are simply non-existent. Also > see my > post about suddeness ealier today. > > The Dhamma Theory > Philosophical Cornerstone of the ABHIDHAMMA > Y. Karunadasa The Wheel Publication No. 412/413 > Karunadasa: > """because pannattis are without corresponding objective > reality, the > commentaries call them asabhava-dhammas -- things without a > real > nature -- > to distinguish them from the real elements of existence.Since > sabhava, the > intrinsic nature of a dhamma, is itself the dhamma, from the > point > of view > of this definition what is qualified as asabhava amounts to an > > abhava, a > non-existent in the final sense. It is in recognition of this > fact > that > the three salient characteristics of empirical reality -- > origination > (uppada), subsistence (thiti), and dissolution (bhanga) -- are > not > applied > to them. For these three characteristics can be predicated > only of > those > things which answer to the Abhidhammic definition of empirical > > reality. > Again, unlike the real existents, pannattis are not brought > about by > conditions (paccayatthitika). For this same reason, they are > also > defined > as "not positively produced" (aparinipphanna). Positive > production > (parinipphannata) is true only of those things which have > their own > individual nature (avenika-sabhava). Only a dhamma that has an > own- > nature, > with a beginning and an end in time, produced by conditions, > and > marked by > the three salient characteristics of conditioned existence, is > > positively > produced. > > Further, pannattis differ from dhammas in that only the latter > are > delimited by rise and fall; only of the dhammas and not of the > > pannattis > can it be said, "They come into being having not been (ahutva > sambhonti); > and, after having been, they cease (hutva pativenti)." > Pannattis > have no > own-nature to be manifested in the three instants of arising, > presence, > and dissolution. Since they have no existence marked by these > three > phases, such temporal distinctions as past, present, and > future do > not > apply to them. Consequently they have no reference to time > (kalavimutta). > For this self-same reason, they have no place in the > traditional > analysis > of empirical existence into the five khandhas, for what is > included > in the > khandhas should have the characteristics of empirical reality > and be > subject to temporal divisions.121 Another noteworthy > characteristic > of > pannattis is that they cannot be described either as > conditioned > (sankhata) or as unconditioned (asankhata), for they do not > possess > their > own-nature (sabhava) to be so described. Since the two > categories of > the > conditioned and the unconditioned comprise all realities, the > description > of pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another > way of > underscoring their unreality."">> > > robertK S: I do undestand now. This explanation is most helpful. Thank you very much. smallchap p.s. Professor Y. Karunadasa teaches Dhamma courses in Singapore at the Buddhist Library. If I find the opportunity I will sit a course of Abhidhamma under his tutorship. 21643 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:36am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) ---""But do pannattis (concepts) condition conditioned dhammas?""" Dear Swee boon, On the contrary , an excellent question. The puzzling answer is yes. Concepts do condition conditioned dhammas. I think this is hard to put into words and yet it can be known directly. The teaching of the Buddha is conceptual and it can condition wisdom leading to nibbana. Concepts are the object of citta but not in quite the same way as paramattha dhammas. I should point out that "ideas" in the sutta you quote is a rather poor choice. The Pali is 'dhamma' as far as I can see. What the translator calls "intellect" is mano. My pali is word by word so it would take me a long time to properly translate it and I don't have Bodhi's translation to check against. But anyway from my brief glance at the pali it is clear that what is being referred to are ayatana - i.e. paramattha dhammas. It is not concepts or pannati at all. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > RobertK, > > > Another noteworthy characteristic of pannattis is that they cannot > > be described either as conditioned (sankhata) or as unconditioned > > (asankhata), for they do not possess their own-nature (sabhava) to > > be so described. Since the two categories of the conditioned and > > the unconditioned comprise all realities, the description of > > pannattis as exempt from these two categories is another way of > > underscoring their unreality. > ___________________________________________ > But do pannattis (concepts) condition conditioned dhammas? > > I know this is a stupid question; something which does not exist > cannot condition something which does exist. > > But I cannot reconcile this with what the Blessed One said: > > "'The six classes of consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. > In reference to what was it said? ... ... Dependent on the intellect & > ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. 'The six classes of > consciousness should be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to > this was it said. This is the third sextet. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html > > If pannattis do not exist, then consciousness at the intellect cannot > arise. (You may interpret "ideas" in the above quoted sutta as > excluding pannattis. In that case, please ignore me.) > > Furthermore, I have sutta evidence that suggests that pannattis do > "arise" and "fall away". > > "If anyone were to say, 'Ideas are the self,' that wouldn't be > tenable. The arising & falling away of ideas are discerned. And when > their arising & falling away are discerned, it would follow that 'My > self arises & falls away.' That's why it wouldn't be tenable if anyone > were to say, 'Ideas are the self.' Thus the intellect is not-self and > ideas are not-self. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html > [text in ellipsis expanded by me] > > (Again, you may interpret "ideas" in the above quoted sutta as > excluding pannattis. In that case, please ignore me.) > > Swee Boon > > Illusions do exist. But what is alluded to by that illusion does not > exist. And without the object of illusion, how can there be the > illusion in the first place? 21644 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:40am Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, smallchap wrote: > > p.s. Professor Y. Karunadasa teaches Dhamma courses in Singapore > at the Buddhist Library. If I find the opportunity I will sit a > course of Abhidhamma under his tutorship. > _____________ Please pay my deep respects. His scholarship is extraordinary, his book on Rupa a treasured possesion. RobertK 21645 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:55am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi RobK and Swee Boon, Bodhi's translation is: "'The six classes of consciousness should be understood.' So it was said. And with reference to what was this said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; dependent on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; dependent on the tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; dependent on the mind and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises. So it was with reference to this that it was said: 'The six classes of consciousness should be understood.' metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > ---""But do pannattis (concepts) condition conditioned dhammas?""" > Dear Swee boon, > > On the contrary , an excellent question. > The puzzling answer is yes. Concepts do condition conditioned > dhammas. I think this is hard to put into words and yet it can be > known directly. The teaching of the Buddha is conceptual and it can > condition wisdom leading to nibbana. > Concepts are the object of citta but not in quite the same way as > paramattha dhammas. > I should point out that "ideas" in the sutta you quote is a rather > poor choice. The Pali is 'dhamma' as far as I can see. What the > translator calls "intellect" is mano. My pali is word by word so it > would take me a long time to properly translate it and I don't have > Bodhi's translation to check against. But anyway from my brief > glance at the pali it is clear that what is being referred to are > ayatana - i.e. paramattha dhammas. It is not concepts or pannati at > all. > RobertK > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: 21646 From: nidive Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 3:58am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) RobertK, > On the contrary , an excellent question. > The puzzling answer is yes. Concepts do condition conditioned > dhammas. I think this is hard to put into words and yet it can be > known directly. The teaching of the Buddha is conceptual and it can > condition wisdom leading to nibbana. Well, I take it that concepts are not that "innocent" after all. > The Pali is 'dhamma' as far as I can see. What the translator > calls "intellect" is mano. > But anyway from my brief glance at the pali it is clear that what > is being referred to are ayatana - i.e. paramattha dhammas. It is > not concepts or pannati at all. I do not take this position. The five classes of arammana which are visible object, sound, smell, taste and bodily impressions are rupa ; the sixth class, the six kinds of dhammarammana, comprises cittas, cetasikas, pasada rupas, subtle rupas, nibbana and also pannatti. http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid16.html Swee Boon 21647 From: nidive Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 4:08am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Christine, > Bodhi's translation is: "'The six classes of consciousness should be > understood.' So it was said. And with reference to what was this > said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; > dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; dependent > on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; dependent on the > tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the > body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; dependent on the mind > and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises. So it was with > reference to this that it was said: 'The six classes of > consciousness should be understood.' Thank you for posting. That was the third sextet. The second sextet is: "'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. In reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the idea-medium (or mind-objects medium). 'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said. This is the second sextet. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html The five classes of arammana which are visible object, sound, smell, taste and bodily impressions are rupa ; the sixth class, the six kinds of dhammarammana, comprises cittas, cetasikas, pasada rupas, subtle rupas, nibbana and also pannatti. As regards dhammarammana, the sixth class of arammana, this can again be subdivided into six classes. They are : 1. The five sense-organs (pasada-rupas) 2. The sixteen subtle rupas (sukhuma-rupas) 3. Citta 4. Cetasika 5. Nibbana 6. Conventional terms or concepts (pannatti) http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid16.html I think that my interpretation of "ideas" or "mind-objects" ties in with what Nina had given in ADL. Swee Boon 21648 From: Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 0:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Hi, Jon - In a message dated 4/26/03 12:56:34 AM Eastern Daylight Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > Thanks for this post, which I have added to my (rather lengthy) queue > of posts to be replied to. On a quick reading, however, I wasn’t > able to grasp the meaning of your remarks about conflating the mental > constructs that are 'tree' concepts and 'tree' percepts with what you > call the 'alleged external "trees"'. Could you expand on this a > little, please? Thanks. > > ============================ Yes. I could of course be consistently misunderstanding you in this. Let me try to explain. By "concepts" I mean general ideas or thoughts which intend to denote categories of alleged entities. These are ideas, some more specific, some less, of trees, cars, numbers, saints, sinners, battleships, and bugs, but also of simple, directly and actually experienced phenomena. For any of these categories of thought, we typically think that we have a single concept that repeatedly comes to mind, but we really have a multitude of closely related concepts, differing in many ways. Our concepts are intricately interrelated, with heirarchical relationships being only one common type. The simplest concepts are what might be called paramattha concepts, because they do have directly observed referents; these are concepts of such experiences as hardness, pleasantness, attention, sounds, etc., not the phenomena themselves, but our ideas of them. Frequently, but not always, our concepts have language terms associated with them. Concepts arise in the mind, where previously they were not present, and then they cease. Moreover, the patterns for our concepts, passed along in memory, are modified from time to time. The remembered templates change less frequently than their instances that arise and cease very frequently, but even these templates come and go, and certainly many if not all cease upon death. These are all conditioned mental phenomena that arise and cease, and are impermanent. The intended referents of most concepts are nonexistent, or, at least, in-principle unobservable, because all that is directly knowable are the contents of mind (where, by "mind" here, I mean nama), and not "things out in the world". The concepts, themselves, are ideas, and these are observable through the mind door just as images are observable through the eye door or sounds through the ear door. More specific than the concepts are those ideas I call "percepts", and they amount to mental constructs built by combining concepts with specific sequences of directly experienced phenomena. An example is the percept of "the tree I see right now through the window". This mental object is far more specific than the general concept of 'tree', and it *appears* as an entity that I am *seeing* - a "real thing" outside in the world. But such a percept is basically of the same type as a concept. It is a mental construct which arises and ceases, which is directly and actually observed, but seems to point to an entity other than itself, a self-existent, mind-independent entity. It seems to me that often you do not distinguish between concept and intended referent, and between percept and apparent referent, particularly as regards tthe matter of existence. I think that the distinction between concept/percept and intended referent is important. Our percepts, moreso than our concepts, change very quickly. The tree percept we have one moment is quite different from the tree percept of a few moments earlier, because the later one is based on different rupic phenomena. But the alleged tree, itself, which *seems* to change - now swaying this way, now swaying that way, doesn't actually change at all due to not actually existing! The percepts exist - they arise, cease, get replaced by other ones etc; but their referents typically do not. I don't think you make this distinction between ideas and their alleged referents, at least not consistently, and that is what I mean by conflating the two. I hope this clarifies what I meant sufficiently to enable you to explain where I am off base in understanding your position, if I am off base. 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) 21649 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:00am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, > It is indeed good to be able to exchange these views, with you. I > hope this exchange will provide you useful material to chew on. It > does help me to understand different ideas, and certain experiences I > have by discussing these issues. Yes I think it is always fruitful to discuss dhamma, if we cannot get to right view immediately, we can at least get to see our own views from a different perspective. > In my mind there is a difference in wisdom as far as its development > is concerned. The wisdom (panna) ,begins with samadhi, > concentration, jhana, insight, stream entry and matures to break > through to the state of Arahat. Rob M. mentioned in his post following yours, about sparks and flame. I think panna like anything else rises and falls immediately. Depending on accumulated panna, frequency of these sparks of wisdom arises to do their jobs in steering us towards the correct understanding. So I believe that it is precisely these sparks which arises and falls, unawares to us, between moments of thinking and other sense impressions, which determine the direction of how anything is finally understood, even if this be only on the intellectual level. Understanding is understanding no matter what level. I believe that a jhana practitioner must have a high degree of panna, but this is not of the same kind as that of satipatthana. A jhana meditator does not need to have heard about the Teachings, in which case he will not reach vipassana. > We may call the intellectual understanding of right view, difference > between Kamma/vipaka etc. worldly wisdom, they are merely knowing the > each stage of the path as we traverse it to-wards Nibbana. Like the > citta that conditions the cuti-citta, panna conditions the break away > from Samsara to reach Nibbana. There are people who can recite the Tipitaka by heart, who know the detailed description of what takes place at different stages of nana, does this mean that they have 'understanding'? On the other hand, there are those who know only very limited theory, but they may have deeply pondered what little they have heard, and they know how to apply this in daily life, wouldn't these be having more panna? > I really don't know whether it is the knowlege or the understanding > that passes from one life to the other, but I take it to be the > accumulated knowledge of the past life that make us understand , > related matters, in this life. I am not very clear about this either ;-). > Meditation or bhavana is called the cultivation of the mind. Whole > of Buddha's teaching is to lead us to develop the mind (nama). It is > the diligent meditation that will make us experience paramatta > dhamma, and understand that all conceptual things are subject to > change and perish, and they are unsatisfactory, and 'self' is a > delusion. We will understand that it is attachment (lobha), aversion > (dosa) and delusion(moha) that keep us bound to the samasara,and that > knowledge (panna), will cause the break away from samasara. You are interested in Abhidhamma, so you will surely agree that there is only this moment of arising and falling. That sati and panna arises because of conditions and this can happen at anytime and place. When there is sati now, there is no concept of time and place for doing any activity. It is only in moments of being caught in concepts of self and other, does the idea of "doing" and time and place occur. Agreed, that right effort is necessary, but you will also agree that 'wrong effort' can take one in exactly the opposite direction?! So what decides which effort is right or wrong, intention? Intention towards what? Penetrating the Trilakkhana? It is my understanding that if panna does arise for a moment to illuminate this fact, by the time one gets down to do something towards this end, the understanding is already lost and lobha takes control. And this would I think, dictate the quality of the practice. So what is important then? Becoming more intimate with the nature of these realities, intellectually, but more so experientially, without choice without control, no? > Abhidhamma is Buddha's teachings in ultimate terms, opposed to > convential terminology he used in Sutta Pitaka. It is a difficult > Dhamma to undertand, but which becomes evident in Insight Meditation > through experiencing the arising and falling away of nama-rupa and > so on. One must know what exactly this Trilakhana is and the characteristic of what it is. I think you already know that concepts do not have this characteristic, so it must be a dhamma. And you know that dhamma is so elusive that it is only sati which can be aware of it, and sati as I said, is anatta and arises only when the conditions are right. Does "wanting" provide the right conditions for sati? *Lobha can appear very calm too*. With all the accumulated avijja and tendency to lobha, would you risk believing what the result of your practice says!? BTW, I think Abhidhamma is the `easy' one of the two; there is comparatively little chance of making a mistake in interpretation. > Lord Buddha in the conclusion of his discourse on the Four > Foundations of Mindfulness-Mahasatipatthgana Sutta says: > > "Let alone seven years. If anyone would develop these four frames of > reference in this way for six years... five... four... three... two > years... one year... seven months... six months... five... four... > three... two months... one month... half a month, one of two fruits > can be expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if > there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. > "Let alone half a month. If anyone would develop these four frames of > reference in this way for seven days, one of two fruits can be > expected for him: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be > any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return. > "'This is the direct path for the purification of beings, for the > overcoming of sorrow & lamentation, for the disappearance of pain & > distress, for the attainment of the right method, & for the > realization of Unbinding -- in other words, the four frames of > reference.' Thus was it said, and in reference to this was it said." > > You can become an Arahat in this very life,if you follow the > instructions for meditation given in this Sutta. Learning Abhidhamm, > will be a great advantage in making a success of vipassana meditation. I think Buddha wasn't refering to formal sitting practice, but to "Satipatthana" which is what this sutta is all about. And yes, it can happen even in less than 7 days. But this wouldn't have been a result of putting effort of the wrong kind, no? And even if it did happen in seven days, would it have been because of the practice done in this lifetime alone? The story of the Buddha having sat down under the Bodhi tree and finally being enlightened, gives some people the impression that he came upon a "method" of practice, which he later gave out in the form of the Mahasatipatthana Sutta. But I don't think this is the case. There is no method, let alone a short cut to enlightenment. The Zen people are just off on this, they imply that they have discovered an even shorter cut!! Buddha discovered and just explained these realities. It took him the necessary time to reach a full understanding, so does it everyone else. We all have to deal with the baggage of accumulated ignorance which we have with the tools that we have, which is no different from these very same accumulated tendencies. Await your response. Best wishes, Sukin. 21650 From: nidive Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:38am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi RobertK & Christine, > The five classes of arammana which are visible object, sound, smell, > taste and bodily impressions are rupa ; the sixth class, the six > kinds of dhammarammana, comprises cittas, cetasikas, pasada rupas, > subtle rupas, nibbana and also pannatti. I realized that I am wrong in interpreting the term "ideas" or " mind objects". (I forgot about nibbana!) But if "ideas" or "mind objects" does not include pannatti, how could one discern the cessation of craving with regard to pannatti? Doesn't contact between the intellect and pannatti cause feelings to arise? "Dependent on the intellect & ideas there arises consciousness at the intellect. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there arises what is felt either as pleasure, pain, or neither pleasure nor pain. If, when touched by a feeling of pleasure, one does not relish it, welcome it, or remain fastened to it, then one's passion-obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of pain, one does not sorrow, grieve, or lament, beat one's breast or become distraught, then one's resistance obsession doesn't get obsessed. If, when touched by a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, one discerns, as it actually is present, the origination, passing away, allure, drawback, & escape from that feeling, then one's ignorance-obsession doesn't get obsessed. That a person -- through abandoning passion-obsession with regard to a feeling of pleasure, through abolishing resistance-obsession with regard to a feeling of pain, through uprooting ignorance-obsession with regard to a feeling of neither pleasure nor pain, through abandoning ignorance and giving rise to clear knowing -- would put an end to suffering & stress in the here & now: such a thing is possible. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html Swee Boon 21651 From: smallchap Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Robert K, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, smallchap > > wrote: > > > p.s. Professor Y. Karunadasa teaches Dhamma courses in > Singapore > > at the Buddhist Library. If I find the opportunity I will > sit a > > course of Abhidhamma under his tutorship. > > _____________ > Please pay my deep respects. > RobertK Will do when I meet him. smallchap 21652 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:44am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sukin, Thank you for your last message. I was wandering how best to make a reply. I am a Buddhist and after reading a lot on Buddhism and meeting friends, who were Meditators, took to meditation myself. The bulk of the Buddha's teachings were to his disciples the Bikkhus. The appropriate monastic environment for the Bikkhus, facilitated their meditation. While his disciples found it convenient to follow the path, divided under the Sila, Samadhi, Panna. The laymen, followed the dhamma, grouped under Dana,Sila, Bhavana. I am sure you know this therefore I will not elaborate on it. In either case meditation( bhavana ) is the important element of Buddha's teaching. All his teachings stress the necessity to accomplish Sila,Samadhi,Panna to free one self from the suffering in the Samsara. The discourses of the Buddha, made to his Bikkhus and lay disciples, are collected in the Sutta Pitaka. They are all directions for his followers, how to lead a life of morality and Meditate, as it is the only way to liberate themselves from the suffering in the cycle of birth and death. In the Maha satipattahna Sutta, he lays down all the essential directions for his disciples to lead a noble life of a yogi ( one who meditates to have insight into anicca, dukka,anatma and attain nibbana). I have taken the following extract from the Maha Satipatthana Sutta, from the website "accesstoinsight" " There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. " These are of course instructions given to his Bikkhus , but we can use these instructions, adjusted to our situation as laymen, with lay responsibilities. I have been following meditation accordingly. The Buddha according to records, did not make the discourse on Abhidhamma to his disciples. He made the discourse to the Devas. Only Venerable Sariputta had access to it. However, the contents of the Abhidhamma teachings were included in his discourses to his Bikkhus, which are now collected in the Sutta Pitaka. Abhidhamma is abstract, bare bones of Buddha's teachings as found in the Sutta Pitaka (paramatta dhamma) and said to be difficult to understand, and in Buddhist Countries like Sri Lanka, the lay Buddhists did not have access to it. It is only in recent time that the lay persons began to study it. I tried to read the Abhidhamma, in a book written by Venerable Narada Thero, many years ago,and I found it difficult and boring. So I gave it up. Thereafter, I did not bother about it, until very recently I came accross the website 'vipassana.info". I saw the documents on Abhidhamma, and read the first two chapters, of Nina's book on Abhidhamma in Daily Life, and found it more easy to read, and by now, after several years of meditation, I am familier with the subject matter. I am determined to finish reading her book . I read it little by little, when I have the time. I had to pose some questions, to Nina, and I was directed to this Forum. Some of the questions were interesting and I though I could make a positive contribution, and therefore,made my first post and few others thereafter. Abhidhamma is certainly a very interesting teaching of the Buddha, and is beneficial for meditation, and understanding the Dhamma better. with metta, Yasalalaka 21653 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya Hi Michael, ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael Newton To: Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:44 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya > Actually,James,it's not my interpretation.I'm > just saying what I actually am directly reading in > this sutta.I'm unclear, where The Buddha actually > commands Vassakara to-wage war with the Vajjis as I > am going over the text which I have a hard copy of. > Seems nowhere to be found. Of course you are correct--the Buddha did not command or suggest that Vassakara (or his boss, Ajatasattu, the king of Magadha, rather) attack the Vajjis. In fact, he affirmed (via Ananda) that the seven conditions leading to a nation's welfare (which he had taught to the Vajjis when he lived in Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine) endured among the Vajjis. That being the case, his advice to Vassakara was: "So long, brahman, as these endure among the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their growth is to be expected, not their decline." Vassakara clearly took this (correctly) to mean that it would not be a good idea to attack the Vajjis. Vassakara: "No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord. Well, then, Venerable Gotama, we will take our leave, for we have much to perform, much work to do." When the Buddha dismisses him with, "Do as now seems fit to you, brahman", (as he often dismissed laypeople and sometimes bhikkhus), Vassakara is clearly returning to Ajatasattu to advise him NOT to attack the Vajjis. To read this as a justification for or instruction to war is to diametrically misread this discourse, although to make or not make war is beside its point--its point is to instruct those present in the conditions for the welfare first of nations, then of bhikkhus. There is no suggestion here or elsewhere in the tipitaka that I'm aware of that war is for the welfare of anyone. Just my opinions, Michael--thanks for your patience. mike 21654 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Cheers!!! Yes, Happy Birthday, Jon--and here's to an end to birthdays! mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 12:23 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Three Cheers!!! > Chris > > You're not supposed to know these things, but thanks anyway! > > Wishing SarahF all the best, too. (And I'm sure she appreciates how > fortunate she is to have such a lovely, charming Mum.) > > Now, back to the list ... ;-)) > > Jon > > --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hello Jon, > > > > Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday to you! Happy Birthday dear > > Jon ... Happy Birthday to you! > > > > And SarahF is 22 today! How could she get to be older than her > > mother? :-) > > > > Many happy returns Jon - and may they be in happier years than this > > one. > > > > much metta, > > Chris 21655 From: Michael Newton Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Newton > To: > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:44 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya > > > > Actually,James,it's not my interpretation.I'm > > just saying what I actually am directly reading in > > this sutta.I'm unclear, where The Buddha actually > > commands Vassakara to-wage war with the Vajjis as > I > > am going over the text which I have a hard copy > of. > > Seems nowhere to be found. > > Of course you are correct--the Buddha did not > command or suggest that > Vassakara (or his boss, Ajatasattu, the king of > Magadha, rather) attack the > Vajjis. In fact, he affirmed (via Ananda) that the > seven conditions leading > to a nation's welfare (which he had taught to the > Vajjis when he lived in > Vesali, at the Sarandada shrine) endured among the > Vajjis. That being the > case, his advice to Vassakara was: "So long, > brahman, as these endure among > the Vajjis, and the Vajjis are known for it, their > growth is to be expected, > not their decline." Vassakara clearly took this > (correctly) to mean that it > would not be a good idea to attack the Vajjis. > Vassakara: "No harm, > indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by > Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, > except through treachery or discord. Well, then, > Venerable Gotama, we will > take our leave, for we have much to perform, much > work to do." > > When the Buddha dismisses him with, "Do as now > seems fit to you, brahman", > (as he often dismissed laypeople and sometimes > bhikkhus), Vassakara is > clearly returning to Ajatasattu to advise him NOT to > attack the Vajjis. > > To read this as a justification for or instruction > to war is to > diametrically misread this discourse, although to > make or not make war is > beside its point--its point is to instruct those > present in the conditions > for the welfare first of nations, then of bhikkhus. > There is no suggestion > here or elsewhere in the tipitaka that I'm aware of > that war is for the > welfare of anyone. > > Just my opinions, Michael--thanks for your patience. > > mike > Hello!Mike; Fantastic,Mike,you filled in the parts,that I didn't understand.Yes,if you don't understand the complete context one misunderstands the meaning of the suttas in those circumstances.Thank you for clearing this up.Yours in the Dhamma,Michael > 21656 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:04am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Sukin, Thanks for the feedback. I am not knowledge about the path moment, the citta moment, the phala citta, and path consciousness so I can't really comment on what you said regarding concentration. I would say that concentration is a necessary condition for wisdom, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present. knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-023.html I wonder if you can clarify the following comment. But it seems to me rather, that what you suggest is more like an intellectual overlay. It seems to be like forcing an idea on to an experience? In particular, what idea is it? Again, your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > Yes, that is if we are talking about the path moment. However the > reason I mentioned 'in and of itself' with reference to > concentration, was not in reference to this. I was talking about > deliberate practice, which may be what you are talking about too. If > so, then I am not sure how much concentration practice plays a part > in deciding the depth of understanding during path moment. I do know > from theory however, that at the time of path consciousness there is > a degree of high concentration which *is* necessary. But this > wouldn't have been the product of previous practice in > concentration, but as a result of having Nibanna as object. And as I > understand, this is just one citta moment which never arises again > ever, since it has done its job in the corresponding level of > sainthood. So it seems that concentration practice has no bearing to > this. The resultant phala citta may depend on previous practice, I > don't know. However, I don't think this resultant citta is that > important? > > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Now I wait for your feedback. > > I just remembered about your comment in a letter before this one to > which I wanted to say something. Hope you don't mind me saying it > here. > You said that the distinction between concept and reality is an > unnecessary intellectual overlay. You seemed to imply that the > important point was to see all experiences as this is not mine. > This I am not. This is not my self. Or that whatever it is, > it's 'impermanent'. > The distinction between concept and reality on the level of > contemplation may be intellectual, but when something is > experienced, it can be "recognized" as concept or reality. Of course > it would be unrealistic to say that this would be the case for > beginners like me, and even if it did, there will surely be papanca > following it, wondering "What that was….?" > > But it seems to me rather, that what you suggest is more like an > intellectual overlay. It seems to be like forcing an idea on to an > experience? > > Now you will give me feedback I am sure! ;-) > > Best wishes, > Sukin. 21657 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:04am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Sukin, Thanks for the feedback. I am not knowledge about the path moment, the citta moment, the phala citta, and path consciousness so I can't really comment on what you said regarding concentration. I would say that concentration is a necessary condition for wisdom, knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present. knowledge & vision of things as they actually are present has concentration as its prerequisite, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-023.html I wonder if you can clarify the following comment. But it seems to me rather, that what you suggest is more like an intellectual overlay. It seems to be like forcing an idea on to an experience? In particular, what idea is it? Again, your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Victor, > [snip] > > Yes, that is if we are talking about the path moment. However the > reason I mentioned 'in and of itself' with reference to > concentration, was not in reference to this. I was talking about > deliberate practice, which may be what you are talking about too. If > so, then I am not sure how much concentration practice plays a part > in deciding the depth of understanding during path moment. I do know > from theory however, that at the time of path consciousness there is > a degree of high concentration which *is* necessary. But this > wouldn't have been the product of previous practice in > concentration, but as a result of having Nibanna as object. And as I > understand, this is just one citta moment which never arises again > ever, since it has done its job in the corresponding level of > sainthood. So it seems that concentration practice has no bearing to > this. The resultant phala citta may depend on previous practice, I > don't know. However, I don't think this resultant citta is that > important? > > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Now I wait for your feedback. > > I just remembered about your comment in a letter before this one to > which I wanted to say something. Hope you don't mind me saying it > here. > You said that the distinction between concept and reality is an > unnecessary intellectual overlay. You seemed to imply that the > important point was to see all experiences as this is not mine. > This I am not. This is not my self. Or that whatever it is, > it's 'impermanent'. > The distinction between concept and reality on the level of > contemplation may be intellectual, but when something is > experienced, it can be "recognized" as concept or reality. Of course > it would be unrealistic to say that this would be the case for > beginners like me, and even if it did, there will surely be papanca > following it, wondering "What that was….?" > > But it seems to me rather, that what you suggest is more like an > intellectual overlay. It seems to be like forcing an idea on to an > experience? > > Now you will give me feedback I am sure! ;-) > > Best wishes, > Sukin. 21658 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:24am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Robert K, Pardon me for jumping in. I find your comments regarding concept a bit puzzling. On one hand I see that you say: Concepts (pannati) cannot arise or pass away, they are simply non- existent. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21636 On the other hand, I see that you say: Concepts are the object of citta but not in quite the same way as paramattha dhammas. Could you explain how it is possible that concepts are the object of citta if they are non-existent in the first place?? Your explanation is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > ---""But do pannattis (concepts) condition conditioned dhammas?""" > Dear Swee boon, > [snip] > Concepts are the object of citta but not in quite the same way as > paramattha dhammas. [snip] > RobertK 21659 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 0:37pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 22-23 for comment What does exist? Slide Contents ============== Ultimate Realities (Paramattha): - Consciousness (Citta) - Mental Factors (Cetasikas) - Physical Phenomena (Rūpa) - Nibbāna Concept of Self - Matter (Rūpa) -> Rūpa - Feeling (Vedanā) -> Cetasika - Perception (Saññā) -> Cetasika - Mental Formations (Sankhāra) -> 50 Cetasikas - Consciousness (Viññāna) -> Citta Matter, Feeling, Perception, Mental Formations and Consciousness are the 5 Aggregates Speaker Notes ============= If "people" do not exist, what does exist? What are the component parts? According to the Abhidhamma, there are four types of things that exist: - Consciousness (Citta in Pali) - Mental Factors (Cetasikas in Pali) - Physical Phenomena (Rūpa in Pali) - Nibbāna The first three of these ultimate realities are called "conditioned realities"; this means that they arise because of other conditions and only last for an instant before falling away. In the Suttas, the Buddha often spoke of a being consisting of the "five aggregates" (pañca-khandha in Pali). This chart shows how the five aggregates fit into the first three types of ultimate realities. 21660 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 1:59pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment(yasa.. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > > Abhidhamma is abstract, bare bones of Buddha's teachings as found in > the Sutta Pitaka (paramatta dhamma) and said to be difficult to > understand, and in Buddhist Countries like Sri Lanka, the lay > Buddhists did not have access to it. It is only in recent time that > the lay persons began to study it. ___________________________--- Dear Yasalalaka, Just a small point. I agree that the bhikkhus usually had more time and access to the Tipitaka, and of course their skill in pali was a great advantage for study too. But also laypeople right from the time of the Buddha knew Abhidhamma. I found this small example regarding Sri lanka: http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhidhamma_philosophy_its_estima.htm "" In the 10th century A.C. on the order of king Kassapa V of Ceylon, the whole Abhidhamma Pitaka was inscribed on gold plates, and the first of these books, the Dhammasangani, was set with jewels. When the work was completed, the precious manuscripts were taken in a huge procession to a beautiful monastery and deposited there. Another king of Ceylon, Vijaya Bahu (11th century), used to study the Dhammasangani in the early morning before he took up his royal duties, and he prepared a translation of it into Sinhalese, which however has not been preserved."" RobertK 21661 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:23pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Swee Boon and Christine, Thanks for the translation from Ven,. Bodhi Christine - one I like. I had time to study the Pali more. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: Swee Boon::Furthermore, I have sutta evidence that suggests that pannattis do "arise" and "fall away". _______________ Robert: The Pali is 'dhamma' as far as I can see. What the translator > calls "intellect" is mano. > But anyway from my brief glance at the pali it is clear that what > is being referred to are ayatana - i.e. paramattha dhammas. It is > not concepts or pannati at all. ------------------------- Swe boon: I do not take this position. The five classes of arammana which are visible object, sound, smell, taste and bodily impressions are rupa ; the sixth class, the six kinds of dhammarammana, comprises cittas, cetasikas, pasada rupas, subtle rupas, nibbana and also pannatti. >Swee Boon: Thank you for posting. That was the third sextet. The second sextet > is: > > "'The six external media should be known.' Thus it was said. In > reference to what was it said? The form-medium, the sound-medium, the > aroma-medium, the flavor-medium, the tactile sensation-medium, the > idea-medium (or mind-objects medium). 'The six external media should > be known.' Thus it was said. And in reference to this was it said. > This is the second sextet. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn148.html > > The five classes of arammana which are visible object, sound, smell, > taste and bodily impressions are rupa ; the sixth class, the six kinds > of dhammarammana, comprises cittas, cetasikas, pasada rupas, subtle > rupas, nibbana and also pannatti. > > As regards dhammarammana, the sixth class of arammana, this can again > be subdivided into six classes. > > They are : > 1. The five sense-organs (pasada-rupas) > 2. The sixteen subtle rupas (sukhuma-rupas) > 3. Citta > 4. Cetasika > 5. Nibbana > 6. Conventional terms or concepts (pannatti) > > http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid16.html > > I think that my interpretation of "ideas" or "mind-objects" ties in > with what Nina had given in ADL. ___________________ The Pali of the Sutta is not talking about dhammarammana - which as you correctly note above does include pannatti, concept. The sutta is about ayatana (sense fields) and what the translation from access to insight calls 'ideas'is dhammayatana. Dhammayatana only refers to paramattha dhammas and never includes pannati, concepts . Note that in the 6 types of dhammarammana you give above nibbana also does not arise or pass away. RobertK > > > > > Bodhi's translation is: "'The six classes of consciousness should be > > understood.' So it was said. And with reference to what was this > > said? Dependent on the eye and forms, eye-consciousness arises; > > dependent on the ear and sounds, ear-consciousness arises; dependent > > on the nose and odours, nose-consciousness arises; dependent on the > > tongue and flavours, tongue-consciousness arises; dependent on the > > body and tangibles, body-consciousness arises; dependent on the mind > > and mind-objects, mind-consciousness arises. So it was with > > reference to this that it was said: 'The six classes of > > consciousness should be understood.' > 21662 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:40pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment(yasa.. RobertK, thankyou for the information. But the kings were privileged people weren't they ? with metta Yasalalaka 21663 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:41pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > Pardon me for jumping in. I find your comments regarding concept a > bit puzzling. On one hand I see that you say: > > > Concepts (pannati) cannot arise or pass away, they are simply non- > existent. > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21636 > > On the other hand, I see that you say: > > > Concepts are the object of citta but not in quite the same way as > paramattha dhammas. > > > Could you explain how it is possible that concepts are the object of > citta if they are non-existent in the first place?? > > Your explanation is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor >______________ A good question Victor. I think this can only be properly understood directly - By learning to study the realities that arise here and now it can be seen that when there is a process of conceptualising that in fact there is only citta and cetasika (consciousness and mental factors). So citta is forming up concepts. The process of conceptualising is a function of mentality - it is not something bad at all. Without this process happening we couldn't talk or know what food tastes good. We couldn't even cross the road. We would be more helpless than day old babies. So the development of insight is not about suppressing concepts, rather there is distinguishing of concept from paramattha. The Abhidhammathasangaha says about concepts like human, person, man, chariot, lute that "All such different things , though they do not exist in the ultimate sense , become objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things (paramattha dhammas)"(bodhi p.326 Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas directly even during the processes of thinking that take concepts for objects. Now there is thinking happening that is trying to comprehend what was just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just a conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was unpleasant feeling, not you. These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will always be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become someone whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper investigation. RobertK 21664 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 2:45pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment(yasa.. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > RobertK, > > thankyou for the information. But the kings were privileged people > weren't they ? > > with metta > > Yasalalaka ___ Dear Yasalaka, Yes, they were. And we are just as privileged as them - we can study Abhidhamma too. Someone may be rich and successful at this time in Sri lanka and not even know anything about the Abhidhamma. On the other hand millenia ago poor villagers went to the temple almost daily and listened to wise monks expound subtle points of Abhidhamma. They were greatly privileged. Robertk 21665 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 3:13pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) --- Dear swee boon, Ignore my last post as I sent it before seeing this one. I like your question below. See my comments after: In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi RobertK & Christine, > > > The five classes of arammana which are visible object, sound, smell, > > taste and bodily impressions are rupa ; the sixth class, the six > > kinds of dhammarammana, comprises cittas, cetasikas, pasada rupas, > > subtle rupas, nibbana and also pannatti. > > I realized that I am wrong in interpreting the term "ideas" or " mind > objects". (I forgot about nibbana!) > > But if "ideas" or "mind objects" does not include pannatti, how could > one discern the cessation of craving with regard to pannatti? Doesn't > contact between the intellect and pannatti cause feelings to arise? > > __________________ Before we studied Dhamma and developed satipatthana we lived entirely within the conceptual world. Now we are learning, slowly, about the real world, we go beneath the surface and fathom life as it really is. As you indicated there is so much clinging to concepts. I gave this yestrday about what avijja (ignorance) is in the wheel of paticcasaumppada . It is what keeps us chained>:(p71,vol1, enlightenment chapter) "it is ignorance since it causes beings to dart among becomings and so on within samsara.., it is ignorance since it darts among those things which do not actually exist [i.e.men, women, pannatti] and since it does not dart among those things that do exist [i.e.it cannot understand the khandas, paramattha dhammas]." Let me explain by example. We see a nice car or pretty woman. Immediately there is desire (assuming we like pretty woman or nice cars - if not subsitute your favourite thing)of some degree. In fact there was simply a moment of visible object . What happened next was that minddoor processes formed up concepts rooted in lobha (desire). If it is not seen as it is then the processes rooted in lobha can continue on and on. Maybe the car is out of sight now but we are completely caught up in thought: "how can I get the money to buy that" A black one would be nice", maybe I could do some overtime at work", "I wonder if my girlfriend would like it"..it could last for days! Very natural that this happens but insight into the processes cuts through and shows what is really present: i.e citta and cetisaka. It breaks up the 'story', the whole, into what is really there, which is only evanescent elements: "when the resolution of the compact is effected by resolution into elements (dhatus ie. paramattha dhammas), the characteristic of not-self become apparent in its true nature: Visuddhimagga xx15 Very gradually this insighting into reality becomes more and more habitual until: "perception of not-self becomes anchored (anattasanna santhathi): ..reckoned as the perception of not-self as follows, viz 'All dhammas are not self' on account of their being devoid of esssence, on account of their proceeding uncontrolled, on account of their being other, on account of their being vacant, on account of their being void and empty, becomes anchored in the heart, becomes established extremely firmly"endquote from The Udanatthakatha (translation masefield p595) This is a passage from Survey of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharwanaket that is relevant: """When we cling to the general appearance of male or female, it shows that the object is not a paramattha dhamma. When we know that we see a man or woman, we don't just know the reality that appears through the eyes, but we have an image (nimitta), a concept on account of what appears through the eyes. The image of the general appearance of a man or woman is the foundation of defilements.1 Through the power of desire (chanda raga) we take that image for something attractive. When we like a concept such as a belt, it shows that the belt is an attractive image. One is attached to it, one is ruled by desire. If the belt is not beautiful, if it is not an attractive nimitta (image), one does not like it. On account of colours that appear through the eyes, there can be different nimittas, attractive or unattractive. We read further on in the Atthasalini: 'Grasps the details (anuvyañjana), i.e., takes the various modes of hands and feet, of smiling, laughing, speaking, looking straight ahead, looking askance, which have earned the name of "details," they manifest, reveal the defilements.' The details are the conditions that cause defilements to appear. When someone likes a belt he likes the general appearance, the image, and the details. If all belts were the same, if there were no variety of them, the details would not be different. However, there are many kinds of belts and they are different as to the details. The details condition the arising of different kinds of defilements. Question: If we don't cling to concepts, I fear that we won't know that this is a pen. Sujin: That is not so. We should know realities in accordance with the truth. What appears through the eyes falls away, and then there are mind-door process cittas, which arise afterwards and know a concept. Paññå (wisdom) should know realities as they are. It should know what is visible object, which appears through the eye-door. It should know that the experience of visible object is different from the moment that citta knows a concept. Thus we can become detached from the idea that visible object that appears are beings, people, or things; we can become detached from that which is the foundation of clinging. We should understand that when it is known that there is a man, a woman, beings, or different people, the object is an image or concept known through the mind-door. When we develop satipaììhåna we should know, in order to be able to realise the arising and falling away of nåma and rúpa, the characteristics of the realities just as they naturally appear. It should be known that paramattha dhammas are not concepts. One should continue to develop paññå when realities appear through eyes, ears, nose, tongue, bodysense, and mind-door."'endquote RobertK 21666 From: yasalalaka Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 3:16pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment(yasa.. RobertK, Mine was a harmless remark.I did not mean ill towards any body. I am sorry if I made you think so. with metta, Yasalalaka 21667 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 3:19pm Subject: [dsg] Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, Thanks for this reply! I am glad that you enjoy the references. I tend to think that the word "bhava" means not only "sentiet being" but "being", "becoming", and "existence". I tend to see that the discussions on whether things exist or not as idle chatter because I don't see them relevant to the Buddha's teaching. This is how I see it: the Buddha's teaching in and of itself is not concerned about figuring out "what is it?" or "does it exist?" It is really about dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. It is about the origin of dukkha, the way that leads to the cessation of dukkha. Regarding the five aggregates, I would say that they include every conditioned, fabricated phenomenon/thing/situation. They include everything in the world from concrete objects such as desk, body, eye, nose, to joy, grief, happiness, to marriage, relationship, separation, union to abstract ideas, concepts. I see that the Buddha's teaching is about liberation from the world. Your feedback is appreciated! Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Appreciating all your recent posts;-)) > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Thank you for sharing your comments and quotes from the commentaries. > .... > Likewise, many thanks for your detailed and very interesting comments;-) > ..... > > I agree that the discourse, like most of the discourses, is > > addressed to bhikkhus, not to lay followers. > > > > I checked the Pali Text Society's Pali-English Dictionary and found > > that under the word "bhava": > > --abhava this or that life, any form of existence, some sort of > > existence. > > > > I think a bit of etymology of the word "bhava"/"bhavati" might of > > some interest. > .... > Thank you so much for inc. the other dictionary entry, Heidegger link and > the Dhp verse (gahakaaraka is used, I note, for house-builder in that > context, but I understand your point of the metaphor). > > What we are looking at specifically is the meaning of bhavabhava in the > sutta under topics of idle chatter. In this context, I understand the > definition you give above, referring to `any form of existence' to be > correct. As I mentioned, in the PTS transl, it has "talk of becoming and > not-becoming" with a footnote to say it can also mean "all sorts of > becomings". > > B.Bodhi adds an interesting paragraph on `bhava' and its translation in > his introduction to Samyutta Nikaya, p52: > > "Bhava, in MLDB, was translated "being." In seeking an alternative, I had > first experimented with "becoming," but when the shortcomings in this > choice were pointed out to me I decided to return to "existence" used in > my earlier translations. Bhava, however, is not "existence" in the sense > of the most universal ontological category, that which is shared by > everything from the dishes in the kitchen sink to the numbers in a > mathematical equation. Existence in the latter sense is covered by the > verb atthi and the abstract noun atthitaa. Bhava is concrete sentient > existence in one of the three realms of existence posited by Buddhist > cosmology, a span of life beginning with conception and ending in death. > In th formula of dependent origination it is understood to mean both i) > the active side of life that produces rebirth into a particular mode of > sentient existence, in other words rebirth-producing kamma; and ii) the > mode of sentient existence that results from such activity." > > I take it you would not agree with these comments either? > ..... > > The purpose of drawing on the etymology of the > > word "bhava"/"bhavati" is to show the meaning of the word and how it > > can be understood in relation to the Buddha's teaching. I would > > think the core of the Buddha's teaching is not about what exists and > > what does not exist, or about whether dhamma exists or not. I would > > say that the Buddha's teaching is about dukkha and cessation of > > dukkha. > ..... > "sankhittena pa~ncupaadaanakkhandhaa dukkhaa - briefly, the five khandhas > of attachment are suffering". > > In other words, as I was discussing with Christine regarding change, > suffering as the 1st Noble Truth cannot be understood apart from the 5 > khandhas of attachment. So the khandhas (and `existing' dhammas which make > up the khandhas) have to be clearly known by panna. As I understand, > without the clear comprehension of these dhammas and the unsatisfactory > nature of them, and of craving as origin, there cannot be the path > leading to the cessation of that same craving. > > Thanks again for your helpful and interesting references. I'll be glad to > hear any further feedback. > > Metta, > > Sarah 21668 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 3:48pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment(yasa.. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > > RobertK, > > Mine was a harmless remark.I did not mean ill towards any body. > > I am sorry if I made you think so. > > with metta, > > Yasalalaka _______ Dear Yasalaka, You certainly never made me think so at all. I always appreciate your comments. RobertK 21669 From: Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:43pm Subject: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup Hello, This email message is a notification to let you know that a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dhammastudygroup group. File : /A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas- for printer april 28.pdf Uploaded by : rjkjp1 Description : z-Survey of Paramattha Dhammas You can access this file at the URL http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/A%20Survey%20of%20Paramattha%20Dhammas-%20for%20printer%20april%2028.pdf To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files Regards, rjkjp1 21670 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:49pm Subject: Re: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup Dear Group Survey Of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket (translated by Nina)has just been sent to the printer. I also uploaded a file to this group. It is 470 pages so will take up to 10 minutes to download. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > Hello, > > This email message is a notification to let you know that > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dhammastudygroup > group. > > File : /A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas- for printer april 28.pdf > Uploaded by : rjkjp1 > Description : z-Survey of Paramattha Dhammas > > You can access this file at the URL > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/A%20Survey% 20of%20Paramattha%20Dhammas-%20for%20printer%20april%2028.pdf > > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit > > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files > > Regards, > > rjkjp1 21671 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:15pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Smallchap, > > For me words and'things' are in > > their very nature, permanent, they refer to something that is > > "there", even if only for a moment. > > S: I have much difficulties trying to understand this statement. > Could you elaborate further? > You mean everything(concept) that is there is permanent? There > are arising, presence and disolution in a "moment". The same > must apply to concept. This is a little hard for me to explain. Let me try to do it in an indirect way. It is taking concepts to be real which is the cause for us uninstructed worldings being caught in the vicious cycle of samsara. In this perception, things are *there*, permanent and real. Avijja is what makes them appear so, and it is only through avijja that we then 'infer' their impermanence. There is no direct perception of impermanence. Or another way to put this is, "does a computer arise and fall?" The answer can only be "No". The computer is not there, but it does appear to be there and there and there, this is because of the nature of 'concept', it cannot but appear permanent. > Even the word and description > > of "impermanence" is not the actual fact of impermanence. So when > > one uses impermanence to refer to 'things', then it has a > > different > > meaning to me. In order to drop the idea of permanence with > > reference > > to objects, I now use the idea of impermanence; this > > understanding can > > lead to a dead-end. > > S: There is such thing as right view about phenomena as oppose > to wrong view. I will cite a few examples of how the idea of > impermanece of things(concepts) that did not lead to dead end. > > 1. Prince Siddattha after seeing the four signs, decided to make > the Great Renunciation. > > 2. Khema, Queen of King Bimbisara, after seeing the beautiful > woman created by the Buddha turned into bones, came to > understand that there was no beauty in form, and subsequently > became as arahat. > > 3. Ven Cula Panthaka, saw the clean cloth created by the Buddha > turned soiled in his hands after rubbig it, reflected on > impermanence and attained arahatship. > > There are many more examples like this in the Dhamapada stories. > You can find them in "Buddhist Legends" by Eugene Watson > Burlingame. But don't you think that these perceptions were just 'reminders' which then in an instant or ages later resulted in the direct perception of an arising and falling paramattha dhamma? By dead-end I meant those who have not heard the Buddha's message or understood his ultimate meaning, these can as likely the case be satisfied with the inferred meaning of impermanence. And this knowledge if held on to as final knowledge, wouldn't lead to liberation. > > > Please note that I am not saying that it is wrong to use the > > word > > impermanence with reference to conventional objects, just that > > it > > wouldn't have the same meaning as when made in reference to > > paramattha dhammas. > > S: But you said it can lead to dead end?!?! It does have its value in bringing calm, and it can remind one about the ultimate meaning and so condition little by little more understanding until one finally comes to see the real thing. But please note, to my understanding, it must not be used like a mantra, "satipatthana" is the only way. To use the idea of anicca, dukkha and anatta to apply to all experiences will not lead to the direct perception. One must come to know the objects through the six- senses first. > > Hope I have not confused further, since I feel I am a bit off > > track > > because I had something else in mind when earlier I read your > > response > > and now have ended up writing something different. > > S: I am confused. ;-) Sorry, hope it is at least a little clearer now. Best wishes, Sukin. 21672 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, I am not well informed at all, and so I do not wish to proceed along with this discussion. It would have been different had I textual information to back my position. Beside, even if I did have textual backing, it wouldn't be used as a commandment, as anything said by the Buddha, one must 'prove' it for oneself first, at least to a degree which would then be reasonable to follow. But I do have some understandings which to me seem 'right', and I wish to share them with you, hoping that you will reflect on them. First of all, I think that the monk's life is completely different from the lay person's. A monk has had to have the panna to see the real danger of any kind of attachment and feel attracted to living as a monk. Only he can follow the 200 odd rules with understanding and clear comprehension. Jhana practice is a very high form of kusala, above dana and sila. People during Buddha's time and sometime later had the accumulations for such a practice. The requisite is not only the practitioner's own panna, but also the outer environment must be conducive. The monk's life inside the temple premise can be appropriate outer conditions, so I wouldn't say that a monk should not practice jhana. But only he can tell if indeed the outer and the inner conditions are right. But as a whole, yes I do believe that meditation (but not to neglect study) has been the way of life of monks through the ages. And this is part of the tradition of which I feel much gratitude towards. But, jhana is one form of formal meditation and it is the only one which was encouraged by the Buddha. I don't think there was any other; I think `vipassana meditation' is a modern invention of the practice of satipatthana. Vipassana is the development of insight based on this practice which has nothing to do with formal sitting. When Buddha talked about going to the wilderness etc I understand that he was mostly referring to Jhana. And if he did direct the monks attention to the arising and falling of realities, it was not because he thought that jhana *lead* to vipassana. But that jhana being the normal everyday activity of the monks in those times, they could then look closer at what they were doing and actually come to understand the meaning in ultimate terms of that. And yes, jhana is highly refined states, so I assume that if those monks could give up attachment to them, their understanding would be even deeper (but I am not sure about this). Another perhaps important point to note is that it was normal for most Indians during that time, to leave the household life and sit down to meditate most of the day. Also, that those people living in that period of time and in close proximity to the Buddha himself, could be said to have had high accumulations of panna. So they could hear one or two discourses and become enlightened, they did not need Abhidhamma as we the `slow ones' do. You mentioned Sila, Samadhi and Panna. Most people believe that they are separate from each other, that one must first have the foundation of Sila, then Samadhi and only then can Panna be developed. But from what I understanding, none of these can be separated. One cannot practice sila without `understanding' and there cannot be perfect Samadhi without the other two. Besides, at the moment of attention to a reality, satipatthana, at that moment, sila, samadhi and panna are all operating. However, it is panna which always has to lead, but we cannot *do* anything to make panna arise. The main conditions are association with the wise, hearing the correct dhamma, reflecting on what has been heard and applying those understandings. Whether this will happen depends on conditions beyond anyone's control. Yasalalaka, we do not have to continue with this if you do not want to. I know that some of what I have expressed goes against a few other member's understandings and I have already run into trouble more than once, so even I do not really feel like saying too much of the same thing. But I hope at least you don't mind what I have expressed above… Metta, Sukin. 21673 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 9:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -Milinda's Questions. Dear Rob M, This is very good. I just took up Milinda's qu a few days ago, reading intro and also this simile of the chariot. The next Dhamma Issue I am translating takes a text from the Milinda. I read that it refers a great deal to all three parts of the Tipitaka. Buddhaghosa who was later referred also to the Milinda. It is remarkable. And these questions are very good for today. With appreciation, Nina. op 26-04-2003 10:19 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > Do People Really Exist? > > > N: My companions call me Nâgasena. But the name and the person to > whom the name refers do not really exist. > 21674 From: robmoult Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 9:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -Milinda's Questions. Hi Nina, I agree with you 100%. If there is some aspect of the dhamma which confuses me, I look it up first in Milindapanha to see if there is anything there. I find this text to be very accessible and full of interesting points. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > This is very good. I just took up Milinda's qu a few days ago, reading intro > and also this simile of the chariot. The next Dhamma Issue I am translating > takes a text from the Milinda. I read that it refers a great deal to all > three parts of the Tipitaka. Buddhaghosa who was later referred also to the > Milinda. It is remarkable. And these questions are very good for today. 21675 From: smallchap Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Sukin, Thank you for taking the effort to clear my confusion. --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Hi Smallchap, > > > > For me words and'things' are in > > > their very nature, permanent, they refer to something that > is > > > "there", even if only for a moment. > > > > S: I have much difficulties trying to understand this > statement. > > Could you elaborate further? > > You mean everything(concept) that is there is permanent? > There > > are arising, presence and disolution in a "moment". The > same > > must apply to concept. > > This is a little hard for me to explain. Let me try to do it > in an > indirect way. It is taking concepts to be real which is the > cause > for us uninstructed worldings being caught in the vicious > cycle of > samsara. In this perception, things are *there*, permanent and > real. > Avijja is what makes them appear so, and it is only through > avijja > that we then 'infer' their impermanence. There is no direct > perception of impermanence. Or another way to put this is, > "does a > computer arise and fall?" The answer can only be "No". The > computer > is not there, but it does appear to be there and there and > there, > this is because of the nature of 'concept', it cannot but > appear > permanent. S: This will bring us back to Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta. It will be well that I pursue no further in this matter. > > Even the word and description > > > of "impermanence" is not the actual fact of impermanence. > So > when > > > one uses impermanence to refer to 'things', then it has a > > > different > > > meaning to me. In order to drop the idea of permanence > with > > > reference > > > to objects, I now use the idea of impermanence; this > > > understanding can > > > lead to a dead-end. > > > > S: There is such thing as right view about phenomena as > oppose > > to wrong view. I will cite a few examples of how the idea of > > impermanece of things(concepts) that did not lead to dead > end. > > > > 1. Prince Siddattha after seeing the four signs, decided to > make > > the Great Renunciation. > > > > 2. Khema, Queen of King Bimbisara, after seeing the > beautiful > > woman created by the Buddha turned into bones, came to > > understand that there was no beauty in form, and > subsequently > > became as arahat. > > > > 3. Ven Cula Panthaka, saw the clean cloth created by the > Buddha > > turned soiled in his hands after rubbig it, reflected on > > impermanence and attained arahatship. > > > > There are many more examples like this in the Dhamapada > stories. > > You can find them in "Buddhist Legends" by Eugene Watson > > Burlingame. > > But don't you think that these perceptions were just > 'reminders' > which then in an instant or ages later resulted in the direct > perception of an arising and falling paramattha dhamma? > By dead-end I meant those who have not heard the Buddha's > message or > understood his ultimate meaning, these can as likely the case > be > satisfied with the inferred meaning of impermanence. And this > knowledge if held on to as final knowledge, wouldn't lead to > liberation. S: Although I do not share your view completely, I must thank you for your effort of explaining it to me. My understanding is every kusala concept is the foundation of future insight. Every cultivation of the 37 enlightenment factors will reach it fullness when one wins the paths and the fruits. > > > Please note that I am not saying that it is wrong to use > the > > > word > > > impermanence with reference to conventional objects, just > that > > > it > > > wouldn't have the same meaning as when made in reference > to > > > paramattha dhammas. > > > > S: But you said it can lead to dead end?!?! > > It does have its value in bringing calm, and it can remind one > about > the ultimate meaning and so condition little by little more > understanding until one finally comes to see the real thing. > But please note, to my understanding, it must not be used like > a > mantra, "satipatthana" is the only way. To use the idea of > anicca, > dukkha and anatta to apply to all experiences will not lead to > the > direct perception. One must come to know the objects through > the six- > senses first. S: There are two approaches: 1. Sila, Samadha, Panna; 2. Panna, Sila, Samadhi. Either approach can lead to insight. smallchap 21676 From: smallchap Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 11:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) > S: Although I do not share your view completely, I must thank > you for your effort of explaining it to me. My understanding > is > every kusala concept is the foundation of future insight. > Every > cultivation of the 37 enlightenment factors will reach it > fullness when one wins the paths and the fruits. Kusala concept - Here I mean right view about concept. smallchap 21677 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 0:02am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Robert K, Thanks for your reply! I understand that you say citta forms up concepts. I also understand that you say concepts are non-existent. It makes sense to me that concepts are formed by mind. However, I find it puzzling to say that concepts are non-existent. Your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor > A good question Victor. > I think this can only be properly understood directly - By learning > to study the realities that arise here and now it can be seen that > when there is a process of conceptualising that in fact there is > only citta and cetasika (consciousness and mental factors). So citta > is forming up concepts. The process of conceptualising is a function > of mentality - it is not something bad at all. Without this process > happening we couldn't talk or know what food tastes good. We > couldn't even cross the road. We would be more helpless than day old > babies. So the development of insight is not about suppressing > concepts, rather there is distinguishing of concept from paramattha. > > The Abhidhammathasangaha says about > concepts like human, person, man, chariot, lute that "All such > different > things , though they do not exist in the ultimate sense , become > objects of consciousness in the form of shadows of ultimate things > (paramattha dhammas)"(bodhi p.326 > > Satipatthana can only take paramattha dhammas for object, not > concepts. Does this mean we should try not to think of concepts? > Some would have us do this but this is not the middle way. All > the arahants thought of concepts but they could never confuse > concept for reality. Panna and sati can understand dhammas > directly even during the processes of thinking that take > concepts for objects. > Now there is thinking happening that is trying to comprehend what > was > just read. The process of thinking is real and it might be rooted in > lobha (desire) that wants to understand. The lobha is real - is it > seen as just a dhamma , not you. There is also feeling; if you liked > what was written this will be pleasant feeling - is it seen as just > a > conditioned dhamma, not you. And if you didn't like it there was > unpleasant feeling, not you. > These present objects must be seen wisely otherwise there will > always > be doubt and one will not gain confidence. Or one will settle for > attachment to the Dhamma rather than insight. Or worse become > someone > whose aim is to look for little flaws thinking that this is proper > investigation. > RobertK 21678 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > Thanks for your reply! > > I understand that you say citta forms up concepts. I also > understand that you say concepts are non-existent. It makes sense > to me that concepts are formed by mind. However, I find it puzzling > to say that concepts are non-existent. > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor >------ Dear Victor, Yes, I think it is difficult when we try to think our way to this profound matter. It really can only be seen by learning to study the present moment so that the difference bwteen concept and reality can be directly known. Jon said last week that "I think a problem can arise for some from the fact that concept is said to be the 'object' of the consciousness that thinks. Perhaps we think of sense-door consciousness and its object which, as we know, is a rupa (i.e., a separate dhamma). But it seems to me that the moment of consciousness with concept as 'object' is different; the only thing 'existing' at such moment is the consciousness itself." Citta is so common but so amazing: `Bhikkhus, have you seen a masterpiece of painting?" "Yes lord." "Bhikkhus, that masterpiece of art is designed by citta. Indeed, Bhikkhus, citta is even more variegated than that masterpiece."" RobertK 21679 From: yasalalaka Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 1:04am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sukin, I agree. People could be touchy,even reading between lines to read what has not been said. I have already had the experience.It is better we move off from the subject. I will do my own reading of the Abhidhamma. Thankyou, neverthless for the discussion on dhamma, you permitted me to have with you. May you be happy, With metta, Yasalalaka 21680 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:21am Subject: Re: The Vinaya --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Michael, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Michael Newton > To: > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 11:44 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Vinaya > > > > Actually,James,it's not my interpretation.I'm > > just saying what I actually am directly reading in > > this sutta.I'm unclear, where The Buddha actually > > commands Vassakara to-wage war with the Vajjis as I > > am going over the text which I have a hard copy of. > > Seems nowhere to be found. > > Of course you are correct--the Buddha did not command or suggest that > Vassakara (or his boss, Ajatasattu, the king of Magadha, rather) attack the > Vajjis. Hi Mike (and Michael), I hate to belabor this point, but you seem to be missing the obvious in this sutta; and I don't believe that I have twisted the meaning of this sutta or used it as justification for war, as you are implying. Again, this matter is very complicated and simplifications aren't the solution. As you quote from the sutta, "Vassakara: "No harm, indeed, can be done to the Vajjis in battle by Magadha's king, Ajatasattu, except through treachery or discord. Well, then, Venerable Gotama, we will take our leave, for we have much to perform, much work to do." Now, why are you assuming, from reading this, that Vassakara is going to go back to his king and tell him not to wage war? That is not what he has said at all. He has said that first the king is going to have to commit sabotage against the Vajjis with treachery and discord (with traitors and spies and propaganda I would assume…like every other nation does), and then they will be able to wage and win a war… that is why they `have much work to do'. Vassakara wouldn't say "we have much to perform, much work to do" if he was just going to go back to his King and tell him to forget it; there isn't any performance necessary or work in doing that. To continue, with full knowledge of what Vassakara and his King have planned, the Lord Buddha tells Vassakara to do as he sees fit. He doesn't start preaching to him about anti-war. I have never said that the Buddha was pro-war; what I have stated is that he wasn't anti-war. As a side line, which I don't intend/want to become a subject of discussion in this group, I happened to be in favor of the war in Iraq, right from the beginning. It wasn't because I am in favor of war but because I believed that the circumstances justified it in that case. And now that the war is over, facts are coming about to demonstrate that my position wasn't far-fetched. These are complicated times which require complicated actions/positions. The world isn't Buddhist and there is not reason to assume it should be. Metta, James 21681 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 5:50am Subject: Kom Dear Kom, Thanks for your letter and sorry for replying your letter so late, it is because I have to study my common test and I do not have enough time to reply. The SARS is very serious in the world, classes were stopped since 29/3 and were being resume on tuesday, since I am Secondary three student, I had to go for school on that day, I think that it is not fair to us because Form 1 and 2 do not need to resume class. What do you think of this new disease, SARS? My elder brother, Alton, went to Japan on Monday, my family is very worried about him, since he had to go by airplane......and I miss him so much, he went there for work and do not know when will he back......Can you help me on this problem in a Buddhist point of view? Kimmy 21682 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 5:52am Subject: a reply Dear James Long time I haven't sent any letters to you. How are you? Are you bored? I'm very bored at home with no school for alot of weeks. Have you got alot of homework? I have some homework to do. Do you still go out? When is the Budda's birthday? When did he died? How old is he when he died? Please write back to me. Janet 21683 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 7:18am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Robert K, Thanks for your reply. I would not want to sound critical. However, I would say that I find what you say regarding concept contradictory: on one hand, concepts are formed by citta; on the other hand, concepts are non- existent. This is how I see it: Concepts are formed by citta, or in Jon's words, they are assembled by mind. Whatever is formed/assembled, disintegrates, does not last, subject to change, passes away. In that sense, a concept is impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is impermanent, subject to change is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards concept. Again, thanks for your reply, and your feedback is appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Robert K, > > > > Thanks for your reply! > > > > I understand that you say citta forms up concepts. I also > > understand that you say concepts are non-existent. It makes sense > > to me that concepts are formed by mind. However, I find it > puzzling > > to say that concepts are non-existent. > > > > Your feedback is appreciated. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > >------ > Dear Victor, > Yes, > I think it is difficult when we try to think our way to this > profound matter. It really can only be seen by learning to study the > present moment so that the difference bwteen concept and reality can > be directly known. > > Jon said last week that "I think a problem can arise for some from > the fact that concept is > said to be the 'object' of the consciousness that thinks. Perhaps we > think of sense-door consciousness and its object which, as we know, > is a rupa (i.e., a separate dhamma). But it seems to me that the > moment of consciousness with concept as 'object' is different; the > only thing 'existing' at such moment is the consciousness itself." > > Citta is so common but so amazing: > `Bhikkhus, have you seen a masterpiece of painting?" "Yes > lord." "Bhikkhus, that masterpiece of art is designed by citta. > Indeed, Bhikkhus, citta is even more variegated than that > masterpiece."" > RobertK 21684 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 4:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, Sukin (and Yasalalaka) - In a message dated 4/26/03 11:19:05 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > But, jhana is one form of formal meditation and it is the only one > which was encouraged by the Buddha. I don't think there was any > other; I think `vipassana meditation' is a modern invention of the > practice of satipatthana. Vipassana is the development of insight > based on this practice which has nothing to do with formal sitting. > > When Buddha talked about going to the wilderness etc I understand > that he was mostly referring to Jhana. And if he did direct the > monks attention to the arising and falling of realities, it was not > because he thought that jhana *lead* to vipassana. But that jhana > being the normal everyday activity of the monks in those times, they > could then look closer at what they were doing and actually come to > understand the meaning in ultimate terms of that. And yes, jhana is > highly refined states, so I assume that if those monks could give up > attachment to them, their understanding would be even deeper (but I > am not sure about this). > ============================= An examination of both the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati Sutta will show that each of them includes formal sitting meditation, though not exclusively that. It seems to me that you are using the following reasoning [Please see the end of this post]: Premiss: There was no meditation practice taught by the Buddha except jhana bhavana. Premiss: People aren't "up to" jhana cultivation these days. [Implied elsewhere in your post] Conclusion: There is no reason to meditate these days. In my opinion, each of your premisses is false, and so is the conclusion. With metta, Howard P.S. The gist of anapanasati practice is given at the very start of the Anapanasati Sutta, as follows: (Mindfulness of In-&-Out Breathing)"Now how is mindfulness of in-&-out breathing developed & pursued so as to bring the four frames of reference to their culmination? "There is the case where a monk, having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building, sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect, and setting mindfulness to the fore. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "[1] Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. [2] Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. [3] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body, and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. [4] He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication (the breath), and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. "[5] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to rapture, and to breathe out sensitive to rapture. [6] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to pleasure, and to breathe out sensitive to pleasure. [7] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to mental fabrication (feeling & perception), and to breathe out sensitive to mental fabrication. [8] He trains himself to breathe in calming mental fabrication, and to breathe out calming mental fabrication. "[9] He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the mind, and to breathe out sensitive to the mind. [10] He trains himself to breathe in satisfying the mind, and to breathe out satisfying the mind. [11] He trains himself to breathe in steadying the mind, and to breathe out steadying the mind. [12] He trains himself to breathe in releasing the mind, and to breathe out releasing the mind. "[13] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on inconstancy, and to breathe out focusing on inconstancy. [14] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on dispassion [literally, fading], and to breathe out focusing on dispassion. [15] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on cessation, and to breathe out focusing on cessation. [16] He trains himself to breathe in focusing on relinquishment, and to breathe out focusing on relinquishment. Likewise, near the beginning of the Satipatthana Sutta, you will find the following: (A. Body)"And how does a monk remain focused on the body in & of itself? [1] "There is the case where a monk -- having gone to the wilderness, to the shade of a tree, or to an empty building -- sits down folding his legs crosswise, holding his body erect and setting mindfulness to the fore [lit: the front of the chest]. Always mindful, he breathes in; mindful he breathes out. "Breathing in long, he discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out long, he discerns that he is breathing out long. Or breathing in short, he discerns that he is breathing in short; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short. He trains himself to breathe in sensitive to the entire body and to breathe out sensitive to the entire body. He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. Just as a skilled turner or his apprentice, when making a long turn, discerns that he is making a long turn, or when making a short turn discerns that he is making a short turn; in the same way the monk, when breathing in long, discerns that he is breathing in long; or breathing out short, he discerns that he is breathing out short... He trains himself to breathe in calming bodily fabrication, and to breathe out calming bodily fabrication. "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or externally on the body in & of itself, or both internally & externally on the body in & of itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. And he remains independent, unsustained by (not clinging to) anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. /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) 21685 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 9:41am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 1. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 1. The Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² defines the perfection of determination, aditthåna, as follows: Determination has the characteristic of determining upon the requisites of enlightenment [1] ; its function is to overcome their opposites; its manifestation is unshakeableness in that task; the requisites of enlightenment are its proximate cause. The perfection of determination, aditthåna pårami, is the firm determination to realize the four noble Truths, even though one has to go a long way and it will take an endlessly long time to reach the goal. However, if one develops the Path with firm determination one will eventually reach the goal. Determination in this life means determination to develop each kind of kusala with the aim to realize the four noble Truths. We should not deviate from this goal by aiming for the pleasant objects of gain, honour, praise and wellbeing, or visible object, sound, odour, flavour and tangible object. In that case we accumulate clinging instead of giving up and abandoning. The perfection of determination will lead to detachment from desire for sense objects. If we are infatuated with the sense objects, if we are deluded by them and cling to them, we shall wish to have them again and again and we shall never be satisfied. Then we shall not be inclined to develop the perfections in order to eradicate defilements. Many different types of citta arise and fall away: kusala cittas arise and shortly afterwards akusala cittas arise. Sometimes we have determination for kusala citta but when akusala citta arises and induces us to give in to akusala, we readily give up kusala and we pursue akusala. This shows that we need firm determination for the eradication of defilements. If we want to realize the four noble Truths we should see the benefit of being unshakeable in the development of kusala dhammas and the abandonment of defilements. If we lack the perfection of determination kusala dhammas cannot develop. Now I wish to speak about the life of the Bodhisatta during which he developed the highest degree of the perfection of determination, the paramatthapåramí (ultimate perfection) of aditthåna [2]. Footnotes 1. These are the ten perfections. Determining upon the requisites of enlightenment means, having the firm determination to develop the ten perfections. 2. The ten perfections can also be classified as thirty påramís: ten basic påramís, ten intermediate påramís and ten ultimate påramís (paramatthapåramís). 21686 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 9:41am Subject: FW: Co Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, no 10. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Sun, 27 Apr 2003 09:54:21 +0200 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Co Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, no 10. Co Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, no 10. Relevant sutta passage: (ka.n.nacchidda.m naasacchidda.m mukhadvaara.m), yena ca asitapiitakhaayitasaayita.m ajjhoharati, yattha ca asitapiitakhaayitasaayita.m santi.t.thati, yena ca asitapiitakhaayitasaayita.m adhobhaaga.m nikkhamati.. and whereby (one) swallows what is tasted, chewed, drunk and eaten, and where (food) being tasted, chewed, drunk and eaten remains, and whereby (food) being tasted, chewed, drunk and eaten passes out of the body lower down. Commentary: yena caati yena chiddena. As to the words ³and that by which² , this means: by which cavity. ajjhoharatiiti anto paveseti, As to the words, ³he swallows², this means, he makes it go inside. jivhaabandhanato hi yaava udarapa.talaa manussaana.m vidatthicatura"ngula.m chidda.t.thaana.m hoti. From the base of the tongue as far as the mucous membrane of the intestines of humans there is a hollow tract of one cube and four fingers length. ta.m sandhaayeta.m vutta.m. Now, this is said in this connection. yattha caati yasmi.m okaase. As to the words, ³And where², this means: at whichever occasion. santi.t.thatiiti pati.t.thaati. As to the expression, it remains, this means: it is established. manussaana~nhi mahanta.m pa.taparissaavanamatta~nca udarapa.tala.m naama hoti. Here the intestines have been referred to which are like a large filter for humans. ta.m sandhaayeta.m vutta.m. Now, this is said in this connection. adhobhaaga.m nikkhamatiiti yena he.t.thaa nikkhamati. As to the words , it comes out at the lower part, this means: where it comes out underneath. dvatti.msahatthamatta.m ekaviisatiyaa .thaanesu va"nka.m anta.m naama hoti. Here, the intestines have been referred to that are thirtytwo cubits (a cubit being half a yard) in length and coiled in twentyone places. ta.m sandhaayeta.m vutta.m. Now, this is said in this connection. ya.m vaa pana~n~nampiiti As to the words, or whatever else, iminaa sukhumasukhuma.m cammama.msaadiantaragata~nceva lomakuupabhaavena ca .thita.m aakaasa.m dasseti. this means: here he explains the cavity between the very fine inner skin and flesh and so on, which are porous and are fastened by ligaments. sesametthaapi pathaviidhaatuaadiisu vuttanayeneva veditabba.m. Here, what is left should be understood as what is said with reference to the element of earth and so on. ***** Note: see also Visuddhimagga VIII, 118-120, for the intestines, etc. Nina. 21687 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 9:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -Milinda's Questions, discussion as scholars Dear Rob M, As to the date of the Milinda, as I read in Part One, tr by Rhys Davids, this book was written about 200 A.D. What do you think? It is based on an older work probably. And King Menander was as early as you said. I like this one about discussion as scholars: Nina. op 26-04-2003 10:19 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > "The Questions of King Milinda" was written in the first century BC. > The book takes the form of questions from a philosopher king, King > Milinda, to a Buddhist monk, Nâgasena. King Milinda was based on > King Menander, a famous historical figure. King Menander was a Greek > who ruled Bactria (present day Afghanistan) between 150 - 110 BC, > about 200 years after Alexander the Great conquered the area. 21688 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 9:41am Subject: Dhamma Issues 6. no 1 Chapter 6. The Parinnibbåna of the Arahat who is a Layman Introduction [1]. This was one of the subjects of discussion between King Milinda and the arahat Någasena, as discribed in the ³Questions of King Milinda². This book dates from around the second century A.D. King Milinda is said to be the Greek King Menander of Bactria. This book consists of points of the Buddha¹s teachings treated in the form of conversations between King Milinda and Någasena the Elder. We find references time and again to all three parts of the Tipitaka: the Vinaya, the Sutta and the seven Books of the Abhidhamma. Buddhaghosa (about 430 A.D.) referred to the ³Questions of King Milinda². This issue deals with the parinibbåna of the arahat who is a layman. There are two kinds of parinibbåna: the full extinction of defilements (kilesa parinibbåna) and the full extinction of the khandhas (khanda parinibbåna). In this issue, parinibbåna stands for the full extinction of the khandhas, the final passing away of the arahat. He will not be reborn. Issue of Analysis : will a layman who attains the excellent quality of arahatship but who does not become a monk attain parinibbåna on that day, or within seven days? Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue : A layman who attains arahatship but who does not become a monk will attain parinibbåna on that very day. The source which supports the conclusion of the analysis : ³Milinda¹s Questions², Seventh Division, no 2: If a Householder attains Arahatship. The source that explains the reasons for this conclusion : ³Milinda¹s Questions², Seventh Division, no 2, explains clearly that a layman who attains arahatship but who does not become a monk must attain parinibbåna on that very day. The text states: ³Revered Någasena, you say: ŒThere are two bourns [2], not another, for a householder who has attained arahantship: either, that very day he goes forth (into homelessness) or he attains final nibbåna. That day is not able to pass (without one or other of these events taking place). If revered Någasena, he obtain neither a teacher nor a preceptor nor a bowl and robe on that day, could that arahant go forth of himself, or could he let the day pass? Or if some other arahant of psychic power arrived could he let him go forth? Or would he attain final nibbåna?² ³An arahant, sire, cannot go forth of oneself. On going forth of oneself one falls into theft [3] . Nor could he let the day pass. Whether another arahant arrived or not, he would attain final nibbåna that very day.² Footnotes: 1. I have written the Introduction. 2. Bourne is the translation of the Pali: gati, which can mean destiny, course, behaviour. Here it could mean: course. 3. This refers to living in communion as it were by theft, being unworthy of it, since he did not follow what was prescribed. We read in the ³Visuddhimagga² I, 125, that there are for the monk four kinds of use of the requisites: use as a theft, use as a debt, use as an inheritance and use as a master. We read: ³Herein, use by one who is unvirtuous and makes use (of the requisites), even sitting in the midst of the community, is called Œuse as a theft¹.² Use without reviewing them with mindfulnbess is use as a debt. Use by ariyans who are not arahats is use as inheritance and use by arahats is use as a master. Nina. 21689 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:13am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Howard, I was going to reply to another post, but since you write to me after such a long time, I have to respond to your post first.:-) > ============================= > An examination of both the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati > Sutta will show that each of them includes formal sitting meditation, though > not exclusively that. It seems to me that you are using the following > reasoning [Please see the end of this post]: > > Premiss: There was no meditation practice taught by the Buddha except > jhana > bhavana. > Premiss: People aren't "up to" jhana cultivation these days. [Implied > elsewhere > in your post] > Conclusion: There is no reason to meditate these days. > > In my opinion, each of your premisses is false, and so is the > conclusion. I have to admit that I had forgotten about Anapanasati, or else I would have been more cautious in making my remark. But that would be because I don’t know where to put it, is it related to jhana or not, but I think it originated from the Buddha himself and not something which existed before him. Anyway, firstly when I made my comment on jhana, I was not focusing on the fact whether it was appropriate for people to practice in this day and age or not. I was even thinking about those with the accumulations from previous lives but was living in crowded cities like New York ;-), that they must be having a tough time since the environment was not appropriate. And I was even thinking about some remote Wats, perhaps in Myanmar or Laos, where there might be monks with the proper accumulations and the right environment who are practicing it. I am not interested in making a statistical report of when, where and how many jhana practitioners there are any more than would I like to find out if there are any sakadagamis and anagamis alive today. I might have been if I myself was considering taking up the practice. My main intention to state these things is for the person whom I address to, to consider their own position. But yes, as far as so called ‘Vipassana Meditation’ is concerned, I do have problems with. But not to discuss now. As far as jhana is concerned, what I have heard from third-hand source and which makes sense to me, is that a very high degree of panna is required to know what the appropriate object of meditation is suitable for oneself. This will have to depend on ones accumulations. Also once when during meditation, kusala and akusala states arise, one must be very proficient in distinguishing between the two. This requires very high degree of panna again. The mind must be also so sharp as to be able to maintain the object and be able to detect any falling back to lower states. The main point is that one must have real panna to see the danger in sense impressions. And this will have to be both one’s own accumulated tendency as well as having enough clear comprehension to know one’s position in relation to the surroundings. When I first heard about this, my impression was that even those people, his teachers etc, during the Buddha’s time, had very high level of panna compared to whom, later famous religious teachers were nothing. They at least came to discover how to achieve such refined states of kusala, enough to condition rebirth as bhramas. So my impression is that even this is no joke. Regarding Anapanasati, I have heard it here and probably so have you, that breath as a meditation object is extremely refined, that this object was appropriate only for the ‘super’ wise. It is that special ‘rupa’ which is conditioned by citta. From my own experience I can see how much proliferation goes on when trying to be aware of the breath and I do not mean here any background noise. What I mean is some times it is heat, some times it is wind, some times touch and all this is actually only thinking, heat, wind etc. It is not even the actual experience of these. And when I add long, short, medium to this, the mind gets even more agitated. My suspicion is that when finally there is some calm, it is not the calm because the true nature of breath has been discerned, but in a way one has come to a compromising position of “thinkingâ€? heat or touch at the tip of nose or upper lip. The constancy seems to be maintained, but this would have been the ‘concept’ of breath chosen according to one’s desire. This is only my experience though, and admittedly I am only speculating from my present position. Hope you don’t mind it. Look forward to your response. Metta, Sukin. 21690 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Re: The Vinaya Hello James,(Mike, Ray, Michael) and All, James, I gave a number of sutta references in this post that clearly show the Buddha's Teachings to be against violence, war and killing. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/21505 You have quoted a sentence in one sutta to support your view that the Buddha was not anti-war. No-one else who has so far posted, garners the same meaning from that sentence. I may be wrong (and correct me please) but you seem to consider that the Buddha saw war as 'a skilful means', or, at least, that it was a 'necessary' evil. Either way, I would appreciate if you could point me to some of the suttas that would support your view. Santikaro Bhikkhu on behalf of BPF's Dharma Council , March 2003, wrote Excerpt: "War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes war as necessary or "just." " "Kings, rulers, ministers, and governments often fall back on war as a crude means to their ends. This reflects a lack of intelligence, creativity, and courage in solving problems. The ends, even when decent and just, never justify the violence of war." "Scriptures show the Buddha … Intervening between two sides to prevent bloodshed, then reconciling them (Rohini River). Arguing to to a king that a planned invasion will fail and not achieve the king's goals (Ajatasatru's invasion of the Vajjian Confederacy). Recommending non-violent policies as a wiser solution than war (Kutadanta Sutta). Analyzing the sources of conflict and showing how to remove or transform the causes (numerous cases)." "War happens. It is never desirable or beneficial. Too many innocents die, property is wasted, hatreds and feuds are prolonged, and we accustom ourselves to beastly behavior. There is no place in the Buddhist concept of "nobility" for war. It is never morally legit. It isn't even a "necessary evil." It is merely the bad policy of shortsighted, cowardly, selfish, and ill-informed leadership."" http://www.liberationpark.org/bpf/jw_oxy.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 21691 From: Vicki Berman Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:20pm Subject: New Member Intro Greetings to you all, I would like to introduce myself, my name is Vicki and will start by telling you a wee bit about myself. Currently I work at a hospital writing computer programs to analyze the information about patients. I must be doing something right because we won an award from a national medical group for one of my reports. I also got an outstanding staff award for it. I am a middle aged divorced mother of two teenagers, two dogs, and two cats. I weave and spin when I have time. I am exploring Buddhism from many angles. I grew up learning about Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, and I have a friend teaching me about Nishoren Buddhism. But on to my question. My father was born in China and has talked a lot about Buddhism while I grew up. He recently had some heart trouble, and my sister made a comment that "he wasn't being spiritual enough about his own death." The rest of us thought it was okay for him to work on life style changes to help save his life, but this sister had other ideas about death. Evidently she was "spiritual" about it because she killed herself in February. She had a beautiful ying-yang pendant around her neck when she died, and her note said that she would see us on the other side. My family was shocked at this unexpected tragedy and we are learning to live with our new reality. (It is suffering as I never knew suffering existed, we were very attached to her). So my question is this: What did the Buddha teach about suicide? I've heard stories of elderly Zen monks passing on, in a state of total awareness, at a time of their choice, but they were at the end of their lives anyway, not a healthy, but depressed, person in the middle of their lives. I thank all of you for taking the time to think about my question. Even if my sister hadn't died I would be eager to join your list, you all have such interesting things to say. Oh yes, I should mentioned that Mike Nease helped to get me started on this journey. Vicki 21692 From: m. nease Date: Sat Apr 26, 2003 5:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence Dear Nina, Sarah sent this quotation from an earlier post to Kom recently. I flagged it and was just rereading it. ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Sunday, April 20, 2003 4:14 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] concepts, compounds, and nonexistence > Nina: > Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging > on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the > object. Understood. > The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase > as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and > vicara in order to experience visible object. I don't understand this. When you say, "other cittas of the sense-door process", are you referring to vi~n~naa.nas other than seeing-consciousness? Why would they 'need...to experience visible object'? I think I've missed something--not doing my homework, as usual... Thanks in advance, Ma'am, mike 21693 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -Milinda's Questions, discussion as scholars Hi Nina, I have "The Questions of King Milinda Part I / II" Tr by T.W. Rhys Davids, published as Volume 35 / 36 of "Sacred Books of the East", Edited by F. Max Muller. The introduction is by T. W. Rhys Davids, dated August 1889, starts, "The work of which a translation is here, for the first time, presented to the English reading public, has a strange and interesting history. Written in Northern India, at or a little after the beginning of the Christian era, and either in Sanskrit..." In "2500 Years of Buddhism", General Editor: Prof. P. V. Bapat (1956), page 207, "What can be said almost with certainty is that the Milinda-panha must have been written either at the time of Menander or after him, but surely before the time of Buddhaghosa, who has so often quoted Milinda-panha as an authority. That is to say, it must have been written between 150 BC and 400 AD." Since Buddhaghosa often quoted the Milinda-panha as an authority, it is unlikely that the "Milinda-panha" was a "recent publication" when Buddhaghosa wrote. For this reason, I would put the actual date in the earlier part of the range. In "The Debate of King Milinda", by Bhikkhu Pesala (2000), the Foreword by Ven. Dr. Hammalawa Saddhatissa, starts, "The Milinda Panha is a Pali book written in about the first century BC." This book gives a very intesting history of Menander in the Introduction. My speaker notes have over-stated the certainty of the date. I will update them to match Ven. Saddhatissa Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > As to the date of the Milinda, > as I read in Part One, tr by Rhys Davids, > this book was written about 200 A.D. What do you think? It is based on an > older work probably. And King Menander was as early as you said. > op 26-04-2003 10:19 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > "The Questions of King Milinda" was written in the first century BC. 21694 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup Dear Robert, Mods & Kom, When I tried to look at 'Survey', I received the following error message: The requested file or directory is not found on the server. (Nice hearing from you, Kom--sorry I couldn't talk longer. Please email me back your phone number at mlnease@z...). Thanks, all, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: rjkjp1 To: Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 7:49 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup > Dear Group > Survey Of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket (translated by > Nina)has just been sent to the printer. I also uploaded a file to > this group. It is 470 pages so will take up to 10 minutes to > download. > RobertK > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > This email message is a notification to let you know that > > a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the dhammastudygroup > > group. > > > > File : /A Survey of Paramattha Dhammas- for printer april > 28.pdf > > Uploaded by : rjkjp1 > > Description : z-Survey of Paramattha Dhammas > > > > You can access this file at the URL > > > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/A%20Survey% > 20of%20Paramattha%20Dhammas-%20for%20printer%20april%2028.pdf > > > > To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit > > > > http://help.yahoo.com/help/us/groups/files > > > > Regards, > > > > rjkjp1 > 21695 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 3:27pm Subject: Way 81, Feeling cont. Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Feeling, continued After getting suitable weather conditions, a person of advantage to him spiritually, food that agrees with him, or fitting doctrinal instructions, the bhikkhu desirous of realization says, "Today, today," fixed in one posture, reaches the acme of insight and stands fast in the fruit of arahantship. For the three kinds of persons aforesaid the subject of meditation up to arahantship is expounded, in this way. Here, however, the Blessed One speaking of the non-material or mental subject of meditation speaks by way of feeling. While expounding by way of sense-impression or consciousness the subject of meditation does not become clear. It seems dark. But by way of feeling it becomes clear. Why? Because of the clearness of the arising of feeling. Indeed the arising of pleasant or painful feeling is clear. When pleasant feeling arises spreading through and flowing over the whole body, making one to utter the words: "Ah 'tis joy," it is like causing one to eat fresh clarified butter cooled in very cold water a hundred times after being melted again and again, also a hundred times; it is like causing one to be massaged with an emollient oil worth a hundred pieces; and it is like causing one to be cooled of a burning fever with a thousand pots of cold water. When painful feeling arises spreading through and flowing over the whole body making one to bewail with the words, "Alas, what woe," it is like the applying on one of a heated plowshare; it is like the sprinkling upon one of molten copper; and it is comparable to the hurling into dried grass and trees, in the forest, of bundles of wood firebrands. Thus the arising of pleasant or painful feeling becomes clear, but the arising of the neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling is dark, and unclear. The neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling becomes clear to one who grasps it methodically, thinking: "At the disappearance of pleasure and pain, the neutral neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling occurs, which is contrary to the pleasant and the unpleasant." To what is it comparable? To a deer hunter following the hoof marks of a deer which midway having gone up a flat rock is fleeing. The hunter after seeing the hoof marks on the hither and thither side of the rock, without seeing any trace in the middle, knows by inference: "Here the animal went up, and here, it went down; in the middle, on the flat rock, possibly it went through this part." Like the hoofmark at the place of going up the arising of pleasurable feeling becomes clear. Like the hoofmark at the place of descent the arising of painful feeling becomes clear. Like the grasping through inference of the part traversed over the rock by the deer is the laying hold of the neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling methodically with the thought: "At the disappearance of pleasure and pain, the neutral neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling occurs, which is contrary to the pleasant and the unpleasant." In this manner, the Blessed One having expounded at first the form subject of meditation, later, pointed out the formless subject of meditation, by way of feeling, having taken it out from the fivefold aggregation distinguishingly. Not only here did he point it out thus. In the Cula Tanhasankkhaya, the Cula Vedalla, the Maha Vedalla, the Ratthapala, Magandiya, Dhatuvibhanga, and Aneñjasappaya of the Majjhima Nikaya; in the Maha Nidana, Sakkapañha, and Maha Satipatthana of the Digha Nikaya; in the Cula Nidana, Rukkhupama, and Parivimamsana Suttas of the Samyutta Nikaya; in the whole of the Vedana Samyutta of the same Nikaya; and in many other discourses did the Master point out the formless subject of meditation, by way of feeling, having taken out feeling from the fivefold aggregation, after first expounding the form subject of meditation. 21696 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member Intro Brava, Vic, Really great to hear from you on-list--this is an exellent beginning, I think. The Buddha didn't talk much about suicide and I'll leave that to others to address. More pertinent are the presently arising dhammas (phenomena, especially mental in this case) that lead into and out of happiness/unhappiness, understanding/misunderstanding etc. These were and always are present for each and all of us and can be known and understood. Looking forward to responses from our smarter members. Best Wishes, mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Vicki Berman To: DSG Post Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 2:20 PM Subject: [dsg] New Member Intro > Greetings to you all, > I would like to introduce myself, my name is Vicki and will start by telling you a wee bit about myself. Currently I work at a hospital writing computer programs to analyze the information about patients. I must be doing something right because we won an award from a national medical group for one of my reports. I also got an outstanding staff award for it. I am a middle aged divorced mother of two teenagers, two dogs, and two cats. I weave and spin when I have time. I am exploring Buddhism from many angles. I grew up learning about Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, and I have a friend teaching me about Nishoren Buddhism. But on to my question. > My father was born in China and has talked a lot about Buddhism while I grew up. He recently had some heart trouble, and my sister made a comment that "he wasn't being spiritual enough about his own death." The rest of us thought it was okay for him to work on life style changes to help save his life, but this sister had other ideas about death. Evidently she was "spiritual" about it because she killed herself in February. She had a beautiful ying-yang pendant around her neck when she died, and her note said that she would see us on the other side. > My family was shocked at this unexpected tragedy and we are learning to live with our new reality. (It is suffering as I never knew suffering existed, we were very attached to her). > So my question is this: What did the Buddha teach about suicide? I've heard stories of elderly Zen monks passing on, in a state of total awareness, at a time of their choice, but they were at the end of their lives anyway, not a healthy, but depressed, person in the middle of their lives. > I thank all of you for taking the time to think about my question. Even if my sister hadn't died I would be eager to join your list, you all have such interesting things to say. > Oh yes, I should mentioned that Mike Nease helped to get me started on this journey. > Vicki > > > 21697 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To Sukin: In a message dated 4/26/03 8:19:05 PM, sukin@k... writes: << Jhana practice is a very high form of kusala, above dana and sila. People during Buddha's time and sometime later had the accumulations for such a practice. The requisite is not only the practitioner's own panna, but also the outer environment must be conducive. The monk's life inside the temple premise can be appropriate outer conditions, so I wouldn't say that a monk should not practice jhana. But only he can tell if indeed the outer and the inner conditions are right. But as a whole, yes I do believe that meditation (but not to neglect study) has been the way of life of monks through the ages. And this is part of the tradition of which I feel much gratitude towards. But, jhana is one form of formal meditation and it is the only one which was encouraged by the Buddha. I don't think there was any other; I think `vipassana meditation' is a modern invention of the practice of satipatthana. Vipassana is the development of insight based on this practice which has nothing to do with formal sitting. >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Well, I don't think anyone here would be surprised if I said I felt our good friend Sukin was pretty much right on. I completely concur with his assessment that, "`vipassana meditation' is a modern invention of the practice of satipatthana. Vipassana is the development of insight based on this practice which has nothing to do with formal sitting." It seems to me that people often conflate the practice of Vipassana, body scanning, with vipassana (insight), the subjective condition that the practice is intended to elicit in the practitioner. And yes, it does seem clear to me that jhana was the "practice" intended by the historic Buddha that leads to insight and absorption. And, it does seem like an odd reflection of the, perhaps, decay of the Dhamma when jhana is looked on as something that is evil or at least something to be avoided or bypassed. But, I think the belief alone that we live at some time that is too decayed to even acquire enlightenment, or proper understanding, alone is evidence of the decay. If you will recall, the historic Buddha often said that his time was a time of tremendous decay. The point that I am trying to make is enlightenment is a natural innate ability that we all have, and there has never been a time during the age of humans when Buddhas have not been on this Earth. We need only accept that everyone, no matter how degraded, can become enlightened in this lifetime, and there isn't just one great Buddha out there, but there are many living Buddhas who can guide use to enlightenment. But, when we get all obsessed with a dead Buddha who lived 2,000 or 2,500 years ago, we lose sight of the Buddhas who are right here, right now available to guide us to enlightenment. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: When Buddha talked about going to the wilderness etc I understand that he was mostly referring to Jhana. And if he did direct the monks attention to the arising and falling of realities, it was not because he thought that jhana *lead* to vipassana. But that jhana being the normal everyday activity of the monks in those times, they could then look closer at what they were doing and actually come to understand the meaning in ultimate terms of that. And yes, jhana is highly refined states, so I assume that if those monks could give up attachment to them, their understanding would be even deeper (but I am not sure about this). %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Actually, I believe the concern or fear that jhana is something one can or could become attached to is essentially erroneous, because it is clearly stated in the Potthapada Sutta DN. 9-17 "a true but subtle perception of delight and happiness, born of detachment." If jhana is born from detachment, then how can one become attached to it? Those who say that one can become attached to jhana, are themselves deluded and should be ignored because they are most clearly the "blind leading the blind." No offense Sukin, I just think you are giving voice to a common misconception. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: You mentioned Sila, Samadhi and Panna. Most people believe that they are separate from each other, that one must first have the foundation of Sila, then Samadhi and only then can Panna be developed. But from what I understanding, none of these can be separated. One cannot practice sila without `understanding' and there cannot be perfect Samadhi without the other two. Besides, at the moment of attention to a reality, satipatthana, at that moment, sila, samadhi and panna are all operating. %%%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Here my good friend Sukin, I completely agree with you. While sila (ethical conduct) is of course essential, sila cannot be perfect until panna (wisdom) arises, so to say one has to have perfect ethical conduct before wisdom will arise, are completely missing the understanding that it is only through wisdom and insight and equanimity that one could ever lead a truly ethical life. Good work Sukin. Best regards to all, layman Jeff 21698 From: m. nease Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Again Sukin, Off-list again, for the same reasons. Thought you might note the conditions of those whom the Buddha taught anapanasati--highly refined, to say the least (and only after four months of continuous instruction by arahants): I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery, the palace of Migara's mother, together with many well-known elder disciples -- with Ven. Sariputta, Ven. Maha Moggallana, Ven. Maha Kassapa, Ven. Maha Kaccana, Ven. Maha Kotthita, Ven. Maha Kappina, Ven. Maha Cunda, Ven. Revata, Ven. Ananda, and other well-known elder disciples. On that occasion the elder monks were teaching & instructing. Some elder monks were teaching & instructing ten monks, some were teaching & instructing twenty monks, some were teaching & instructing thirty monks, some were teaching & instructing forty monks. The new monks, being taught & instructed by the elder monks, were discerning grand, successive distinctions. Now on that occasion -- the Uposatha day of the fifteenth, the full-moon night of the Pavarana ceremony -- the Blessed One was seated in the open air surrounded by the community of monks. Surveying the silent community of monks, he addressed them: "Monks, I am content with this practice. I am content at heart with this practice. So arouse even more intense persistence for the attaining of the as-yet-unattained, the reaching of the as-yet-unreached, the realization of the as-yet-unrealized. I will remain right here at Savatthi [for another month] through the 'White water-lily' month, the fourth month of the rains." The monks in the countryside heard, "The Blessed One, they say, will remain right there at Savatthi through the White water-lily month, the fourth month of the rains." So they left for Savatthi to see the Blessed One. Then the elder monks taught & instructed even more intensely. Some elder monks were teaching & instructing ten monks, some were teaching & instructing twenty monks, some were teaching & instructing thirty monks, some were teaching & instructing forty monks. The new monks, being taught & instructed by the elder monks, were discerning grand, successive distinctions. Now on that occasion -- the Uposatha day of the fifteenth, the full-moon night of the White water-lily month, the fourth month of the rains -- the Blessed One was seated in the open air surrounded by the community of monks. Surveying the silent community of monks, he addressed them: "Monks, this assembly is free from idle chatter, devoid of idle chatter, and is established on pure heartwood: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly. The sort of assembly that is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of respect, an incomparable field of merit for the world: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly. The sort of assembly to which a small gift, when given, becomes great, and a great gift greater: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly. The sort of assembly that it is rare to see in the world: such is this community of monks, such is this assembly -- the sort of assembly that it would be worth traveling for leagues, taking along provisions, in order to see. "In this community of monks there are monks who are Arahants, whose mental effluents are ended, who have reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who are released through right gnosis: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of the first set of five fetters, are due to be reborn [in the Pure Abodes], there to be totally unbound, never again to return from that world: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of [the first] three fetters, and with the attenuation of passion, aversion, & delusion, are once-returners, who -- on returning only one more time to this world -- will make an ending to stress: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who, with the total ending of [the first] three fetters, are stream-winners, steadfast, never again destined for states of woe, headed for self-awakening: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to the development of the four frames of reference... the four right exertions... the four bases of power... the five faculties... the five strengths... the seven factors of awakening... the noble eightfold path: such are the monks in this community of monks. "In this community of monks there are monks who remain devoted to the development of good will... compassion... appreciation... equanimity...[the perception of the] foulness [of the body]... the perception of inconstancy: such are the monks in this community of monks..." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn118.html Just thought you might find this useful for further discussion. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula To: Sent: Sunday, April 27, 2003 10:13 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Howard, I was going to reply to another post, but since you write to me after such a long time, I have to respond to your post first.:-) > ============================= > An examination of both the Satipatthana Sutta and the Anapanasati > Sutta will show that each of them includes formal sitting meditation, though > not exclusively that. It seems to me that you are using the following > reasoning [Please see the end of this post]: > > Premiss: There was no meditation practice taught by the Buddha except > jhana > bhavana. > Premiss: People aren't "up to" jhana cultivation these days. [Implied > elsewhere > in your post] > Conclusion: There is no reason to meditate these days. > > In my opinion, each of your premisses is false, and so is the > conclusion. I have to admit that I had forgotten about Anapanasati, or else I would have been more cautious in making my remark. But that would be because I donâ?Tt know where to put it, is it related to jhana or not, but I think it originated from the Buddha himself and not something which existed before him. Anyway, firstly when I made my comment on jhana, I was not focusing on the fact whether it was appropriate for people to practice in this day and age or not. I was even thinking about those with the accumulations from previous lives but was living in crowded cities like New York ;-), that they must be having a tough time since the environment was not appropriate. And I was even thinking about some remote Wats, perhaps in Myanmar or Laos, where there might be monks with the proper accumulations and the right environment who are practicing it. I am not interested in making a statistical report of when, where and how many jhana practitioners there are any more than would I like to find out if there are any sakadagamis and anagamis alive today. I might have been if I myself was considering taking up the practice. My main intention to state these things is for the person whom I address to, to consider their own position. But yes, as far as so called â?~Vipassana Meditationâ?T is concerned, I do have problems with. But not to discuss now. As far as jhana is concerned, what I have heard from third-hand source and which makes sense to me, is that a very high degree of panna is required to know what the appropriate object of meditation is suitable for oneself. This will have to depend on ones accumulations. Also once when during meditation, kusala and akusala states arise, one must be very proficient in distinguishing between the two. This requires very high degree of panna again. The mind must be also so sharp as to be able to maintain the object and be able to detect any falling back to lower states. The main point is that one must have real panna to see the danger in sense impressions. And this will have to be both oneâ?Ts own accumulated tendency as well as having enough clear comprehension to know oneâ?Ts position in relation to the surroundings. When I first heard about this, my impression was that even those people, his teachers etc, during the Buddhaâ?Ts time, had very high level of panna compared to whom, later famous religious teachers were nothing. They at least came to discover how to achieve such refined states of kusala, enough to condition rebirth as bhramas. So my impression is that even this is no joke. Regarding Anapanasati, I have heard it here and probably so have you, that breath as a meditation object is extremely refined, that this object was appropriate only for the â?~superâ?T wise. It is that special â?~rupaâ?T which is conditioned by citta. From my own experience I can see how much proliferation goes on when trying to be aware of the breath and I do not mean here any background noise. What I mean is some times it is heat, some times it is wind, some times touch and all this is actually only thinking, heat, wind etc. It is not even the actual experience of these. And when I add long, short, medium to this, the mind gets even more agitated. My suspicion is that when finally there is some calm, it is not the calm because the true nature of breath has been discerned, but in a way one has come to a compromising position of â?othinkingâ?? heat or touch at the tip of nose or upper lip. The constancy seems to be maintained, but this would have been the â?~conceptâ?T of breath chosen according to oneâ?Ts desire. This is only my experience though, and admittedly I am only speculating from my present position. Hope you donâ?Tt mind it. Look forward to your response. Metta, Sukin. 21699 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 0:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi, Sukin - I really have little to give by way of response to your post (copied below). It seems to me that I have a bit of a propensity towards the jhanas. It is little more than lack of dedication that prevents me from mastering them, I think. (Lacking dedication is a gentle way of saying that I'm lazy! ;-) I've had a bit of experience with the jhanas, experience confirmed by others far more adept in that direction. Actually, I think that meditation leading to the jhanas is probably possible for many people, and doesn't require all that much by way of special "accumulations". The thing is, it requires sticking with it and not giving up at early signs of difficulty. As far as whether the only meditation the Buddha taught was jhana meditation, well, I've already commented on that. I think that anapanasati includes formal meditation practice that is not exclusively "jhana meditatation", and the Buddha, himself, described anapanasati as a way of implementing vipassana bhavana, as a way of practicing the teachings given in the Satipatthana Sutta, With metta, Howard In a message dated 4/27/03 1:15:21 PM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > I have to admit that I had forgotten about Anapanasati, or else I > would have been more cautious in making my remark. But that would be > because I don’t know where to put it, is it related to jhana or not, > but I think it originated from the Buddha himself and not something > which existed before him. > > Anyway, firstly when I made my comment on jhana, I was not focusing > on the fact whether it was appropriate for people to practice in > this day and age or not. I was even thinking about those with the > accumulations from previous lives but was living in crowded cities > like New York ;-), that they must be having a tough time since the > environment was not appropriate. And I was even thinking about some > remote Wats, perhaps in Myanmar or Laos, where there might be monks > with the proper accumulations and the right environment who are > practicing it. I am not interested in making a statistical report > of when, where and how many jhana practitioners there are any more > than would I like to find out if there are any sakadagamis and > anagamis alive today. I might have been if I myself was considering > taking up the practice. My main intention to state these things is > for the person whom I address to, to consider their own position. > But yes, as far as so called ‘Vipassana Meditation’ is concerned, I > do have problems with. But not to discuss now. > > As far as jhana is concerned, what I have heard from third-hand > source and which makes sense to me, is that a very high degree of > panna is required to know what the appropriate object of meditation > is suitable for oneself. This will have to depend on ones > accumulations. Also once when during meditation, kusala and akusala > states arise, one must be very proficient in distinguishing between > the two. This requires very high degree of panna again. The mind > must be also so sharp as to be able to maintain the object and be > able to detect any falling back to lower states. The main point is > that one must have real panna to see the danger in sense > impressions. And this will have to be both one’s own accumulated > tendency as well as having enough clear comprehension to know one’s > position in relation to the surroundings. > When I first heard about this, my impression was that even those > people, his teachers etc, during the Buddha’s time, had very high > level of panna compared to whom, later famous religious teachers > were nothing. They at least came to discover how to achieve such > refined states of kusala, enough to condition rebirth as bhramas. > So my impression is that even this is no joke. > > Regarding Anapanasati, I have heard it here and probably so have > you, that breath as a meditation object is extremely refined, that > this object was appropriate only for the ‘super’ wise. It is that > special ‘rupa’ which is conditioned by citta. From my own experience > I can see how much proliferation goes on when trying to be aware of > the breath and I do not mean here any background noise. What I mean > is some times it is heat, some times it is wind, some times touch > and all this is actually only thinking, heat, wind etc. It is not > even the actual experience of these. And when I add long, short, > medium to this, the mind gets even more agitated. My suspicion is > that when finally there is some calm, it is not the calm because the > true nature of breath has been discerned, but in a way one has come > to a compromising position of “thinkingâ€Â? heat or touch at the tip of > nose or upper lip. The constancy seems to be maintained, but this > would have been the ‘concept’ of breath chosen according to one’s > desire. This is only my experience though, and admittedly I am only > speculating from my present position. Hope you don’t mind it. > > Look forward to your response. > > Metta, > Sukin. > > /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) 21700 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 5:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Jeff, I agree there isn't any attachment in samma samadhi. In fact I think this might be what distinguishes jhana from other samadhis. Just from reading the descriptions it seems like jhana is progressive detachment. Where in other samadhis one might become more and more absorbed in the object (become one with it so to speak), in jhana it seems one has a more and more tenuous grasp of the object even though there is absorption. Perhaps this dynamic is what made it possible for jhana to be a vehicle to nibbana for the Buddha, i.e., it is basically letting-go . I agree with the local cognisenti here that right understanding is paramount but I don't see how one could acquire accumulations for jhana without attempting to cultivate it over and over. I guess everyone thinks they will attain enlightenment in this life and they don't need any accumulations for the future. Larry 21701 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 9:54pm Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Robert K, > > Thanks for your reply. > > I would not want to sound critical. However, I would say that I > find what you say regarding concept contradictory: on one hand, > concepts are formed by citta; on the other hand, concepts are non- > existent. > > This is how I see it: > Concepts are formed by citta, or in Jon's words, they are assembled > by mind. Whatever is formed/assembled, disintegrates, does not > last, subject to change, passes away. In that sense, a concept is > impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is impermanent, > subject to change is to be seen as it actually is with right > discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not > my self." Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards concept. > > Again, thanks for your reply, and your feedback is appreciated. > > Regards, > Victor > ----------- Dear Victor, I do see why this appears to be a contradiction - that a concept doesn't exist (is asabhava) and yet it can still be a object of citta. Let's take an example now. Think of a flying purple elephant. While thinking of this there is vedanakkhandha (the aggregate of feeling), there is sannakkhandha (the aggregate of perception, memory ) that 'remembers' the shape of an elephant and the color purple. There is sankharakkhanda (the formations that includes all other cetasikas) and there is vinnakkhandha (the aggregate of consciousness). These are all paramattha dhammas, they are conditioned and impermanent and not self. But there is no purple, flying elephant - that is pannati, concept, and yet it is the object at that time. It is dhammarammana. But it is the dhammarammana that is asabhava, non-existant. RobertK 21702 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 3:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To Larry: In a message dated 4/27/03 5:05:32 PM, LBIDD@w... writes: << I agree there isn't any attachment in samma samadhi. In fact I think this might be what distinguishes jhana from other samadhis. Just from reading the descriptions it seems like jhana is progressive detachment. Where in other samadhis one might become more and more absorbed in the object (become one with it so to speak), in jhana it seems one has a more and more tenuous grasp of the object even though there is absorption. Perhaps this dynamic is what made it possible for jhana to be a vehicle to nibbana for the Buddha, i.e., it is basically letting-go >> %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Since jhana is based on non-grasping it may be a vehicle for nibbana, excellent point, my good friend Larry, I hadn't thought of it in this way. Well put. Best to you, Layman Jeff 21703 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:00pm Subject: Southwest Insight E'letter Hi everyone, I publish a web based monthly journal dedicated to vipassana, jhana and nondualism called the Southwest Insight E'letter. The next issue will be dedicated to jhana, if anyone is interested in publishing their insights and opinions on jhana in the next issue, then please email me something by the deadline, April 30th. Subscription and back issues for the Southwest Insight E'letter are available at: Post message: SWI_E_letter@yahoogroups.com Subscribe: SWI_E_letter-subscribe@yahoogroups.com http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SWI_E_letter/ If you live in this region I also publish a quarterly Southwestern Retreat and Resource Guide in Acrobat Reader format, which can be downloaded from the Albuquerque Vipassana Web site at: http://www.cs.unm.edu/~richards/sangha/home.html best to you all layman Jeff Brooks editor, Southwest Insight E'letter president, UofA Meditation Club 21704 From: Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 2:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Death and Suicide To Vicki: In a message dated 4/27/03 2:20:34 PM, vberman@m... writes: << Greetings to you all, I would like to introduce myself, my name is Vicki and will start by telling you a wee bit about myself. Currently I work at a hospital writing computer programs to analyze the information about patients. I must be doing something right because we won an award from a national medical group for one of my reports. I also got an outstanding staff award for it. I am a middle aged divorced mother of two teenagers, two dogs, and two cats. I weave and spin when I have time. I am exploring Buddhism from many angles. I grew up learning about Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, and I have a friend teaching me about Nishoren Buddhism. But on to my question. My father was born in China and has talked a lot about Buddhism while I grew up. He recently had some heart trouble, and my sister made a comment that "he wasn't being spiritual enough about his own death." The rest of us thought it was okay for him to work on life style changes to help save his life, but this sister had other ideas about death. Evidently she was "spiritual" about it because she killed herself in February. She had a beautiful ying-yang pendant around her neck when she died, and her note said that she would see us on the other side. My family was shocked at this unexpected tragedy and we are learning to live with our new reality. (It is suffering as I never knew suffering existed, we were very attached to her). So my question is this: What did the Buddha teach about suicide? I've heard stories of elderly Zen monks passing on, in a state of total awareness, at a time of their choice, but they were at the end of their lives anyway, not a healthy, but depressed, person in the middle of their lives. I thank all of you for taking the time to think about my question. Even if my sister hadn't died I would be eager to join your list, you all have such interesting things to say. Oh yes, I should mentioned that Mike Nease helped to get me started on this journey. Vicki >> %%%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Welcome Vicki, and thank-you for your very honest introduction. I am sure the topic of suicide will be talked about extensively here, and it will no doubt bring up some strong feelings. I regret that I am not much of a scholar, so I cannot provide you with canonical references about death and suicide, which maybe just what you are looking for. I can only say that I have read a lot, reflected a great deal on what I have read, and found some small insight on these topics. So, I can only give you what little insight I have had into the subject of death. First, if I may point out, it sounded like your sister had some excess baggage (obviously) when she criticized your father's preparation for his parting. One should never criticize people for whatever they have to deal with, even someone who decides to kill one's self. Next in preparing for one's death, either self inflicted or otherwise, it is always best to transform that experience, like every experience in one's life, into a spiritual venture. In so doing we bring mindfulness and intention to our actions. Even more so to one's death. I have often pondered life, the spiritual journey and death, and thought that life and the spiritual journey, in many respects, are just preparation for one's death. If we lead a peaceful and contemplative life, then we are going to greet our death as a wonderful experience to be entered into. Death will be a doorway into the other side or the infinite for us. If we do not lead a contemplative life, then we are likely to be unhappy and critical of others and ourselves, and possibly end up harming or killing ourselves. Or, we will at least be unhappy to greet our death. As for the karmic consequences of your sister's suicide. She was an unhappy person. Her "karmic consequences" are she had an unhappy death. We need not project anymore consequences on her act that reflected extreme suffering. Now we may enter into a whole debate over karma with what I have to say next. Some people believe in a very material biblical sin-like retributional style of karma. I do not. To me karma is not a material thing at all. Karma is the consequences to your psyche for whatever unethical act one engages in. If we seek to harm others or ourselves, then there are psychological consequences for that kind of behavior, which is great unhappiness. On the other hand, if we live our lives so that we dedicate every moment and every thought, word, action and resource to the benefit of all beings, we are likely to lead very happy and fulfilled lives. I hope this short note has been of help to you. Best to you, layman Jeff 21705 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup --- Dear Mike, It downloads ok to my computer but takes 15mins. I just put the first 50 pages only on as part 1 . See if that is Ok. I suspect your computer is timing out. Thanks Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Robert, Mods & Kom, > > When I tried to look at 'Survey', I received the following error message: > > The requested file or directory is not found on the server. > > (Nice hearing from you, Kom--sorry I couldn't talk longer. Please email me > back your phone number at mlnease@z...). > > Thanks, all, > > mike > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: rjkjp1 > To: > Sent: Saturday, April 26, 2003 7:49 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: New file uploaded to dhammastudygroup > > > > Dear Group > > Survey Of Paramattha Dhammas by Sujin Boriharnwanaket (translated by > > Nina)has just been sent to the printer. I also uploaded a file to > > this group. It is 470 pages so will take up to 10 minutes to > > 21706 From: Sarah Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member Intro Hi Vicki, Like Mike, I’m glad you’ve surfaced and introduced yourself to everyone. I know it must be a bit daunting or overwhelming for newcomers joining when it’s so busy and some threads have been going on for a long time. Pls feel very free to interrupt and ask for any clarifications. If Mike hasn’t already pointed it out to you, you may find it helpful to print out this simple Pali glossary to have next to your computer as well: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms All the posts from DSG are backed up on escribe (well, not quite all) and it has a useful search engine for topics and posts by any particular member: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ I just typed in ‘suicide’ and it showed 83 messages, so you’ll see the topic has been discussed quite a lot here from a Buddhist point of view. One rainy day you may wish to review these and raise anything from them of interest to you. It’s never to late to pick up a thread and most the posters are still around;-) I’m sure we all feel great sympathy for you and your family. Please know you’re not alone. At least two other members I know of here have lost siblings to suicide at a young age. (You’ll probably come across more details on that rainy day;-)). I believe it is far more prevalent in society than is ever reported (I’ve had contact myself with 3 cases not reported as such) and I still reflect sometimes on the suicide of a young client who was in my care in a psychiatric day centre. One knows that negative feelings, especially those of guilt or feeling one could have done better are so very useless, but it’s very natural that they should arise. In the suttas we read about all aspects of daily life and unfortunately, suicide is one of those aspects. Of course, the action must be motivated by very negative mental states, but all mental states change so rapidly, so we never know for sure whether someone actually passes away with skilful or unskilful consciousness. Indeed, we read cases in the texts of monks who took their lives, but just before passing away became enlightened due to the understanding which arose in those last few moments. So, for my part, I think it’s quite useless to speculate in ignorance about the possible future life of anyone or any series of consciousness. Instead, when our lives are so touched by these sad events, perhaps we can let them be a spur to helping ourselves and other family members to appreciate the value of this very short life for developing more understanding of what the real causes of suffering are and what is really of value in life. I’m so glad that you are finding the list of interest. You may wish to skip some of the more technical posts for now. Please let me know if you have any further questions. With metta, Sarah p.s thanks for your other info - I’m sure you’ll be hearing from Christine too as you have much in common. Actually we could do with your expertise in HK at the moment where the tracing and analyzing of SARS patients using the latest detective methodology is in full swing. ====== --- Vicki Berman wrote: > Greetings to you all, > I would like to introduce myself, my name is Vicki and will start by > telling you a wee bit about myself. Currently I work at a hospital > writing computer programs to analyze the information about patients. I > must be doing something right because we won an award from a national > medical group for one of my reports. 21707 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Larry and Jeff, > I agree there isn't any attachment in samma samadhi. In fact I think > this might be what distinguishes jhana from other samadhis. Just from > reading the descriptions it seems like jhana is progressive detachment. > Where in other samadhis one might become more and more absorbed in the > object (become one with it so to speak), in jhana it seems one has a > more and more tenuous grasp of the object even though there is > absorption. Perhaps this dynamic is what made it possible for jhana to > be a vehicle to nibbana for the Buddha, i.e., it is basically letting-go . I am not sure about this, whether samma samadhi of jhana is the result of progressive detachment of the same kind as that of vipassana. In the latter it is through knowing conditioned reality as they are, as not self. But it seems to me that jhana is very much still with the 'self' intact. However I do know that in jhana practitioners, the anusya is still there. And with change of conditions, such as rebirth under a different environment, the kilesas will manifest. Regarding whether if Buddha used jhana as a vehicle, again I have doubts. I do know that he did practice jhana in previous lives, so it is not unexpected that he was attracted to the practice in his last life as well. > I agree with the local cognisenti here that right understanding is > paramount but I don't see how one could acquire accumulations for jhana > without attempting to cultivate it over and over. I guess everyone > thinks they will attain enlightenment in this life and they don't need > any accumulations for the future. But what is more important, a practice aimed at a future result of which there is no promise of maintaining or understanding of a reality now? There can be noticeable degrees of detachment even at the most basic level, and this accumulates too. Besides, finally there is no other way than 'satipatthana' which can lead to enlightenment. So wouldn't it be far better to develop a habit of understanding reality wherever, whenever than to try to develop something which will ultimately require this same path to be proof of benefit? Between accumulations for satipatthana and jhana, what would you choose? Also the very thought about systematic development aimed at future result ie. the idea of *using* jhana to develop wisdom, seems like silabattaparamasa to me!? Btw, I think looking from outside, satipatthana seems like the more time consuming way, as it does not have a method and signposts to guide one's path. So I don't think that members of dsg think of getting it in just one lifetime. But maybe you were only kidding.:-) My first post to both of you, happy to have written it. :-) Best wishes, Sukin 21708 From: robmoult Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:47pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment What is Citta? Slide Contents ============== - Citta is pure awareness - Process of being aware of an object: Citta is an activity - That which is aware of an object: Citta is an agent - The means by which the accompanying mental factors are aware of an object: Citta is an instrument Speaker Notes ============= Let's take a look at the first ultimate reality, citta or consciousness. We can define citta as an activity, the process of being aware of an object. The problem with this definition is the question, "If there is no self, what is it that is aware?" The answer is that it is the citta itself that is aware of an object. Citta is also like a container; it carries the various mental factors and allows them to access the object. 21709 From: Michael Newton Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 10:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Death and Suicide Hello!Vicky; Thank you very much for sharing your thoughts and feelings with this group.Yes,death,and suicide is a touchy subject-but it's nice that you have good contacts with people to help thru these difficulties. It's good that you work in a hospital-as it puts you in touch with many peoples suffering-shows you that you are not alone-and also you can help people in so so many ways-which helps you with your sadness.Buddhism stresses love and compassion.It's good that you are inquireing into the Buddhist Path.Just keep your heart and mind open-and listen to what many people have to say-but always look inside-find a quiet place there. There -you might find the truth there.Thank you so much for sharing your story.May you feel peaceful. Yours in the Dhamma with Metta,Michael Yours in the dhamma with metta,michael > In a message dated 4/27/03 2:20:34 PM, > vberman@m... writes: > > << Greetings to you all, ... > My father was born in China and has talked a lot > about Buddhism while I grew > up. He recently had some heart trouble, and my > sister made a comment that > "he wasn't being spiritual enough about his own > death." The rest of us > thought it was okay for him to work on life style > changes to help save his > life, but this sister had other ideas about death. > Evidently she was > "spiritual" about it because she killed herself in > February. She had a > beautiful ying-yang pendant around her neck when she > died, and her note said > that she would see us on the other side. > My family was shocked at this unexpected tragedy and > we are learning to live > with our new reality. (It is suffering as I never > knew suffering existed, we > were very attached to her). > So my question is this: What did the Buddha teach > about suicide? I've heard > stories of elderly Zen monks passing on, in a state > of total awareness, at a > time of their choice, but they were at the end of > their lives anyway, not a > healthy, but depressed, person in the middle of > their lives. > I thank all of you for taking the time to think > about my question. Even if > my sister hadn't died I would be eager to join your > list, you all have such > interesting things to say. > Oh yes, I should mentioned that Mike Nease helped to > get me started on this > journey. > Vicki >> 21710 From: Michael Newton Date: Sun Apr 27, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member Intro Hello!Sarah; This must be a very difficult time for you,as you are right in the hub of this SARS epidemic.So far,here the epidemic han't reach California where I live-but guess it could-just a matter of time.Hear so much about Hong Kong(where you live).Are people there really stressed out and tense?Do you and your friends walk the streets with masks over your faces?What's it like there?Does it really bother you?There are problems in Canada which isn't too far away.Wonder if anything can be done.Hope you are O.K. YOURS IN THE DHAMMA WITH METTA,MICHAEL --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Vicki, ... > Sarah > p.s ... Actually we could do > with your expertise > in HK at the moment where the tracing and analyzing > of SARS patients using > the latest detective methodology is in full swing. > ====== 21711 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 0:44am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To All, I was reading the several posts on Jhana, Samatha, and Meditation. I was beginning to discuss some of these very same matters with, Sukin, and he showed a disinclination to continue the discussion with me and I thought I had stepped on to unknown ground in trying to discuss meditation, when the members of the forum are primarily here to discus Abhidhamma. However, having read the several post I have mentioned, and being a member of this group to learn Abhidhamma, I thought I will make my contribution on Meditation and allied matters. During the time the Prince Siddhartha was born in ancient India, there was 62 different schools of philosophy. The well known teachers of some of them were, Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Ghosala, Ajita Kesakambila, Pakuddha Kachchayana, Niganta Nataputta and Sanjay Belathaputta. They practiced samata ( quietude)meditation, using Kasina, which are the 40 different types of arammana to develop concentration . In samath, the mind is quietened first by attaining one pointed concentration( samadhi). Continuing to develop the concentration, with the eyes fixed on the Kasina, they attain jhana( dyana) absorptions. There are eight stages of jhana absorptions, four rupa jhana, ( first, second, third ,forth) and four arupa jhana. (fifth,sixth,seventh, and eighth). The first four jhana develop the mind and go into a deep "silence", very calm and serene, no thoughts arise in the mind. At the third and the fourth stages, mind is so deeply concentrated the meditator will not be aware of the body. Thereafter, the fifth to eight stages of absorptions give the meditator supernatural power. The Hindu teachers,and philosophers practiced these meditations even before the Prince Siddhartha was born. Prince Siddhartha, saw the four signs, and knew there was untold suffering , among beings and thought that there must be a cause for this, and that one may be able to stop it by eliminating the cause. He studied under some of the great teachers at the time, I had mentioned earlier. But he was disappointed . Ascetic Siddhartha, thought that it is through self-inflicted pain that he may be able to delve into the truth, and practiced austerity for six years, having failed in that endeavour, he left his five devoted companions, and went on his own. The rest of the story we know. Lord Buddha, practiced the samatha, meditation following the anapanasati,( taking the in and out breath) as the object of concentration(arammana). That was a means of clearing the mind of the incessantly arising and falling away of the thought processes. At the forth jhana absorption the mind is clear, serene, calm, and alert, but incapable of any other mental activity. Therefore the Buddha, after attaining the fourth jhana, came out of it and continued looking into the causes of suffering, looking at the mental activity in different ways, that was the insight meditation (vipassana), the unique method found by the Buddha himself. In vipassana, the Buddha tried to see the ` working', not just the understanding, of impermanence(anicca), unsatisfactoriness( dukkha ) and no-self (anatta). It is only through this insight or penetrating into the working of his own mind that the Buddha, `saw' dukkha, its cause, the way out of it and its cessation. He was able to differentiate between the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. A being is just five aggregates ( rupakkhandha, vedenakkhandha,sannanakkhandha, vinnanakkhandha and sankharakkhandha), and the cause of this suffering is rooted in lobha, dosa, moha, which has created in the mind of the being that he is a person, a "self", and every thing around is permanent, pleasant, and that they are for his enjoyment. The Buddha knew that once the beings become aware of the irreality of this thinking, they will turn to his teaching, which will enable them to go through the same experience he went through and attain nibbana. With metta, Yasalalaka 21712 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member Intro Hi Michael, --- Michael Newton wrote: > Hello!Sarah; > This must be a very difficult time for you,as you > are right in the hub of this SARS epidemic. ..... Thx for your concern. The figures of new cases here have been reducing recently, so we’re all hoping we’re past the worst. Everyone, even the most relaxed, have had to make significant lifestyle changes, but we’ve all had to learn to just get on with life as well, although many of my friends and students are still hiding out overseas. Mostly we’ve been pretty relaxed. Until last week, I was only wearing a mask in lifts, but have avoided all indoor shopping centres, restaurants, meetings and so on. It’s not hard for me as I avoid the same places in normal times and I love to spend any free time outdoors in any weather or indoors at the computer/reading dhamma. Yesterday (Sunday) we went hiking to a beach and then had breakfast at an outdoor cafe. It was great to see kids playing on the beach. Teaching is now no fun at all as I have to stay masked (8hrs on Saturday) and it’s hot and uncomfortable. Supervising kids and checking they stay masked, wash hands frequently and so on takes some adjusting to as well. I still go to Tai chi and yoga classes as it’s important for me to get exercise and stay healthy. We all wash hands every time we’ve been in a lift or public place and shower as soon as we get home. People here have been really great, imho - no signs of panic. Everyone quietly doing their best, helping to clean the flats of the elderly, very supportive of the medical community. It’s particularly tough for those who have been put in quarantine (thousands of them) and those in hospital - no visitors etc. The 8 year old cousin of one of my students is in hospital for another condition and her parents haven’t been able to visit for weeks. Secondary schools have mostly (but not all) resumed. One suspected case and the school will close down again for two weeks. Many front-line medical staff have kept themselves in hospital accomodation and away from families to reduce the risk of home infection as many of the cases in the community have been traced to the medics. In terms of what can be done, I think that for any ‘situation’ or ‘scenario’ the greatest help is always the dhamma and the growth in understanding from what we read and consider as we’re doing here. None of us ever knows what will happen next to ourselves or our dear ones. The thinking and worrying about SARS or any other difficulties will never help us to become enlightened;-) SARS or wars are concepts too. Now, there are the same realities that the Buddha taught and urged us to understand as namas and rupas (mental and physical phenomena). Still there is attachment and aversion. I read all the information in the papers because I find it fascinating and easily become lost in the stories without any awareness. Occasionally, however, whilst reading, there may be a little awareness of the ‘real’ phenomena. Whilst we think in terms of a right or wrong course of action or stance to take, we’re bound to forget about different moments of consciousness, kusala and akusala and to take the whole scenario for being something real. This is why I don’t understand the Buddha to have told common people or leaders what actions to take. Instead I understand him to have pointed out realities, truths, causes and effects in terms of the khandhas, dhatus, ayatanas, paccaya and so on. The teachings seem very subtle to me - not just a matter of taking X action being good and Y action being bad. We discussed this at some length on the ‘right livelihood’ thread and maybe it also applies to the ‘War’ and ‘Suicide’ threads too. (I was also reminded in your other discussion with James and co about the Meghiya chapter in the Udana. Meghiya was keen to spend time in seclusion in a serene mango grove. The Buddha knew it wouldn’t be a condition for insight and suggested he should wait. On Meghiya's urging, however, the Buddha says “How can we speak, Meghiya, when you speak of effort? You should do that for which you deem it now to be the time”. So Meghiya went to spend time in seclusion in the grove, was overwhelmed with unskilful thoughts of sense-desires, ill-will and cruelty and forced to return. In other words, not even the Buddha can ‘enlighten’ another. We all follow courses of action according to conditions and inclinations. Really understanding more about the subtle intricacies of the teachings will help us to develop wisdom, no matter our livelihood or way in which our lives unfold, I believe. Hopefully this also helps us to be more tolerant (less judgmental of the 'exterior') of others and their lifestyles/courses of action. Btw, if anyone is able to make a trip to HK, now is a great time - 5 star super-bargains in the empty hotels which have never been more spotless or offered such good service. If you like hikes and beaches, even better! metta, Sarah ====== 21713 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:52am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Smallchap, > > is not there, but it does appear to be there and there and > > there, > > this is because of the nature of 'concept', it cannot but > > appear > > permanent. > > S: This will bring us back to Aggi-Vacchagotta Sutta. It will > be well that I pursue no further in this matter. I think maybe I now understand the reason for this. You are saying that such kind of thinking is dangerous?! This sounds reasonable, and I thankyou for reminding me. This I think, is a good example of the value of discussions with wise friends. ;-) Left to ourselves, wrong view and other kinds of akusala take over. > > understood his ultimate meaning, these can as likely the case > > be > > satisfied with the inferred meaning of impermanence. And this > > knowledge if held on to as final knowledge, wouldn't lead to > > liberation. > > S: Although I do not share your view completely, I must thank > you for your effort of explaining it to me. My understanding is > every kusala concept is the foundation of future insight. Every > cultivation of the 37 enlightenment factors will reach it > fullness when one wins the paths and the fruits. I don't know anything about the 37 enlightenment factors, but I looked it up in the dictionary, and I think I am missing something important. Perhaps I will have time to read more about it later. I think all kusala helps one along the path, but as you corrected later, it must be with right view. One of the wonderful things about Buddhadhamma is the teachings on the Parami. It shows me that not only every form of kusala should not be overlooked, but that they actually relate to one another in such a way that one should not be isolated at the exclusion of others. Anytime kusala citta arises at moments of dana or sila, it is good to be aware of it as just a dhamma, not self. Knowing it for what it is will accumulate as parami, otherwise if it is done with 'self' then it is not so beneficial. One ends up taking it as my dana, my sila etc. Likewise I think that when one concentrates on one of the 'factors of awakening' and try to develop it with a 'self', then it may not lead to the correct results. I don't think that any of the factors of the 8th fold path can be developed seperately. They arise by conditions, the primary of which is understanding nama and rupa as it is, constantly, again and again. I think there is a difference in conventional understanding of energy, livelihood, concentration etc. from the corresponding factors in the Noble path. Giving it conventional interpretation will give rise to idea of developing them one by one. I don't even think that one can develop panna by trying to develop panna. One ends up 'doing' things, like meditating and reading the suttas. But I think it is the function of panna itself with the help of chandha, which leads to seeking more understanding and hence conditioning more panna. If self comes in, then what is read may not be understood at all. > > direct perception. One must come to know the objects through > > the six- > > senses first. > > S: There are two approaches: 1. Sila, Samadha, Panna; 2. Panna, > Sila, Samadhi. Either approach can lead to insight. But every step of the way must require panna to be present. I don't think it is a question of approach, but varying strengths. Besides what is panna in isolation, is not panna in relation to some reality? Panna in relation to sila, panna in relation to dana, pana in relation to bhavana, no?! Feedback would be appreciated. best, Sukin. 21714 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for this reply! I am glad that you enjoy the references. I > tend to think that the word "bhava" means not only "sentiet being" > but "being", "becoming", and "existence". I tend to see that the > discussions on whether things exist or not as idle chatter because I > don't see them relevant to the Buddha's teaching. ..... In the context you raised (the AN sutta), I understand bhava to refer to “existence” and speculation about future existence, but it's only guess-work on my part and may not be right. (I’d be interested to hear any further notes from the commentary on that section under idle talk if anyone has access to it in Pali or Thai.) I think the difference in understanding about the relevance or not of “whether things exist” or not all relates to our understanding of the khandhas and the significance of this. ..... > This is how I see it: the Buddha's teaching in and of itself is not > concerned about figuring out "what is it?" or "does it exist?" It > is really about dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. It is about the > origin of dukkha, the way that leads to the cessation of dukkha. ..... We agree about the 4NT, but for many of us, these refer to the khandhas which refer to paramattha dhammas (NOT concepts) only. so we have to understand first exactly "what is it?" or "does it exist?" ..... > Regarding the five aggregates, I would say that they include every > conditioned, fabricated phenomenon/thing/situation. They include > everything in the world from concrete objects such as desk, body, > eye, nose, to joy, grief, happiness, to marriage, relationship, > separation, union to abstract ideas, concepts. I see that the > Buddha's teaching is about liberation from the world. > > Your feedback is appreciated! ..... I appreciate your encouragement, Victor. The following extracts below are from Nyantiloka’s dictionary. I take it you would disagree with these classifications? If not, which khandha do the following fit into and how? >desk, body, > eye, nose, to joy, grief, happiness, to marriage, relationship, > separation, union to abstract ideas, concepts. ..... Metta, Sarah From: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/g_m/khandha.htm * 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). - 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." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY OF THE 5 GROUPS I. Corporeality Group (rúpa-kkhandha) A. Underived (no-upádá): 4 elements * the solid, or earth-element (pathaví-dhátu) * the liquid, or water-element (ápo-dhátu) * heat, or fire-element (tejo-dhátu) * motion, or wind-element (váyo-dhátu) B. Derived (upádá): 24 secondary phenomena * Physical sense-organs of: seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting, body * Physical sense-objects: form, sound, odour, taste, (bodily impacts) * femininity (itthindriya) * virility (purisindriya) * physical base of mind (hadaya-vatthu) * bodily expression (káya-viññatti; s. viññatti) * verbal expression (vací-viññatti) * physical life (rúpa jívita; s. jívita) * space element (ákása-dhátu) * physical agility (rúpassa lahutá) * physical elasticity (rúpassa mudutá) * physical adaptability (rúpassa kammaññatá) * physical growth (rúpassa upacaya) * physical continuity (rúpassa santati; s. santána) * decay (jará) * impermanence (aniccatá) * nutriment (áhára) II. Feeling Group (vedaná-kkhandha) All feelings may, according to their nature, be classified as 5 kinds: * bodily agreeable feeling sukha = káyiká sukhá vedaná * bodily painful feeling dukkha = káyiká dukkhá vedaná * mentally agreeable feeling somanassa = cetasiká sukhá vedaná * mentally painful feeling domanassa = cetasiká dukkhá vedaná * indifferent feeling upekkhá = adukkha-m-asukhá vedaná III. Perception Group (saññá-kkhandha) All perceptions are divided into 6 classes: *perception of form, sound, odour, taste, bodily impression, and mental impression. IV. Group of Mental Formations (sankhára-kkhandha) This group comprises 50 mental phenomena, of which * 11 are general psychological elements, * 25 lofty (sobhana) qualities, * 14 karmically unwholesome qualities. Cf. Tab. II. V. Consciousness Group (viññána-kkhandha) The Suttas divide consciousness, according to the senses, into 6 classes: *eye-, ear-, nose-, tongue-, body-, mind-consciousness. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21715 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:28am Subject: Re: Death and Suicide Vicky and all, Death and Suicide, The Buddha in his disciplinary rules to his disciples, had prohibited suicide. But I do not think he had spoken about suicide, except in the case of the Ven.Channa, an arahat with terrible head and belly pains. Perhaps he did not speak about suicide as it is a Kamma vipaka . If one commits sucide thinking that his killing himself, may deliver him from suffering, could we say that he had an attachment to death, thinking the death is a lesser evil than the suffering that he is under going ? But who has the right to take away life, of one self or that of another ? The suicide is a kamma vipaka, that nobody may be able to change, which takes effect when his akusala kamma( the kamma producing vipaka) is dominant. In any case one who commits suicide is doing so with an unwholesome consciousness (akusala citta) rooted in delusion (dosa,moha). In Milindappahana, the King Milinda asked Ven.Nagasena, why Buddha who taught the way to end all suffering, ruled out suicide to his disciples as, suicide is for that person committing the act an end to his suffering ? Venerable Nagasena, gave a long explanation, in which he says "……..Occurrence, ( of death) sire,is suffering, non- occurrence is bliss. Illustrating the special quality of non- occurrence and peril there is in occurrence , the Blessed one, Sir, for the realisation of non-occurrence, roused disciples to pass beyond birth, ageing, disease and death…." This even though I have taken just a few sentences, explains itself. I cannot therefore elaborate on it. If we can understand the person who is going to commit suicide and eliminate the conditions that may push him to do it, it may be a possible solution. But unfortunately, the suicides are committed in total silence, without letting others know about it. Some people who survived suicide attempts had, it seems, said that at one point of the attempt, they were expecting some one to save them. But it is not always so simple. Each of us bring our own kamma, and how and when these kamma take effect is indeterminate and not within our control. The condition of life after the suicide, depends on the citta that was present before the cuti-citta, which would be the patisandi-citta of the new life. There also, we have to guess… Next question is about death: In explaining why death makes us sad and plunge into dukkha, we have to look into the root causes of suffering-lobha, dosa, moha. Why do we feel sad when some one dear to us dies ? Are we sad for the dead person or sad for ourselves ? We feel sad because some one we loved has died and we are deprived of that love. It comes from two things, belief or, the delusion (moha) of a "self" – me- the mother, father, or sister, and second ,clinging ( upadana)to an object of attachment ( my son, my brother ) If we were able to detach from these objects of attachment (arammanas) and see them as ultimate realities(paramatta dhamma) as aggregates ( as much as we are ourselves), we may then be able to reduce our pain. But to seeing things in their ultimate nature is a long process……….. With metta, Yasalalaka 21716 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 2:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, I agree with almost everything you say in this post and I’m sure we all appreciate all your comments and contributions. I think we’re here to discuss all and any parts of the Tipitaka, so pls don’t feel discouraged and pls continue to encourage Sukin as well - I'm sure others, besides myself, were also enjoying your dialogue;-) ..... --- yasalalaka wrote: > > In vipassana, the Buddha tried to see the ` working', not just the > understanding, of impermanence(anicca), unsatisfactoriness( dukkha ) > and no-self (anatta). It is only through this insight or penetrating > into the working of his own mind that the Buddha, `saw' dukkha, its > cause, the way out of it and its cessation. ..... I’m not sure how the ‘working’ is different from the understanding??? ..... > > He was able to differentiate between the conventional truth and the > ultimate truth. A being is just five aggregates ( rupakkhandha, > vedenakkhandha,sannanakkhandha, vinnanakkhandha and > sankharakkhandha), and the cause of this suffering is rooted in > lobha, dosa, moha, which has created in the mind of the being that he > is a person, a "self", and every thing around is permanent, pleasant, > and that they are for his enjoyment. ..... This is a good summary along with your earlier comments which I snipped. ..... >The Buddha knew that once the > beings become aware of the irreality of this thinking, they will > turn to his teaching, which will enable them to go through the same > experience he went through and attain nibbana. ..... I think I understand your point. However, I think that everyone has different experiences and the aim is not to emulate or copy another’s experience but to develop understanding, regardless of the particular experiences, that leads to detachment and eradication of the kilesa (defilements). In the Buddha’s time, surely different people had different inclinations and lifestyles and there was no rule that everyone had to follow the exact pattern of the Buddha. How could they? For example, when Visakkha became a sotapanna at the age of seven, it wasn’t by following the life of a recluse or developing jhana (as far as I know), but by really understanding the conditioned nature of phenomena and seeing them as anatta in her daily life. This is why, as I mentioned in my other post to Michael, I believe the path to liberation is more about understanding dhammas and present awareness of namas and rupas than in setting any fixed rules (for lay people that is) or determining particular courses of action. As you know, panna (wisdom) and sati (awareness) are conditioned phenomena as well. There is no self to do anything. I believe that if there is more precise understanding of all kinds of phenomena, by conditions kusala of all kinds (including samatha) will develop naturally and with detachment. These states won’t develop by wishing and clinging to self. We’ve discussed a lot about metta here and how easy it is to kid oneself that it is developing at particular times and in special ways. By knowing more about its precise nature and seeing how infrequent it really is, can be a condition for it to arise when least expected in daily life and without any special intention. This is a beginning. We don’t need to be concerned about advanced stages of metta or other kinds of samatha when there so seldom is even a beginning. You may not agree;-) Look forward to more of your helpful comments. With metta, Sarah ====== 21717 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:11am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Robert K, Thanks for your feedback! I would like to say that concept of a desk, for instance, is not one and the same as a desk. Your feedback on the following is much appreciated. Concepts are formed by citta, or in Jon's words, they are assembled by mind. Whatever is formed/assembled, disintegrates, does not last, subject to change, passes away. In that sense, a concept is impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is impermanent, subject to change is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards concept. Again, thanks for your reply! Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: [snip] > Dear Victor, > I do see why this appears to be a contradiction - that a concept > doesn't exist (is asabhava) and yet it can still be a object of > citta. > Let's take an example now. Think of a flying purple elephant. While > thinking of this there is vedanakkhandha (the aggregate of feeling), > there is sannakkhandha (the aggregate of perception, memory ) > that 'remembers' the shape of an elephant and the color purple. > There is sankharakkhanda (the formations that includes all other > cetasikas) and there is vinnakkhandha (the aggregate of > consciousness). These are all paramattha dhammas, they are > conditioned and impermanent and not self. > But there is no purple, flying elephant - that is pannati, concept, > and yet it is the object at that time. It is dhammarammana. But it > is the dhammarammana that is asabhava, non-existant. > RobertK 21718 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:55am Subject: Some questions for you! Dear Christine, How are you? I'm Sandy! I'm glad that Rusty has recovered really well from the operation! What really happened to Rusty? 1. When did the Buddha lived? 2. What has the Buddha done in the past? (example: Has the Buddha ever done bad things?) 3. Did the Buddha have any enemies? Metta, Sandy 21719 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:57am Subject: Kom~!* Dear Kom: Thanks for your reply, and the explainatin of I think everyone did bad and good in their life. I agree with you that we won't know what we will be after the death. Finally I want to ask you a question. Will you descriminate against the Chinese?(Because of the SARS) Take care of your health, Metta, Kiana. 21720 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 5:16am Subject: Re: Some questions for you! Sandy, Please have a quick look at the following two websites: It will answer your first question and others. http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/ayubovan http://monsite.wanadoo.fr/SAMBODHI with metta, Yasalalaka 21721 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 7:05am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Sarah, and all, Thank you for those words, Sarah. It really takes a burden off me. I was hesitant to make my post, not really knowing how it would be received. Sukin said (post:21672) "Yasalalaka, we do not have to continue with this if you do not want to. I know that some of what I have expressed goes against a few other member's understandings and I have already run into trouble more than once, so even I do not really feel like saying too much of the same thing. But I hope at least you don't mind what I have expressed above…" and I was nonplussed. Anyway, thank you again for giving me a chance to post. These posts help me to concentrate on the subject as I write, I also get the opportunity to understand the dhamma better, clearing my own difficulties in understanding. Using words is a jigsaw-puzzle, specially in the expression of dhamma: " working of the mind" "understanding", "being aware", "realise", "discern", "perceive", "penetrate into the truth". And the Pali words have different connotations when translated in to English. Understanding as far as my thinking goes,is what we do when we read, or what happens to a child's mind, when some thing is explained. But in "insight" something begins to "glow inside ", when the truth is perceived. What is the best word that will explain it? Have any of you, had a near death experience ? I had, and I cannot explain it without making people misunderstand the situation. When you say that there was a bright light, it is not the light that emanates from an electric bulb of say 100 or more watts. It is not the light like the day-light. It is a light WITHOUT a light, immaculately clear, a soothing light, not bright, and blinding, without shadows, submerging you with a very comfortable feeling . A seeing without eyes …… See the difficulty. Even all that does not really explain what I experienced. So we have to make do with the implements we have, however much they are inadequate. Added to all that, English is not my mother tongue. We may perhaps say "insight", because the Buddha was letting his mind penetrate into the "mind", and the "truth" came out of that "great mind". Yes, you should not emulate any one, but whom more can we emulate than the Buddha himself. We cannot, but nevertheless we can try. He was Tatagata- the Nibbana personified. He showed us the path, we will follow it as our mind dictates Or the way the kamma has shaped our mind. The mind is conditioned by our past accumulations. Even our interest in dhamma in this life harks back to our past kamma. Some people have what is called khanika samadhi (momentary concentration). They can get into a state of Samadhi immediately. That is called a (bhava puruddha) training we have had in previous lives, manifesting in this life. The Buddha is of course special, he had his khanika samadhi when he was still a baby ! But one who practices meditation and is able to place the mind on the in and out breath for a long period of time without any thoughts arising, can from time to time stop what ever he is doing and place his mind on the breath and get into a state of samadhi for a few minutes or seconds. That is also momentary samadhi. One can practice samatha meditation with any arammana. The in and out breath, the rising and falling of the stomac, or any one of the kasina. That is merely to arrive at one pointed concentration to purify the mind before sitting for vipassana. In and out breath was the Buddha's object of concentration, and suits all persons of any character. Any thing we do has a way of doing it, to take a hackneyed example is a baby. He makes gradual movements, before he stands up and walks. Learning to play a violin, is similar, first you will make screeching noises, and pass exams before you become a maestro ! The meditation is also similar. We have to go step by step. You will realize how great learning Abhidhamma is, when you meditate. Meditation is all on paramatta dhamma. It is the psycho-physical phenopenona (nama-rupa), cause and effect(hetu-phala), rising and falling away, constant change(anicca), pain and pleasant states of mind (vedana), as it happens(here and now). Nothing is mechanical, all is a confusion of cetana, citta and cetasika rising, and falling away, one after another. You will see citta accompanied with lobha, dosa and moha. You will see how objects come in contact with sense doors (passa), how citta arises and become aware of an object not knowing what it is (vinnana), there will be a pleasant or unpleasant feeling(vedana), then the object is recognises( sanna) before it fades away as a concept (vinnana, and sankhara). To be mindful is important, but you will have to make things happen, and that is where the right effort comes in. I will stop here, before the post becomes too long and unwieldy. With metta, Yasalalaka 21722 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca) Hi, Robert - In a message dated 4/28/03 12:55:10 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Victor, > I do see why this appears to be a contradiction - that a concept > doesn't exist (is asabhava) and yet it can still be a object of > citta. > Let's take an example now. Think of a flying purple elephant. While > thinking of this there is vedanakkhandha (the aggregate of feeling), > there is sannakkhandha (the aggregate of perception, memory ) > that 'remembers' the shape of an elephant and the color purple. > There is sankharakkhanda (the formations that includes all other > cetasikas) and there is vinnakkhandha (the aggregate of > consciousness). These are all paramattha dhammas, they are > conditioned and impermanent and not self. > But there is no purple, flying elephant - that is pannati, concept, > and yet it is the object at that time. It is dhammarammana. But it > is the dhammarammana that is asabhava, non-existant. > RobertK > ========================== Agreed that there exists no purple, flying elephant. (In fact, there is no keyboard on which I am typing at this very moment!) But more critical, I think, is the question of whether there is the *idea/thought* of a purple, flying elephant, for *that* is what most people would mean by the concept of "purple, flying elephant". Are you saying that there is no single mind-door object that is that idea/thought, but only a group of various mind-door objects, including several images, verbal phrases, mentally, and collectively, labelled by 'purple, flying elephant'? If that is your point, I think it is a reasonable one. Some concepts are, indeed, single mind-door objects, and other supposedly single concepts are actually not single at all. (Just as we put labels on mentally collected groups of rupas, we do the same with mind-door objects.) 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) 21723 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 3:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment Hi, Rob - In a message dated 4/28/03 2:47:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > What is Citta? > > Slide Contents > ============== > - Citta is pure awareness > > - Process of being aware of an object: Citta is an activity > > - That which is aware of an object: Citta is an agent > > ============================= I find myself stopping at this point. Exactly what is meant by 'agent'? The Merriam-Webster disctionary gives the following: Main Entry: agent Pronunciation: 'A-j&nt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Medieval Latin agent-, agens, from Latin, present participle of agere to drive, lead, act, do; akin to Old Norse aka to travel in a vehicle, Greek agein to drive, lead Date: 15th century 1 : one that acts or exerts power 2 a : something that produces or is capable of producing an effect : an active or efficient cause b : a chemically, physically, or biologically active principle 3 : a means or instrument by which a guiding intelligence achieves a result 4 : one who is authorized to act for or in the place of another: as a : a representative, emissary, or official of a government b : one engaged in undercover activities (as espionage) : SPY c : a business representative (as of an athlete or entertainer) Pronunciation Key © 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy I am not accepting of citta/vi~n~nana being an agent as defined above. It is not some "thing", some "one", or some entity which does something. It is the *doing*. Vi~n~nana is knowing an object, rather than some "thing" which knows. It is an occurrence, an event. I am uneasy with agent terminology, though it is commonly used by many abhidhammikas. I think it can be seriously misleading. 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) 21724 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 7:57am Subject: Re: New Member Intro Hi Vicki, Welcome! I have inserted some comments below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Vicki Berman" wrote: > I would like to introduce myself, my name is Vicki and will start by telling you a wee bit about myself. Currently I work at a hospital writing computer programs to analyze the information about patients. I must be doing something right because we won an award from a national medical group for one of my reports. I also got an outstanding staff award for it. I am a middle aged divorced mother of two teenagers, two dogs, and two cats. I weave and spin when I have time. I am exploring Buddhism from many angles. I grew up learning about Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, and I have a friend teaching me about Nishoren Buddhism. But on to my question. ===== Wow, what an eclectic mix! ===== > My father was born in China and has talked a lot about Buddhism while I grew up. He recently had some heart trouble, and my sister made a comment that "he wasn't being spiritual enough about his own death." The rest of us thought it was okay for him to work on life style changes to help save his life, but this sister had other ideas about death. Evidently she was "spiritual" about it because she killed herself in February. She had a beautiful ying-yang pendant around her neck when she died, and her note said that she would see us on the other side. ===== My father recently visited me from Canada (I live in Malaysia). He has had prostrate cancer for a few years. I passed to him an excellent Dhamma talk on CD by Ajahn Brahmavamso called "Dealing with Sickness and Death". Though my father is not a Buddhist, he found the talk extremely uplifting. I was searching around the house this morning, but I gave my only copy to my father when he left. I am going to try and track down another. If I find one, can I send it by post to Mike Nease (I have his address)? Otherwise, I will let you know when I have found it and you can email me your snail mail address. I really think that your father would enjoy this CD. I do not understand your sister's message of "see you on the other side". That sounds quite Christian. Was she a Buddhist? ===== > My family was shocked at this unexpected tragedy and we are learning to live with our new reality. (It is suffering as I never knew suffering existed, we were very attached to her). ===== You and your family have been given a very important lesson; that the cause of stress / suffering / dukkha is desire / attachment. It reminds me of the Gandhabhaka (Bhadraka) Sutta (Sn XLII.11) in which the Buddha used the death of family members to illustrate this link between suffering and desire: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-011.html ===== > So my question is this: What did the Buddha teach about suicide? I've heard stories of elderly Zen monks passing on, in a state of total awareness, at a time of their choice, but they were at the end of their lives anyway, not a healthy, but depressed, person in the middle of their lives. ===== As some others have mentioned (recently and in the archive), monks cannot condone or support suicide. I don't think that the Buddha talked specifcially about suicide for laypeople, but He did talk a lot about the importance of the last thought before death. It is this last thought that determines the next rebirth. If somebody's last thought was anger (including anger at themselves), they could be reborn in hell. If their last thought was delusion, they could be reborn as animals. The Yodhajiva Sutta (Sn XLII.3) is an example of the Buddha's teaching in this area: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-003.html Your terms "end of their lives" and "middle of their lives" can be a little misleading. If there are countless lives already lived and countless lives yet to live, to put such a focus on the place within the current existence might be a little "pre-Copernicus" (i.e. earth is centre of the universe). I hope that my comments help you. I hope that they don't sound cold and analytical at this difficult time. Metta, Rob M :-) 21725 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment Hi Howard, You raise an interesting point. You are correct; I copied this from Bhikkhu Bodhi's CMA without thinking much about it. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 4/28/03 2:47:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > > > > > What is Citta? > > > > Slide Contents > > ============== > > - Citta is pure awareness > > > > - Process of being aware of an object: Citta is an activity > > > > - That which is aware of an object: Citta is an agent > > > > > ============================= > I find myself stopping at this point. Exactly what is meant by > 'agent'? > It is not some "thing", some "one", or some entity which does something. It > is the *doing*. Vi~n~nana is knowing an object, rather than some "thing" > which knows. It is an occurrence, an event. I am uneasy with agent > terminology, though it is commonly used by many abhidhammikas. I think it can > be seriously misleading. Taken out of context, almost any term can be misleading. I think that we have to look at all three parts of the definition together to put the term "agent" into perspective. If we just look at the first part of the definition (activity), one is left with the question, "If citta is only an activity, then what/who performs this activity?" The answer is in the second part of the definition; it is the citta itself that performs the activity. In other words, citta is the action and it is the doer of the action. In my mind, the concept of "doer of action" might be included in the definition of "agent" (but I admit it is not a clear inclusion). Comments? Metta, Rob M :-) 21726 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:44am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > Have any of you, had a near death experience ? I had, and I cannot > explain it without making people misunderstand the situation. When > you say that there was a bright light, it is not the light that > emanates from an electric bulb of say 100 or more watts. It is not > the light like the day-light. It is a light WITHOUT a light, > immaculately clear, a soothing light, not bright, and blinding, > without shadows, submerging you with a very comfortable feeling . A > seeing without eyes …… See the difficulty. Even all that does not > really explain what I experienced. I heard in a Dhamma talk that the "bright light" of near death experiences is simply the direct perception of citta (mind). A direct perception of the mind without a self attached. From a medical perspective (I am not a doctor), the Orientation Association Area (OAA) in the left-parietal lobe is normally one of the most active portions of the brain. The OAA takes incoming data from the senses and puts it into context by creating an artificial "self" at the centre. When blood flow to this portion of the brain is significantly reduced (involuntarily as in near death experiences, or voluntarily as in deep meditation / prayer), and the sense of self is supressed. Perhaps in your near death experience you had a direct experience of anatta. Such an experience could be a strong condition for effort and what could be called "bright" faith. Allow me to explain what I mean by "bright" faith. I am standing at the edge of a large creek wanting to get to the other side. If I keep repeating, "I can do it! I know that I can do it! It can be done! I believe!", this is blind faith (the type of faith encouraged by some religions). If while you are standing there you witness another person take a running jump and clear the stream, you say to yourself, "I know that it can be done because I have seen it. I watched it being done and I am convinced." This is "dull faith" (in this analogy, this is like studying the Dhamma). Once you have jumped over the stream yourself you can look back with "bright" faith and say to yourself, "I know it can be done because I have done it!" It sounds as though you "jumped over the stream" momentarily during your near death experience. You can use the Dhamma to better understand what happened. Yasalalaka, you have had a near-death experience, but I have not. Does this make sense to you or do you think I am wandering blindly? Metta, Rob M :-) 21727 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment Hi, Rob - In a message dated 4/28/03 11:28:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > >It is not some "thing", some "one", or some entity which does > something. It > >is the *doing*. Vi~n~nana is knowing an object, rather than > some "thing" > >which knows. It is an occurrence, an event. I am uneasy with agent > >terminology, though it is commonly used by many abhidhammikas. I > think it can > >be seriously misleading. > > Taken out of context, almost any term can be misleading. I think > that we have to look at all three parts of the definition together > to put the term "agent" into perspective. If we just look at the > first part of the definition (activity), one is left with the > question, "If citta is only an activity, then what/who performs this > activity?" The answer is in the second part of the definition; it is > the citta itself that performs the activity. In other words, citta > is the action and it is the doer of the action. In my mind, the > concept of "doer of action" might be included in the definition > of "agent" (but I admit it is not a clear inclusion). > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I think that the answer "it is the citta itself that performs the activity. In other words, citta is the action and it is the doer of the action" is a wrong answer. I think the right answer is that there is the doing, but no doer. There is no doer of the deed. > 'Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found. > The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there. > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it. > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen. > > (Vis.M. XVI) People want a doer, they crave a doer, they cling to a doer. But there is none. There being no doer, no agent, is at least part of the meaning of 'anatta'. -------------------------------------------------- > > Comments? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > ============================ 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) 21728 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:12am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 2. Perfections, Ch 9, Determination, no 2. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² (III. 6, Conduct of Wise Temiya) [3] that the Buddha related one of his past lives: When I was the son of the king of Kåsi, I was named Múga-Pakkha (meaning deaf and cripple), but people called me Temiya [4] . My father and mother and other people called me Múga-Pakkha because they considered me dumb and cripple. As the Bodhisatta (born) in that life I caused great rapture and joy to the king and the ministers and therefore I received the name Temiya. Thus, he had two names, Temiya and Múga-Pakkha, because of different reasons. We read: During that life king Kåsiråjå ruled in Vårånasí. He had sixteen thousand wives, but not one of them conceived either son or daughter. The citizens were worried, saying, ³Our king has no son to keep up his lineage², and they begged the king to pray for a son. All those wives worshipped the moon, but they obtained no children. Now his chief queen Candådeví, the daughter of the king of Maddas, was leading a virtuous life and the king asked her also to pray for a son. On the day of the full moon she observed the Uposatha vows and while she reflected on her virtuous life she made an act of truth, saying, ³If I have never transgressed síla, may by this assertion of truth a son be borne to me.² At that time the Bodhisatta was conceived in the womb of queen Candådeví. When the Bodhisatta was born, also five hundred young nobles were born in the ministers¹ houses. The king ordered that these young nobles would be the retinue of the royal prince. He sent five hundred wetnurses and five hundred princely dresses to the five hundred young nobles. Moreover, he arranged for sixty-four wetnurses to take care of the Bodhisatta. When the young prince was one month old the wetnurses brought him to the king and the king placed him on his hip. Now at that time four robbers were brought before him to be sentenced. One of them was sentenced by the king to receive a thousand strokes from whips barbed with thorns, another to be imprisoned in chains, the third to be smitten with a spear and the fourth to be impaled. When the Bodhisatta heard the verdict spoken by his father, he became disenchanted , because he was afraid of committing grievous action which would result in rebirth in hell. The next day the wetnurses laid him on a bed under a white umbrella, and after a short sleep he opened his eyes and saw the white umbrella. He pondered, ³From whence have I come into this palace?² By his recollection of former lives he remembered that he had once come from a heavenly plane and then, while he recollected the life previous to that one, he remembered that he had suffered in the ³Ussada Hell². When he recollected his life before that one, he remembered that he had been the king in this very city. The following thoughts occurred to him: ³I do not need the kingdom. How can I escape from this house of robbers?² Then a goddess who dwelt in the umbrella and who had in a previous life been his mother, was seeking his benefit and she advised him to pretend to be dumb, cripple and deaf, so that he could escape from becoming the king. Footnotes: 3. Jåtaka no. 538, Múgapakkha Jåtaka. 4. Temiya means wet. On the day of his birth a great shower of rain made him wet. 21729 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:12am Subject: Dhamma Issues 6, no 2. The Parinnibbåna of the Arahat who is a Layman, continued. ³Well then, revered Någasena, the peaceful state of arahantship is given up if the life of him who attains it in this manner is carried away.² ³Unequal [4] , sire, are the attributes of a householder. The attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahanship either goes forth or attains final nibbåna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder¹s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. It is sire, as the food that guards the lifespan and protects the life of all beings yet carries away the life of him whose stomach is out of order and who has a sluggish and weak digestion, because it is not properly digested. This, sire, is not a defect in the food, this is a defect in the stomach, namely a weakness in its heat. Even so, sire, the attributes being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes that a householder who has attained arahantship either goes forth or attains final nibbåna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, sire, this is a defect in the householder¹s attributes, namely the weakness of the attributes. Or, sire, as a heavy stone may be put on top of a small stalk of grass which in its weakness is broken and collapses, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahanship (but) being unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness) either goes forth or attains final nibbåna on that very day. Or, sire, as a man who is feeble and weak, of lowly birth and of little merit, comes to naught and to ruin the moment he has acquired a great and mighty kingdom, falters and is unable to sustain the authority, even so, sire, the householder who has attained arahantship is unable to sustain arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness), and for that reason he either goes forth or attains final nibbåna on that very day.² ³It is good, revered Någasena; so it is, therefore do I accept it.² ****** Footnote 4 The state of a layman cannot be compared to the monk¹s state, it is not equal to it. 21730 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -Milinda's Questions Dear Rob M, Perhaps it is safer if I change my date also: at or a little after the beginning of the Christian era. At the back of the cover, it is said, It is possible that King Menander is not the same as Milinda, but as you probable also think, such things are not relevant for the contents of the book. My part 2 is translated by Horner, but it has no intro. Nina. op 27-04-2003 23:50 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > Hi Nina, > > I have "The Questions of King Milinda Part I / II" Tr by T.W. Rhys > Davids...Written in Northern India, at or a > little after the beginning of the Christian era, and either in > Sanskrit..." > 21731 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 11:42am Subject: [dsg] Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, Thanks for this message and the reference. I appreciate it!! Like I said earlier, I see that the five aggregates as collections of all conditioned, fabricated things/phenomena/situations. For instances, I see that grief belongs to the feeling aggregate, that not getting what is wanted, separation from the loved, and being with the unloved belong to the formations aggregate. I also see that concepts, thoughts, ideas belongs to the formations aggregate. That is just how I would classify these phenomena using the schema of the five aggregates. I would not disagree with the classifications in Nyantiloka's dictionary. However, I would like to emphasize and reiterate that the classification of the five aggregates include the whole range of conditioned, fabricated things or phenomena or situations. This classification, as I tend to see it, is very general. I would also classify marriage to the formations aggregate. To me, it is not much classifying what to which aggregate. It is to see that, formations, or its special instance, marriage, is impermanent, dukkha, not self. Thanks again for this message and the reference. Your feedback is much appreciated. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > Thanks for this reply! I am glad that you enjoy the references. I > > tend to think that the word "bhava" means not only "sentiet being" > > but "being", "becoming", and "existence". I tend to see that the > > discussions on whether things exist or not as idle chatter because I > > don't see them relevant to the Buddha's teaching. > ..... > In the context you raised (the AN sutta), I understand bhava to refer to > "existence" and speculation about future existence, but it's only > guess-work on my part and may not be right. > > (I'd be interested to hear any further notes from the commentary on that > section under idle talk if anyone has access to it in Pali or Thai.) > > I think the difference in understanding about the relevance or not of > "whether things exist" or not all relates to our understanding of the > khandhas and the significance of this. > ..... > > This is how I see it: the Buddha's teaching in and of itself is not > > concerned about figuring out "what is it?" or "does it exist?" It > > is really about dukkha and the cessation of dukkha. It is about the > > origin of dukkha, the way that leads to the cessation of dukkha. > ..... > We agree about the 4NT, but for many of us, these refer to the khandhas > which refer to paramattha dhammas (NOT concepts) only. so we have to > understand first exactly "what is it?" or "does it exist?" > ..... > > Regarding the five aggregates, I would say that they include every > > conditioned, fabricated phenomenon/thing/situation. They include > > everything in the world from concrete objects such as desk, body, > > eye, nose, to joy, grief, happiness, to marriage, relationship, > > separation, union to abstract ideas, concepts. I see that the > > Buddha's teaching is about liberation from the world. > > > > Your feedback is appreciated! > ..... > I appreciate your encouragement, Victor. > > The following extracts below are from Nyantiloka's dictionary. I take it > you would disagree with these classifications? If not, which khandha do > the following fit into and how? > > >desk, body, > > eye, nose, to joy, grief, happiness, to marriage, relationship, > > separation, union to abstract ideas, concepts. > ..... > > Metta, > > Sarah 21732 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:29pm Subject: The Buddha's Enemy - for Sandy Hello Sandy, One of the questions you asked me was whether the Buddha had any enemies. Yes, he did - usually those who were jealous of him. But he never felt hatred towards them, nor wished them harm. He always showed them goodwill and compassion no matter what they did. Here is some information about Devadatta, the Buddha's cousin, who was his enemy and even tried to kill him. metta, Christine "Devadatta, the Buddha's Enemy Devadatta was the son of King Suppabuddha and his wife Pamita, who was an aunt of the Buddha. Devadatta's sister was Yasodhara, making him both a cousin and brother-in-law of the Buddha. Together with Ananda and other Sakyan princes, he entered the order of monks in the early part of the Buddha's ministry, but was unable to attain any stage of sainthood and so worked hard for the worldly psychic powers. In his early days, he was a good monk known for his grace and psychic powers. Later he became conceited with worldly gain and fame. As his ill-will and jealousy towards the Buddha increased, he became the greatest personal enemy of the Buddha. One day in a large assembly, which included kings and princes, Devadatta approached the Buddha and asked him to make him the leader of the Sangha. Since he was not capable and worthy enough, the Buddha turned down this request. Devadatta became very angry as a result and vowed to take revenge on the Buddha. Although Devadatta was an evil monk, he had many admirers and followers. One of his chief supporters was King Ajatasattu, with whom he discussed his anger and plots for revenge. Together they planned to kill King Ajatasattu's father and rival, King Bimbisara and Devadatta's enemy, the Buddha. Ajatasattu succeeded in killing his father, but Devadatta failed to kill the Buddha. His first attempt to kill the Buddha was to hire a man to kill the Blessed One. The plan was that the man be killed by two other men who would in turn be killed by four other men. Finally the four men would be killed by eight other men. But when the first man came close to the Buddha, he became frightened. He put aside his weapons and took refuge in the Buddha. Eventually all the men who were hired to kill one another became disciples of the Buddha and the cunning plan failed. Then Devadatta himself tried to kill the Buddha. When the Buddha was walking on the Vultures' Rock, Devadatta climbed to the peak and hurled a huge stone at the Buddha. On its way down, the rock struck another rock and a splinter flew and wounded the Buddha's foot, causing blood to flow. The Buddha looked up and seeing Devadatta, he remarked with pity, "Foolish man, you have done many unwholesome deeds for harming the Buddha." Devadatta's third attempt to kill the Blessed One was to make the fierce man-killer elephant, Nalagiri, drunk with liquor. When Nalagiri saw the Buddha coming at a distance, it raised its ears, tail and trunk and charged at him. As the elephant came close, the Buddha radiated his loving-kindness (metta) towards the elephant. So vast and deep was the Buddha's love that as the elephant reached the Buddha, it stopped, became quiet and stood before the Master. The Buddha then stroked Nalagiri on the trunk and spoke softly. Respectfully, the elephant removed the dust at the master's feet with its trunk, and scattered the dust over its own head. Then it retreated, with its head facing the Buddha, as far as the stable, and remained fully tamed. Usually elephants are tamed with whips and weapons, but the Blessed One tamed the elephant with the power of his loving-kindness. Still trying to be the leader of the Sangha, Devadatta tried yet another plan—a deceitful one. With the help of five hundred misled monks, he planned to split the Sangha community. He requested the Buddha to make it compulsory for monks to follow five extra rules: (i) Dwell all their lives in the forest (ii) Live only on alms obtained by begging (iii) Wear robes made from rags collected from the dust heaps and cemeteries (iv) Live at the foot of trees (v) Refrain from eating fish or meat throughout their lives. Devadatta made this request, knowing full well that the Buddha would refuse it. Devadatta was happy that the Buddha did not approve of the five rules, and he used these issues to gain supporters and followers. Newly ordained monks who did not know the Dharma well left the Buddha and accepted Devadatta as their leader. Eventually, after Venerable Sariputta and Venerable Moggallana had explained the Dharma to them, they went back to the Buddha. After this, evil days fell on Devadatta. He fell very ill at the failure of his plans, and before his death he sincerely regretted his actions, and wanted to see the Buddha before he died. But the fruits of his evil karma had begun to ripen and prevented him from doing so. He grew desperately ill on the way to see the Buddha, near the gate of Jetavana monastery. But before he died he took refuge in the Buddha. Although he has to suffer in a woeful state because of his crimes, the holy life he led in the early part of his career ensured that Devadatta would become a Pacceka Buddha named Atthissara in the distant future. As a Pacceka Buddha he would be able to achieve Enlightenment by his own efforts." http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/buddhism/lifebuddha/2_5lbud.htm --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: 21733 From: connie Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:45pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Sarah ~ I wrote out most of what I can remember about the class and will send it over a few posts. peace, connie Q: I was reading someone who was very adamant about saying Buddhism is definitely not a religion. What do you say about that? A: I say our understanding and agreement on anything we try to talk about is more important than the words we use and that the everyday words we just assume we understand are very misleading if we don't question them. Religion is one of those words people tend to be adamant about. To me, all our beliefs and everything about our lives is our religion. I'm more concerned with whether our beliefs are true and beneficial than what we call them because whether we call ourselves religious or not, our beliefs determine how we live and when our beliefs are wrong, we don't live according to the truth and I think that's harmful. Buddhism has also been called 'the religion of skeptics' because of what is called the Charter of Free Inquiry, a sutta where Buddha says we should discover the truth for ourselves and not just accept things on other people's authority, including his. Buddha called what he taught Dhamma-Vinaya, Doctrine and Discipline. Dhamma, what we usually call his teachings, comes from a root meaning 'to uphold'... the pure natural law or reality or truth that upholds everything. That is all that exists and you might call Buddhism a science or discipline, vinaya, because whatever exists can be proved by the methods he gave us. Ultimate truth doesn't change because we call it one thing or another but if by religion, you mean seeing a world where we have to placate gods who have the final say in what happens to us, then no, Buddhism is not a religion... unless you call Truth God and say that the more you uphold the Dhamma, the more you are upheld or saved. What we usually think of as gods are beings in higher planes who ultimately face the same fact of death that we do and have their own salavation to work out. They're just less likely to be concerned with it than we are. Actually, we have the advantage there, because we know we are in deep dukkha. There is also the sense that gods are natural functions and not actual beings, like what we call Mara or the devil is just negative forces or aspects that we follow to our own detriment. When we talk about non-attachment, we mean learning to see things as they really are, not as we like to think of them in our blindness or moha and ultimately, we'd let go of even our ideas of religion, which I'm pretty attached to. Q: So you don't think God can help us? A: As positive or protective functions, yes, gods help us. On the other hand, Mara is also called the Devil King of the Sixth Heaven, so he can also be considered a god. But I believe the best help we ever got from God was when Buddha was sitting under the bo tree and might have decided not to teach the Truth he had Enlightened to if Brahma had not said some people would be able to understand. There are other stories where gods and humans interact, but gods only help us on a fairly gross, physical level and as understanding develops more, we are on our own. Only right understanding will save us... not praying for divine intervention or relying on rites and rituals. For the most part, I think we are insignificant to the beings in other planes but you might like to be on the safe side and extend metta, but not with any expectation of reward or them saving you from yourself. Buddha said to "Be a lamp (or island) unto yourself; work out your own salvation with diligence." Q: You're talking about just doing things for their own sake without being attached to the outcome, letting go? A: Yes, even to talking about wanting and trying to develop right understanding. What's done is done and what happens next depends on different causes and conditions that are beyond our control. At the same time, we can't be nihilistic and just give up or think it doesn't matter what we do. It's about non-attachment or freedom and the ultimate freedom is Nibbana, the Unconditioned. I can't really tell you about Nibbana because I haven't experienced it, so I can only talk about ideas. I accept it on faith because everything else Buddha taught seems right to me as far as I understand it, even the things I haven't wanted to be true. In fact, everything I talk about is just my understanding and I'm pretty ignorant. There's a saying that "the truth can only be shared and understood between Buddhas" or Awakened Ones. Ethically, Nibbana is freedom from what we call the three akusala roots that play the biggest part in our lives: moha, dosa and lobha. Akusala means something like unwholesome or unskillful as opposed to kusala or what we might call good, skillful. Moha is ignorance or not seeing what is true, being in the dark. Lobha is desire or greed. Dosa is dislike, aversion or anger. These things are not us even though we say things like 'I am angry'. Anger is angry. Why do we want to identify that as who we are? These are the three main roots we've been all tangled up in since beginningless time and it takes a lot patience to get out of the mess. For most of us, the saying that "they've lived in hell so long they've come to think of it as playing in a garden" applies. Metaphysically, Nibbana is freedom from suffering or sorrow. This is what Buddha meant when he said he only taught "dukkha and the cessation of dukkha." It might help to think of dukkha as imperfection. It involves the idea that there is constant change or flux... what we call anicca, impermanence. Anicca tells us that everything arises and falls away again, never to return. No single moment or thing is ever the same as another... snowflakes. If you just think about physics, you know that things aren't really the way we are used to thinking about them, but are constantly changing, the same as us. We separate things out of this flux and imagine that they are lasting people or things and in the conventional or conceptual sense, this is true and helps us get along in society but it hides the eventfulness or anicca and we start believing that's the whole truth. You might think rebirth is only about a whole life-time from conception to death, but really, our whole life is only as long as a single moment of consciousness. The whole world is only that long and the kind of world it is depends on the type of consciousness... whether it is a world of sound or taste or any other sense. The next moment, it's different. We talk about being reborn in different planes, but can also think of them as being different mind states and see how we make our own heaven or hell as we go thru a single day. We react to things with joy and we're in heaven. We justify rudeness or war and are more concerned with getting what we want than who we might hurt and we act like animals or people in hell. But if we catch ourselves thinking or feeling certain ways, maybe we can see how we got there. We can say, "there's anger and that's not really me, I don't have to keep feeding it and make it worse". What we see as the continuity of a life or 'you', is what is carried along from each moment to the next, accumulations... the past feeding the present feeding the future. Whether it is the life cycle of a universe, which is something like 37,000 million years, or a human life-time, a sub-atomic particle or a thought moment, what follows, the reborn thing, is 'the same yet another'... like the past, present and future are all Time. If we ignore the magnitudes of the events, we can see the process is the same. 21734 From: yasalalaka Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 3:14pm Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment RobM, I was getting "drowned", after a moment of desperate struggle, felt exceedingly comfortable in lukewarm water. Felt very light and floating, in an embryonic form, there were thoughts, but my material form was not there. I was seeing things below as I was floating above. Even though I use the word 'I' it seems illogical. Yes it must have been some type of perception, without a self. Their was a feeling of indifference, sort of equanimity, neither sad nor happy. I think I saw my friends speaking to my mother, that must have been ' imagination', it happened in a place far away from my home. There was no feeling of having crossed over... it is still fresh in my mind and difficult to say exactly how all that was... One thing I am sure is that in death it is the first few seconds that is difficult, the knowing that it is the end..and after that it is extremely comfortable, very silent, calm and serene. The boarder between this life and the next is entwined, just turning over... There is a lot of sense , in what you have said Rob. Thank you. with metta, Yasalalaka 21735 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Sukin, Thanks for your reply. I disagreed with all of it, but don't be alarmed. We don't need to hash out every point. Suffice it to say, as a student of Theravada, I think we should respect the entire 8-fold path. I know some people consider that we need to practice only one aspect of the path, and that is fine with me. One is better than none. Larry 21736 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 4:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, Thanks for your comments on jhana. Very good. But don't be discouraged if an idea isn't well received. The flow of thoughts here is so torrential, one is as good as another. Larry 21737 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 5:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Larry, :-)At first glance I read 'disagreed' as 'agreed'. But I guess it just has something to do with expectations and mana. While I was replying to Smallchap yesterday, the thought about different people having different strengths came to my mind. I thought that some people had more energy, some more concentration etc. and I was lead to the conclusion that maybe this lead to a difference in how each person approached the eightfold path. I also started to comment on it, but then I remembered about satipatthana and how it was the only way (unless of course you disagree). That this did not involve a deliberate development of any aspect in particular, but the fact of gaining familarity with all the objects of consciousness through the six doorways. So I deleted that part of my post. I think it is one thing to see the value of kusala and the danger of akusala, and another, that we can somehow do something to gain the former and lessen the latter. I can only see that we can in the conventional sense, because of some thought motivation perform some *action*, like giving, restraining from lying etc. but a particular quality of the citta cannot be made to manifest. And if there are conditions for akusala, akusala *will* arise. I think the idea of 'self' developing kusala, *hides* what actually goes on. In the end we only deceive ourselves. But I agree to some extent with you on this, "The flow of thoughts here is so torrential, one is as good as another." I have thought along similar lines too, at least my own thoughts are mostlty extrapolations. :-) Best, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sukin, > > Thanks for your reply. I disagreed with all of it, but don't be alarmed. > We don't need to hash out every point. Suffice it to say, as a student > of Theravada, I think we should respect the entire 8-fold path. I know > some people consider that we need to practice only one aspect of the > path, and that is fine with me. One is better than none. > > Larry 21738 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 5:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment Hi Howard, I love it when you are right! Any suggestions on how to resolve this? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 4/28/03 11:28:31 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > > > > > >It is not some "thing", some "one", or some entity which does > > something. It > > >is the *doing*. Vi~n~nana is knowing an object, rather than > > some "thing" > > >which knows. It is an occurrence, an event. I am uneasy with agent > > >terminology, though it is commonly used by many abhidhammikas. I > > think it can > > >be seriously misleading. > > > > Taken out of context, almost any term can be misleading. I think > > that we have to look at all three parts of the definition together > > to put the term "agent" into perspective. If we just look at the > > first part of the definition (activity), one is left with the > > question, "If citta is only an activity, then what/who performs this > > activity?" The answer is in the second part of the definition; it is > > the citta itself that performs the activity. In other words, citta > > is the action and it is the doer of the action. In my mind, the > > concept of "doer of action" might be included in the definition > > of "agent" (but I admit it is not a clear inclusion). > > > ----------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I think that the answer "it is the citta itself that performs the > activity. In other words, citta is the action and it is the doer of the > action" is a wrong answer. I think the right answer is that there is the > doing, but no doer. There is no doer of the deed. > > > > 'Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found. > > The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there. > > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it. > > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen. > > > > (Vis.M. XVI) > > > People want a doer, they crave a doer, they cling to a doer. But there > is none. > There being no doer, no agent, is at least part of the meaning of 'anatta'. > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Comments? > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > > > > ============================ > 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) > > > > > > > > 21739 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 1:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To Sukin: In a message dated 4/27/03 10:55:29 PM, sukin@k... writes: << I am not sure about this, whether samma samadhi of jhana is the result of progressive detachment of the same kind as that of vipassana. In the latter it is through knowing conditioned reality as they are, as not self. But it seems to me that jhana is very much still with the 'self' intact. However I do know that in jhana practitioners, the anusya is still there. And with change of conditions, such as rebirth under a different environment, the kilesas will manifest. Regarding whether if Buddha used jhana as a vehicle, again I have doubts. I do know that he did practice jhana in previous lives, so it is not unexpected that he was attracted to the practice in his last life as well. But what is more important, a practice aimed at a future result of which there is no promise of maintaining or understanding of a reality now? There can be noticeable degrees of detachment even at the most basic level, and this accumulates too. Besides, finally there is no other way than 'satipatthana' which can lead to enlightenment. So wouldn't it be far better to develop a habit of understanding reality wherever, whenever than to try to develop something which will ultimately require this same path to be proof of benefit? Between accumulations for satipatthana and jhana, what would you choose? Also the very thought about systematic development aimed at future result ie. the idea of *using* jhana to develop wisdom, seems like silabattaparamasa to me!? Btw, I think looking from outside, satipatthana seems like the more time consuming way, as it does not have a method and signposts to guide one's path. So I don't think that members of dsg think of getting it in just one lifetime. But maybe you were only kidding.:-)>> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: My good friend Sukin, I believe there are clearly a number of classic misconceptions revealed in your otherwise thoughtful post. Jhana (ecstasy) are the symptoms of absorption, they are not actually something different from absorption. They are the "sign posts" you allude to in your closing argument. Without the various manifestation of ecstasy, how does one know at what place one is at in absorption? How can there be different kinds of "detachment?" There is only one detachment, it is the letting go, the not grasping at sensory experience. How can one enter into absorption while retaining grasping and aversion? One cannot of course. This holds true for a self. Absorption is among other things the letting go of self as well. When there is no grasping, there is no accumulation. What you may also not realize is insight (vipassana) requires absorption. This may create some debate here, but it is clear to me, that one cannot see things as they are while grasping at concept and perception. The construct as I have experienced it is, there are stages of absorption, which are characterized by a series of "pleasant un-arising sensation" Potthapada Sutta, DN. 9-17. Jhana 4/5 is characterized by equanimity. Equanimity is characterized by the cessation of grasping and aversion, with the end of grasping and aversion comes the end of the thinking processes, what the Zen practitioners call no-mind, emptiness, no-thought (Bodhidharma, Hue Ning, etc.) These methods of description are in my experience the same as what the Pali canon calls purity and stainlessness. In the condition of no-thought insight "emerges." Without the suspension of the thought processes there is no insight (vipassana). There is no "understanding reality" without insight, which requires no-thought, which requires no grasping, which requires absorption, which is characterized by ecstasy (jhana). It is most definitely possible to gain enlightenment in a single lifetime, one need only to believe it is possible, and apply one's self to that effort, with that intention, and you cannot fail. Best to you, layman Jeff 21740 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 3:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment Hi, Rob - In a message dated 4/28/03 9:04:34 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I love it when you are right! > > Any suggestions on how to resolve this? ------------------------------------------------- Howard: It's just something I guess we'll have to live with!! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > ========================== 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) 21741 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Sukin, I agree different people have different accumulations, inclinations, and abilities, and I also agree that satipatthana is the only way. Even though satipatthana is the only way there are many different ways of practicing satipatthana. It is interesting in the beginning of the Satipatthana Sutta Commentary the four foundations are divided according to temperament and inclination as for the dull witted man pursuing quietude, the keen witted man pursuing quietude, the dull witted man pursuing insight, and the keen witted man pursuing insight. Anapanasati, however, encompasses all four. So there are different ways of looking at it and going about it. The Buddha didn't say everyone has to contemplate corpses but he did say the only way is mindfulness and clear comprehension. Larry 21742 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 9:01pm Subject: anapanasati sutta Dear Mike and Sukin, you were discussing and quoting from this sutta, so I thought I will repeat something I wrote before: As we read in the Intro, the sutta was spoken near Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery. The great disciples were present. There were arahats, non-returners, once-returners, sotapannas. Moreover those who were developing the four satipatthanas, and the factors leading to enlightenment, who were developing metta and other meditation subjects and also mindfulness on breathing. The Invitation ceremony was put off for one month until the Komudi (Whi te water lily) festival, so that the monks could more fully develop excellent qualities. The Co. explains why the Buddha wanted to wait for the Komudi festival in Savatthi, to have the Invitation ceremony, the pavarana. He waited because otherwise the bhikkhus would go away and travel all over Savatthi. The Buddha showed his great compassion because he thought of the bhikkhus who were still weak in samatha and vipassana and who would not be able to have excellent attainments. He considered the difficulty of finding lodgings if the monks would go traveling. The elders (of sixty rainy seasons) were allowed to take lodgings first and in that case other monks would have trouble finding them. Since the Buddha wanted to stay near Savatthi, there would not be such worry and the monks could further develop samatha and vipassana and reach distinctions. We then read as you quoted from the sutta, about the different meditation subjects. "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide devoted to the development of loving-kindness. . . of compassion. . . of appreciative joy. . . of equanimity. . . of the meditation of foulness. . . of the perception of impermanence - - such Bhikkhus are there in this Sangha of Bhikkhus. In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide devoted to the development of mindfulness of breathing. ******* The Co explains that all these were meditation subjects the monks were very interested in. In the sutta where it is stated: they dwell devoted to the four foundations of mindfulness... the noble eightfold Path, there is reference to the thirtyseven factors of enlightenment. The Co explains about the factors of enlightenment, bodhipakkhiya dhammas, that these are lokiya (not lokuttara, that is, those arising when enlightenment is attained) and lokuttara. It states that they are lokiya for the monks who develop vipassana, insight. In the sutta we read about the perception of impermanence. The Co explains that here insight, vipassana, is meant by sa~n~naa, perception. N: we can compare here the use of the word sanna: we find in the texts at times atta-sanna, perception of self, and anatta-sanna, perception of non-self. We read in the Co. that the monks were very interested in anapana sati. That is why the Buddha dealt with the other meditation subjects in short, but with mindfulness of breathing in detail. The Co now refers to the Visuddhimagga for details about this subject. ***** After this the Co deals with seeing the body in the body etc. I translated from the Co I have in Thai. And I used the Visuddhimagga on all the tetrads. (To be found under U.P. I think) We have to consider: to whom was this sutta addressed. This is a long series (good for a rainy day), ending with the thirtyseven factors of enlightenment. Nina. 21743 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 9:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Dear Sir Mike, op 27-04-2003 02:24 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > >> Nina: >> Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging >> on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the >> object. > > Understood. > >> The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase >> as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and >> vicara in order to experience visible object. > > I don't understand this. When you say, "other cittas of the sense-door > process", are you referring to vi~n~naa.nas other than seeing-consciousness? > Why would they 'need...to experience visible object'? In the eye-door process there are other cittas that also experience visible object, but they do not see. I am going to write more in my eries on Kreang Kacang. Seeing is accompanbied by just the seven universals, but the other cittas in taht process are accompanied by more than these seven. Just a quote now: Nina. 21744 From: robmoult Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 9:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Hi Mike / Nina, Last Sunday, we discussed this point in some detail in my Abhidhamma class. Let me paraphrase my understanding into point form: - In a sense-door citta process, there are 17 cittas; the fifth in the sequence is the "seeing consciousness" (1-3 are bhavanga, 4 is adverting, 6 is receiving, etc.) - Every citta has a base of rupa that supports it. In the case of the seeing consciousness citta, the base is the eye-base (I believe that this implies that the seeing consciousnes arises at the back of the retina), the remaining 16 cittas in the sense door citta process all have the mind-base (sometimes called heart-base) as support. - When a citta accesses it's object, it does so through the supporting base. - In the case of the seeing consciousness citta, the visible object is "right there" in front of the citta. There is no need for the cetasiaka vitakka "to provide an introduction to the object" and there is no need for the cetasika vicara to "sustain connection with the object". The seeing consciousness citta is the only citta in the sense door citta process that "directly" touches the rupa (visible object); the subsequent cittas in the same sense door citta process only access a mental image (through the mind-base). - In the case of the remaining 16 cittas, the object must be accessed through the mind-base. For these cittas, the object is a mental image. This is a "less direct" connection than occurs with the seeing consciousness, so there is a need for the cetasiaka vitakka "to provide an introduction to the object" and there is a need for the cetasika vicara to "sustain connection with the object". - When the concentrated mind moves from the first jhana to the second jhana, the object of concentration is "right there" in the mind-base and therefore there is no need for the cetasiaka vitakka "to provide an introduction to the object" (if we are using the four jhana counting system, there is no need for the cetasika vicara either at this point; if we are using the five jhana counting system, we need one more stage of jhana to get rid of the cetasika vicara). Nina, please correct any misunderstandings of mine. Mike, does this help or does it confuse things further? Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sir Mike, > op 27-04-2003 02:24 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > > > > >> Nina: > >> Seeing just sees, it directly experiences visible object impinging > >> on the eye-base. It does not need vitakka and vicara to experience the > >> object. > > > > Understood. > > > >> The other cittas of the sense-door process do not have the eyebase > >> as the physical base, vatthu, they do not see, they need vitakka and > >> vicara in order to experience visible object. > > > > I don't understand this. When you say, "other cittas of the sense-door > > process", are you referring to vi~n~naa.nas other than seeing- consciousness? > > Why would they 'need...to experience visible object'? > In the eye-door process there are other cittas that also experience visible > object, but they do not see. I am going to write more in my eries on Kreang > Kacang. Seeing is accompanbied by just the seven universals, but the other > cittas in taht process are accompanied by more than these seven. Just a > quote now: > consciousness) which has the function of adverting to the object through the > eye-door. It is the first citta of that process and it is accompanied by the > universals and in addition by applied thinking, sustained thinking and > determination (adhimokkha). Determination is manifested as decisiveness with > regard to the object, it assists the citta in cognizing the object. > Decisiveness is the opposite of doubt, it cannot arise together with doubt. > There must be determination with regard to the object that impinges on one > of the senses so that the sense-door process can begin and one of the > sense-cognitions can arise. > The sense-cognition which is seeing-consciousness experiences visible object > through the eye-door, and after it has fallen away, it is succeeded by other > vipåkacittas which are accompanied by the same ten cetasikas. After > seeing-consciousnessnas fallen away receiving-consciousness, > sampaìicchana-citta, arises, a vipåkacitta that receives the object. This > citta experiences visible object but it does not see. It needs, in addition > to the universals, the three cetasikas of applied thinking, sustained > thinking and determination. After it has fallen away, it is succeeded by > another vipåkacitta, the investigating-consciousness, santíraùa- citta, which > investigates the object, just for an extremely short moment. This citta > needs the same ten cetasikas as the preceding one, it needs, apart from the > Universals, applied thinking which strikes the object, sustained thinking > and determination, so that it can perform its function of investigating. > This citta is succeeded by the determining-consciousness, votthapana-citta, > a kiriyacitta which is accompanied in addition by energy, viriya cetasika, > thus by eleven cetasikas. The determining consciousness determines the > object, and after that it is succeeded by seven javana cittas (impulsion) > which are, in the case of non-arahats, kusala cittas or akusala cittas. The > determining-consciousness, by performing its function for an extremely short > moment paves the way for the javana-cittas, kusala cittas or akusala cittas, > which succeed it. > > Nina. 21745 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Excellent discourse on jhana my good friend Yasalalaka, very well done. Would you mind posting it to the Jhana Support Group? I think they would all appreciate it very much. Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Jhanas Group email address: Jhanas@yahoogroups.com To subscribe: Jhanas-subscribe@yahoogroups.com best to you, layman Jeff 21746 From: smallchap Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues 6, no 2. Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > The Parinnibbåna of the Arahat who is a Layman, continued. > > ³Well then, revered Någasena, the peaceful state of > arahantship is given up > if the life of him who attains it in this manner is carried > away.² > ³Unequal [4] , sire, are the attributes of a householder. The > attributes > being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes > that a > householder who has attained arahanship either goes forth or > attains final > nibbåna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, > sire, this is > a defect in the householder¹s attributes, namely the weakness > of the > attributes. It is sire, as the food that guards the lifespan > and protects > the life of all beings yet carries away the life of him whose > stomach is out > of order and who has a sluggish and weak digestion, because it > is not > properly digested. This, sire, is not a defect in the food, > this is a defect > in the stomach, namely a weakness in its heat. Even so, sire, > the attributes > being unequal, it is owing to the weakness of his attributes > that a > householder who has attained arahantship either goes forth or > attains final > nibbåna on that very day. This is not a defect in arahantship, > sire, this is > a defect in the householder¹s attributes, namely the weakness > of the > attributes. Or, sire, as a heavy stone may be put on top of a > small stalk of > grass which in its weakness is broken and collapses, even so, > sire, the > householder who has attained arahanship (but) being unable to > sustain > arahantship because of that attribute (of weakness) either > goes forth or > attains final nibbåna on that very day. Or, sire, as a man who > is feeble and > weak, of lowly birth and of little merit, comes to naught and > to ruin the > moment he has acquired a great and mighty kingdom, falters and > is unable to > sustain the authority, even so, sire, the householder who has > attained > arahantship is unable to sustain arahantship because of that > attribute (of > weakness), and for that reason he either goes forth or attains > final nibbåna > on that very day.² > ³It is good, revered Någasena; so it is, therefore do I accept > it.² > > ****** > Footnote > 4 The state of a layman cannot be compared to the monk¹s > state, it is not > equal to it. I find this interesting passage in the Dhammapada Commentery (Buddhist Legends, Bk 24, 5): "...At the conclusion of the lesson Khema was established in Arahatship; the multitude also profited by the lesson. "Said the Teacher to the King, "Great King, Khema ought either to retire from the world or to pass into Nibbana." The King replied, "Reverend Sir, admit her to the Order; as for Nibbana, never!" She retired from the world and became one of the Teacher's foremost famale disciple in wisdom."{end quote} You may wish to note that King Suddhodana, the father of the Buddha, lived for seven days after he attained Arahatship before passing into parinibbana. smallchap 21747 From: Sarah Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Jeff, --- macdocaz1@a... wrote: > > Jeff: > The point that I am trying to make is > enlightenment is a natural innate ability that we all have, and there > has > never been a time during the age of humans when Buddhas have not been on > this > Earth. We need only accept that everyone, no matter how degraded, can > become > enlightened in this lifetime, and there isn't just one great Buddha out > there, but there are many living Buddhas who can guide use to > enlightenment. ..... S:I’d be interested in reading any (Pali Canon) textual references for any of these comments. ..... > But, when we get all obsessed with a dead Buddha who lived 2,000 or > 2,500 > years ago, we lose sight of the Buddhas who are right here, right now > available to guide us to enlightenment. ..... S:Again, perhaps you’d point out the references from the Tipitaka or ancient Pali commentaries for these comments. ..... > Jeff: > Actually, I believe the concern or fear that jhana is something one can > or > could become attached to is essentially erroneous, because it is clearly > > stated in the Potthapada Sutta DN. 9-17 "a true but subtle perception of > > delight and happiness, born of detachment." If jhana is born from > detachment, then how can one become attached to it? ..... S:Attachment can be attached to anything (except nibbana), including the purest of mental states. That’s why many in the Buddha’s time who had attained the highest jhanas were not interested in hearing his teachings or developing insight. Only the arahant has eradicated the very refined attachment to bhava (existence/becoming) for example. Btw, I certainly haven’t seen anyone on DSG suggest anything remotely ‘evil’ about jhanas as you suggested in another post or ‘fear’ as you suggest here. I think everyone here agrees that they are very, very highly developed wholesome states. I understand your definition is ‘broader’ than that in the texts (as in OB experiences during sleep or near-death experiences), but here we are interested in referring to such states and experiences as we understand them to have been taught by the Buddha and recorded in the Tipitaka. I expect the Starkids would have broader definitions too of certain special experiences, but they also have to work within the limits set here (even the eight year olds!!), however much they might protest;-) ..... > Jeff: > Here my good friend Sukin, I completely agree with you. While sila > (ethical > conduct) is of course essential, sila cannot be perfect until panna > (wisdom) > arises, so to say one has to have perfect ethical conduct before wisdom > will > arise, are completely missing the understanding that it is only through > wisdom and insight and equanimity that one could ever lead a truly > ethical > life. > > Good work Sukin. Best regards to all, ..... S:We’re all in some agreement here and it’s always nice to end on this note and to see your good wishes;-) With metta, Sarah ===== 21748 From: Date: Mon Apr 28, 2003 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To Yasalalaka and Rob M :-) In a message dated 4/28/03 8:45:59 AM, rob.moult@j... writes: << --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > Have any of you, had a near death experience ? I had, and I cannot > explain it without making people misunderstand the situation. When > you say that there was a bright light, it is not the light that > emanates from an electric bulb of say 100 or more watts. It is not > the light like the day-light. It is a light WITHOUT a light, > immaculately clear, a soothing light, not bright, and blinding, > without shadows, submerging you with a very comfortable feeling . A > seeing without eyes …… See the difficulty. Even all that does not > really explain what I experienced. I heard in a Dhamma talk that the "bright light" of near death experiences is simply the direct perception of citta (mind). A direct perception of the mind without a self attached. From a medical perspective (I am not a doctor), the Orientation Association Area (OAA) in the left-parietal lobe is normally one of the most active portions of the brain. The OAA takes incoming data from the senses and puts it into context by creating an artificial "self" at the centre. When blood flow to this portion of the brain is significantly reduced (involuntarily as in near death experiences, or voluntarily as in deep meditation / prayer), and the sense of self is supressed. Perhaps in your near death experience you had a direct experience of anatta. >> %%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Hello my good friend, Yasalalaka, chances are, the medical science explanation probably didn't satisfy you much. I have had several "near death" experiences as well. Some of them came as a consequence of recalling a past lifetime in what the Buddha described in Dependent Origination as working out the "past life linking" to a future lifetime. A cording to the Visuddhimagga, what happens when one recalls a previous lifetime and the whole life is played out, then the death is also played out, in so doing the future life linking is supposed to be revealed. Typically in my lifetime recollections, each lifetime ended with a white light experience along with the future life linking. I assume it would be true for most people at death. And, since many people reporting near death experiences, report a white light experience, there may be some truth to this. So, why do at least some lifetimes end with a white light experience? I believe Rob M :-) may be onto something when he quoted the dharma talk, "the 'bright light' of near death experiences (are) simply the direct perception of citta (mind)." Or to put it another way, it maybe the experience of the "Sphere of Infinite Consciousness," at least that was what it seemed like to me, because the experience wasn't just light, there was also the "experience" of pervasive consciousness as well. Perhaps, Yasalalaka, if you recall you may have had more than the experience of a "white light" but also the experience of consciousness. Many who report the "white light experience" also report having had a visitation by God or Christ or something like that. I find the topic of near death experiences an interesting topic, because it seems to fits into the broad category of jhana. Best to you, layman Jeff 21749 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 0:20am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Dear Yasalalaka, Thanks for this excellent post. It opens up so many topics for discussion. When you were talking about how hard it is to describe experiences, you mentioned your own near-death experience: -------------- > It is a light WITHOUT a light, immaculately clear, a soothing light, not bright, and blinding, without shadows, submerging you with a very comfortable feeling . A seeing without eyes …… See the difficulty. Even all that does not really explain what I experienced. > --------------------- Back in the nineteen-sixties and seventies, experiences like these, mostly induced by psychedelic drugs, brought Eastern religion into Western fashion. Countless books were written to describe the authors' experiences under drugs and during meditation. People like myself, assumed that Buddhism was all about having extrasensory ("far out, man") experiences without the aid of drugs. I'm sure you will agree that this is a totally wrong perception and also, that it is very hard to shift. What an enormous relief it is, to know that the Dhamma is about right understanding here and now. There is no need to become a wonderful person, no need for wonderful experiences, just understand the realities that exist in this, present, moment. Kind regards Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yasalalaka" wrote: > > > Dear Sarah, and all, > > 21750 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, V: > > Thanks for this message and the reference. I appreciate it!! > > Like I said earlier, I see that the five aggregates as collections of > all conditioned, fabricated things/phenomena/situations. For > instances, I see that grief belongs to the feeling aggregate, that > not getting what is wanted, separation from the loved, and being with > the unloved belong to the formations aggregate. I also see that > concepts, thoughts, ideas belongs to the formations aggregate. That > is just how I would classify these phenomena using the schema of the > five aggregates. I would not disagree with the classifications in > Nyantiloka's dictionary. However, I would like to emphasize and > reiterate that the classification of the five aggregates include the > whole range of conditioned, fabricated things or phenomena or > situations. This classification, as I tend to see it, is very > general. ..... S: Thanks, Victor. At least we’ve clearly established where we have a different understanding and where we’re coming from when we discuss the aggregates. I think this also clarifies other comments in the ‘computer thread’ you’ve had with others any your frustration with discussions on paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities). You mention you don’t disagree with Nyantiloka’s classifications in the dictionary (which are just as I understand them in the texts- strictly referring to rupas, cittas and cetasikas), but you also add all kinds of concepts as well, especially under sankhara khandha. I wonder if this is because of certain translations of terms, eg ‘formations’ and so on or whether you have any other basis for the inclusion of all concepts, thoughts, ideas, situations? ..... V: > I would also classify marriage to the formations aggregate. To me, > it is not much classifying what to which aggregate. It is to see > that, formations, or its special instance, marriage, is impermanent, > dukkha, not self. ..... S: In SN, khandhasamyutta, 56 (4) Phases of the Cinging Aggregates, (B.Bodhi transl), we read: *** “....And what, bhikkhus, is form? the four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements (derived rupas)..... .....And what, bhikkhus, is feeling? There are these six classes of feeling: feeling born of eye-contact.......mind-contact... ......And what, bhikkhus, is perception? there are these six kinds of perception: perception of forms...sounds....odours..mental phenomena.... .......And what, bhikkhus, are volitional formations? there are these six kinds of volition*: volition regarding forms, volition regarding sounds, volition regarding odours, volition regarding tastes, volition regarding tactile objects, volition regarding mental phenomena. These are called volitional formations......” *** *BB’s footnote: “The fact that there is a difference between the name of the aggregate (sa”nkhaarakkhandha) and the term of definition (sa~ncetana) suggests that this aggregate has a wider compass than the others. In the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries, the sankharakhandha is treated as an “umbrella category” for classifying all mental factors other than feeling and perception . Volition is mentioned only as the most important factor in this aggregate, not as its exclusive constituent.” ..... V: > Thanks again for this message and the reference. Your feedback is > much appreciated. ..... S: Likewise. I’m happy to leave it on the basis that we’ve clarified where misunderstandings and different use of terminology may occur. I think this has been helpful and we can continue to happily disagree on our interpretations of the suttas;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 21751 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 1:00am Subject: Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Jeff, I do not wish to risk lowering the quality of discussions that otherwise goes on here with my uninformed views. Beside my habit of making generalizations is still quite strong. I have also noticed the quick reacti= on to defend my position when threatened. It is almost like I frantically search for files from amongst different drawers.:-/ But this is where I am and can work from.... I have a fairly good idea of what satipatthana is about, but I know almost nothing about jhana. I hope what I have remarked about outer and inner conditions for jhana practice is only misconception, and that you, Howard and Larry are actually reaping the fruits of jhana. I say this = also because even if this is the case, it does not make any difference in my understanding of the importance of satipatthana as a practice involving no formal sitting nor prior accumulations of concentration. More comments following yours: > Jeff: > How can there be different kinds of "detachment?" There is only one > detachment, it is the letting go, the not grasping at sensory experience. > How can one enter into absorption while retaining grasping and aversion? One > cannot of course. This holds true for a self. Absorption is among other > things the letting go of self as well. When there is no grasping, there = is > no accumulation. Sukin: I can think of two different kinds of ¡¥detachment¡¦, tell me which one if = any, fits with the practice of jhana. On the one hand there is recognition = of akusala states and choosing to reject it. On the other, there is just th= e recognition of an arising dhamma, knowing that it is conditioned and anatta. In the first case there is a preference for kusala. In the second there is no such discrimination, though following moments may make such value judgments. In the first case, the detachment is from judging akusala as undesirable. In the second, it is panna which sees the true nature of the phenomena, by its very nature, does not cling. After all, cling to what if all is evanescent and not-self? In the first case there is= movement along the path towards more refined states or at least dwelling in the existent state, in the second the next moment may be kusala, but it does not involve the process of ¡¥becoming¡¦. I feel the first is still the stuff of which samsara is made; the second ha= s the taste of ¡§release¡¨. > What you may also not realize is insight (vipassana) requires absorption. > This may create some debate here, but it is clear to me, that one cannot see > things as they are while grasping at concept and perception. The construct > as I have experienced it is, there are stages of absorption, which are > characterized by a series of "pleasant un-arising sensation" Potthapada > Sutta, DN. 9-17. Jhana 4/5 is characterized by equanimity. Equanimity is > characterized by the cessation of grasping and aversion, with the end of > grasping and aversion comes the end of the thinking processes, what the Zen > practitioners call no-mind, emptiness, no-thought (Bodhidharma, Hue Ning, > etc.) These methods of description are in my experience the same as what the > Pali canon calls purity and stainlessness. In the condition of no- thought > insight "emerges." > > Without the suspension of the thought processes there is no insight > (vipassana). There is no "understanding reality" without insight, which > requires no-thought, which requires no grasping, which requires absorption, > which is characterized by ecstasy (jhana). I do know that at the moment of penetrating the three characteristics, there must be a fairly high level of momentary concentration. Also there may be a causal relation between different mind states in different process leading to the corresponding levels of vipassana nana, I am not sure about this though. However from the above it seems to me that you are talking about any moment of mindfulness of a reality, that it can only = take place if one trains oneself to concentrate. And I think you imply that= in such a case, the jhana practitioner has a better chance for doing this. = But this is not how I understand the development of satipatthana to be. The three characteristic is not penetrated because of concentration, but from growing in understanding about the nature of dhammas. First the gross characteristics are known, then the element nature, then distinguishing between nama and rupa and in between other behaviors and characteristics. For example, can one see the rise and fall of seeing consciousness, if one has not come to clearly distinguish it from visible object? Do you see concentration as an instrument which pierces through ignorance, or do you see ignorance as being slowly made thin by the power of sati and panna? > It is most definitely possible to gain enlightenment in a single lifetime= , > one need only to believe it is possible, and apply one's self to that effort, > with that intention, and you cannot fail. As I become more and more familiar with my own mind states seeing the notoriety of ignorance and other accumulated akusala, at this point I am also seeing more and more what it means by the fact that it takes incalculable years to become enlightened. ƒ¼ Await your response. Metta, Sukin 21752 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 1:17am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Ken, :-) I was thinking about you yesterday, and this morning I was thinking along the same lines as what you expressed here, though I was not thinking particularly about Yasalalaka's experience. I was thinking about our friend Sarah (hope you don't mind Sarah), that she too has psychic experiences and healing powers, but makes no big deal of it. That she thinks that this has nothing to do with the development of the path. I think it is only panna which can see this; here I am referring to Sarah's. :-) Nice to hear your voice after so long Ken. Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear Yasalalaka, > > Thanks for this excellent post. It opens up so many > topics for discussion. When you were talking about how > hard it is to describe experiences, you mentioned your > own near-death experience: 21753 From: yasalalaka Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 1:43am Subject: Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sukin, My post mentioned that experience to answer Sarah, when she asked me about the appropriateness of a word when I wrote about the Buddha's insight. I was thinking what example I could quote to say the inadequacy of words in describing some experience and just mentioned that ..The intention was not to draw attention to myself or pampering my ego...! Sorry if I had given that impression. with metta, Yasalalaka 21754 From: Sukinderpal Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 2:54am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Yasalalaka, No, I wasn't thinking in those terms at all, and like I said I wasn't particularly thinking about you. And the point is not about ego etc. it is about thinking that special states similar to this one, but during other times, that they were significant with regard to accumulations for practice. I understand your point and reason for mentioning your experience. I responded to Ken, because I was just thinking about him yesterday, wondering why he hasn't written, and then I see that he was thinking along the same lines as I was, about this. I didn't think you were trying to draw attention to yourself! Yes, but I did think that you might have thought that it was otherwise significant in terms that *this* was something to do with the perception of not-self. Which I think it doesn't. Of course I now probably go against what Rob M. said. :-( Sukin. -----Original Message----- From: yasalalaka [mailto:charlesperera@h...] Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 3:43 PM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Sukin, My post mentioned that experience to answer Sarah, when she asked me about the appropriateness of a word when I wrote about the Buddha's insight. I was thinking what example I could quote to say the inadequacy of words in describing some experience and just mentioned that ..The intention was not to draw attention to myself or pampering my ego...! Sorry if I had given that impression. with metta, Yasalalaka 21755 From: Jaran Jainhuknan Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 3:06am Subject: Week 5 (Jul 7, 02) No 3 K Ratchada (Q): Regarding the understanding of the distinction (demarkation) of nama and rupa [during nama-rupapariccheda~na~na], at the time of sati being aware of, say, nama, is this already considered distinction (the first vippassana~na~na)? Is pa~n~na able tell the attributes of nama from that of rupa that is the object of the vippassana ~na~na? A Sujin: It's not the the matters of knowing the name that can address this questions. A skillful person is steadfast of being honest to know whether or not at this moment of, say, seeing, he is able to experience realities as they truely are. At the moment of seeing, there are both seeing and what is being seen. And both now quickly have fallen away. Similarly, at the moment of hearing, there is hearing and what is being heard. If we are to experience the realities, we will experience the characteristics of hearing that it is the element that ``knows'' an object and what is heard as the element that is being experienced. All of these happen in daily, ordinary life. However, for beginners, the arising of sati may be very far apart. For example, sati may [have more tendency to] arise at certain moments of hearing but not seeing. One important thing to note is that between the moments of satipatthana, there is thinking. Although thinking always arises after seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and touching, we hardly know the quality of thinking. If vipassana ~na~na is to arise now to penetrate the characteristics of dhamma, it will understand the quality of dhamma, as usual, only more profoundly with finer detail. Vipassana ~na~na understands the characteristics of thinking that it is different from seeing, hearing etc. What it means by demarkation (distinction) of nama and rupa is that no matter what the dhamma is, it is always an element. Nama element always appear as mentality and never as materiality, penetrates the nama dhamma in the nama-rupa pariccheda ~na~na it cannot (does not) avoid experiencing the object at that moment without discrimination. At that moment, through the mind-door pa~n~na understands clearly the nature of mentality and materiality. Even for thinking (contemplating), vipassana~na~na can arise to be aware of it and panna can study its characteristics. At the moment of thinking, it is a natural phenomenon; thinking is an element, not self, knowing an object. When vipassana~na~na falls away, that person knows that thinking cannot be controlled because the understanding prior to the arising of nama-rupaparicchada~na~na and after it are different. Furthermore, pa~n~na at the level of vipassana ~na~na cannot choose to experience an element, but it arise due to conditions. 19:15min 21756 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 4:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi again Yasalalaka, ps: I just noticed that I said in my original post; "but makes no big deal of it." Wrong choice of words. I think it was this that lead you to feel that I was accusing you of boasting?! My vocabulary is very low, I often write whatever comes to my mind without checking the meaning. Hope you won't mind future occurrences of these?! :-) Sukin. 21757 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 4:38am Subject: Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Sarah, Thanks for your reply! Like Jon and Robert K have said earlier, concepts are assembled by mind or formed by citta, and this is how I tend to regard concepts. Since they are formed/assembled, they are subject to change, impermanent, does not last. Likewise for thoughts and ideas. I tend to see concepts, thoughts, and ideas as belonging to the formations aggregate since they are formed/assembled/created by mind. I also tend to see situations such as marriage or relationship or not getting what is wanted or being with unloved also belonging to the formation aggregate since all these situations are formed with volition/intention. Thanks again for your reply!! Your comments and feedback are welcome! Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > V: > > > Thanks for this message and the reference. I appreciate it!! > > > > Like I said earlier, I see that the five aggregates as collections of > > all conditioned, fabricated things/phenomena/situations. For > > instances, I see that grief belongs to the feeling aggregate, that > > not getting what is wanted, separation from the loved, and being with > > the unloved belong to the formations aggregate. I also see that > > concepts, thoughts, ideas belongs to the formations aggregate. That > > is just how I would classify these phenomena using the schema of the > > five aggregates. I would not disagree with the classifications in > > Nyantiloka's dictionary. However, I would like to emphasize and > > reiterate that the classification of the five aggregates include the > > whole range of conditioned, fabricated things or phenomena or > > situations. This classification, as I tend to see it, is very > > general. > ..... > S: Thanks, Victor. At least we've clearly established where we have a > different understanding and where we're coming from when we discuss the > aggregates. I think this also clarifies other comments in the `computer > thread' you've had with others any your frustration with discussions on > paramattha dhammas (ultimate realities). > > You mention you don't disagree with Nyantiloka's classifications in the > dictionary (which are just as I understand them in the texts- strictly > referring to rupas, cittas and cetasikas), but you also add all kinds of > concepts as well, especially under sankhara khandha. I wonder if this is > because of certain translations of terms, eg `formations' and so on or > whether you have any other basis for the inclusion of all concepts, > thoughts, ideas, situations? > ..... > V: > I would also classify marriage to the formations aggregate. To me, > > it is not much classifying what to which aggregate. It is to see > > that, formations, or its special instance, marriage, is impermanent, > > dukkha, not self. > ..... > S: In SN, khandhasamyutta, 56 (4) Phases of the Cinging Aggregates, > (B.Bodhi transl), we read: > *** > "....And what, bhikkhus, is form? the four great elements and the form > derived from the four great elements (derived rupas)..... > .....And what, bhikkhus, is feeling? There are these six classes of > feeling: feeling born of eye-contact.......mind-contact... > ......And what, bhikkhus, is perception? there are these six kinds of > perception: perception of forms...sounds....odours..mental phenomena.... > .......And what, bhikkhus, are volitional formations? there are these six > kinds of volition*: volition regarding forms, volition regarding sounds, > volition regarding odours, volition regarding tastes, volition regarding > tactile objects, volition regarding mental phenomena. These are called > volitional formations......" > *** > *BB's footnote: "The fact that there is a difference between the name of > the aggregate (sa"nkhaarakkhandha) and the term of definition (sa~ncetana) > suggests that this aggregate has a wider compass than the others. In the > Abhidhamma Pitaka and the commentaries, the sankharakhandha is treated as > an "umbrella category" for classifying all mental factors > other than feeling and perception . Volition is > mentioned only as the most important factor in this aggregate, not as its > exclusive constituent." > ..... > V: > Thanks again for this message and the reference. Your feedback is > > much appreciated. > ..... > S: Likewise. I'm happy to leave it on the basis that we've clarified where > misunderstandings and different use of terminology may occur. I think this > has been helpful and we can continue to happily disagree on our > interpretations of the suttas;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah 21758 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 4:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 24-26 for comment Hi Howard (& Rob M), --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > >It is not some "thing", some "one", or some entity which does > > something. It > > >is the *doing*. Vi~n~nana is knowing an object, rather than > > some "thing" > > >which knows. It is an occurrence, an event. I am uneasy with agent > > >terminology, though it is commonly used by many abhidhammikas. I > > think it can > > >be seriously misleading. .... I had also found the comments about ‘agent’ and ‘instrument’ taken from B.Bodhi’s summary of the commentary in CMA a little puzzling. ..... > Howard: > I think that the answer "it is the citta itself that performs the > > activity. In other words, citta is the action and it is the doer of the > action" is a wrong answer. I think the right answer is that there is the > > doing, but no doer. There is no doer of the deed. > > > > 'Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found. > > The deed is, but no doer of the deed is there. > > Nibbána is, but not the man that enters it. > > The path is, but no traveller on it is seen. > > > > (Vis.M. XVI) > > > People want a doer, they crave a doer, they cling to a doer. But > there > is none. > There being no doer, no agent, is at least part of the meaning of > 'anatta'. > -------------------------------------------------- These are all good comments as Rob M said and remind of some Dan made before as well. You may not have read the notes I posted from the commentary itself in a fairly recent post, so let me repeat just the part that is relevant : ***** from earlier post: S:In the recently published PTS transl of the commentary to the Abhidammattha Sangaha.... Prologue 2, p7: “...... the explanation by way of agent (kattar) and instrument (kara.na) should be seen as a relative manner of speaking. For a dhamma’s being treated as an agent, by attributing the status of ‘self’ to the particular function of a dhamma, and also its being (treated) in consequence as an instrument, by attributing the state of agent to a group of conascent dhammas, are both taken as a relative manner of speaking. The explanation in these terms should be understood as for the purpose of indicating the non-existence of an agent, etc apart from the particular nature of a dhamma........” ***** Not sure if this helps. With metta, Sarah ===== 21759 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 6:37am Subject: Re: New Member Intro Hi Vicki, I managed to find a friend who passed me a copy of the Dhamma Talk CD mentioned below. Can I mail it to Mike Nease's address or you can email me your snail maid address. My email address is: rob.moult@j... Looking forward to hearing from you! I am sure that both you and your father will appreciate this CD. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Vicki, > > Welcome! > > I have inserted some comments below. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Vicki Berman" > wrote: > > I would like to introduce myself, my name is Vicki and will start > by telling you a wee bit about myself. Currently I work at a > hospital writing computer programs to analyze the information about > patients. I must be doing something right because we won an award > from a national medical group for one of my reports. I also got an > outstanding staff award for it. I am a middle aged divorced mother > of two teenagers, two dogs, and two cats. I weave and spin when I > have time. I am exploring Buddhism from many angles. I grew up > learning about Zen and Tibetan Buddhism, and I have a friend > teaching me about Nishoren Buddhism. But on to my question. > > ===== > > Wow, what an eclectic mix! > > ===== > > > My father was born in China and has talked a lot about Buddhism > while I grew up. He recently had some heart trouble, and my sister > made a comment that "he wasn't being spiritual enough about his own > death." The rest of us thought it was okay for him to work on life > style changes to help save his life, but this sister had other ideas > about death. Evidently she was "spiritual" about it because she > killed herself in February. She had a beautiful ying-yang pendant > around her neck when she died, and her note said that she would see > us on the other side. > > ===== > > My father recently visited me from Canada (I live in Malaysia). He > has had prostrate cancer for a few years. I passed to him an > excellent Dhamma talk on CD by Ajahn Brahmavamso called "Dealing > with Sickness and Death". Though my father is not a Buddhist, he > found the talk extremely uplifting. I was searching around the house > this morning, but I gave my only copy to my father when he left. I > am going to try and track down another. If I find one, can I send it > by post to Mike Nease (I have his address)? Otherwise, I will let > you know when I have found it and you can email me your snail mail > address. I really think that your father would enjoy this CD. > > I do not understand your sister's message of "see you on the other > side". That sounds quite Christian. Was she a Buddhist? > > ===== > > > My family was shocked at this unexpected tragedy and we are > learning to live with our new reality. (It is suffering as I never > knew suffering existed, we were very attached to her). > > ===== > > You and your family have been given a very important lesson; that > the cause of stress / suffering / dukkha is desire / attachment. It > reminds me of the Gandhabhaka (Bhadraka) Sutta (Sn XLII.11) in which > the Buddha used the death of family members to illustrate this link > between suffering and desire: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-011.html > > ===== > > > So my question is this: What did the Buddha teach about suicide? > I've heard stories of elderly Zen monks passing on, in a state of > total awareness, at a time of their choice, but they were at the end > of their lives anyway, not a healthy, but depressed, person in the > middle of their lives. > > ===== > > As some others have mentioned (recently and in the archive), monks > cannot condone or support suicide. I don't think that the Buddha > talked specifcially about suicide for laypeople, but He did talk a > lot about the importance of the last thought before death. It is > this last thought that determines the next rebirth. If somebody's > last thought was anger (including anger at themselves), they could > be reborn in hell. If their last thought was delusion, they could be > reborn as animals. The Yodhajiva Sutta (Sn XLII.3) is an example of > the Buddha's teaching in this area: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn42-003.html > > Your terms "end of their lives" and "middle of their lives" can be a > little misleading. If there are countless lives already lived and > countless lives yet to live, to put such a focus on the place within > the current existence might be a little "pre-Copernicus" (i.e. earth > is centre of the universe). > > I hope that my comments help you. I hope that they don't sound cold > and analytical at this difficult time. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 21760 From: m. nease Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 6:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] anapanasati sutta Thanks, Nina--as usual the addition of the commentary enriches the text considerably. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Monday, April 28, 2003 9:01 PM Subject: [dsg] anapanasati sutta > Dear Mike and Sukin, > you were discussing and quoting from this sutta, so I thought I will repeat > something I wrote before: > As we read in the Intro, the sutta was spoken near Savatthi in the Eastern > Monastery. The great disciples were present. There were arahats, > non-returners, once-returners, sotapannas. Moreover those who were > developing the four satipatthanas, and the factors leading to enlightenment, > who were developing metta and other meditation subjects and also mindfulness > on breathing. > The Invitation ceremony was put off for one month until the Komudi (Whi te > water lily) festival, so that the monks could more fully develop excellent > qualities. > > The Co. explains why the Buddha wanted to wait for the Komudi festival in > Savatthi, to have the Invitation ceremony, the pavarana. He waited because > otherwise the bhikkhus would go away and travel all over Savatthi. The > Buddha showed his great compassion because he thought of the bhikkhus who > were still weak in samatha and vipassana and who would not be able to have > excellent attainments. He considered the difficulty of finding lodgings if > the monks would go traveling. The elders (of sixty rainy seasons) were > allowed to take lodgings first and in that case other monks would have > trouble finding them. Since the Buddha wanted to stay near Savatthi, there > would not be such worry and the monks could further develop samatha and > vipassana and reach distinctions. > We then read as you quoted from the sutta, about the different meditation > subjects. > > > "In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide devoted to the > development of > loving-kindness. . . of compassion. . . of appreciative joy. . . of > equanimity. . . of the meditation > of foulness. . . of the perception of impermanence - - such Bhikkhus > are > there in this Sangha of > Bhikkhus. In this Sangha of Bhikkhus there are Bhikkhus who abide > devoted > to the development > of mindfulness of breathing. > ******* > The Co explains that all these were meditation subjects the monks were very > interested in. In the sutta where it is stated: they dwell devoted to the > four foundations of mindfulness... the noble eightfold Path, there is > reference to the thirtyseven factors of enlightenment. The Co explains about > the factors of enlightenment, bodhipakkhiya dhammas, that these are lokiya > (not lokuttara, that is, those arising when enlightenment is attained) and > lokuttara. It states that they are lokiya for the monks who develop > vipassana, insight. > In the sutta we read about the perception of impermanence. The Co explains > that here insight, vipassana, is meant by sa~n~naa, perception. > N: we can compare here the use of the word sanna: we find in the texts at > times atta-sanna, perception of self, and anatta-sanna, perception of > non-self. > We read in the Co. that the monks were very interested in anapana sati. That > is why the Buddha dealt with the other meditation subjects in short, but > with mindfulness of breathing in detail. The Co now refers to the > Visuddhimagga for details about this subject. > ***** > After this the Co deals with seeing the body in the body etc. > I translated from the Co I have in Thai. And I used the Visuddhimagga on all > the tetrads. (To be found under U.P. I think) We have to consider: to whom > was this sutta addressed. > This is a long series (good for a rainy day), ending with the thirtyseven > factors of enlightenment. > Nina. > 21761 From: connie Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 7:27am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Sarah ~ more talking. peace, connie Q: I've heard that science is proving that space and time are just concepts. A: A friend of mine says science is proving Buddhism, but even if it does, we'll still have to prove it to ourselves on an experiential level. Science is a useful tool but it's just another way of viewing things and we have to get beyond views and theories. We're not just going to read some 'Copernicus Proves Buddhism' book and get it because we have faith in Science. And we don't need all the complicated explanations. Some people understood what Buddha was saying just from hearing simple things like 'we all die' or 'all conditioned things perish'. Dukkha is also tied in with anatta or non-self and psychologically, Nibbana is freedom from Ego. It involves learning to see that there is no abiding essense of a self or soul, but a stream of changes as physical and mental events, rupa and nama. Our bodies are rupa and our consciousness or mind is nama, which we break down into citta and cetasika. Citta is what knows or experiences anything. That anything is what we call an aramanna, object... or object as reflected in our perception of it. Citta, awareness, is colored or flavoured by certain combinations of 52 mental factors or cetasikas that arise with it. We usually see rupa translated as form or physicality. Rupa is 28 different kinds of things like sound or colour or hardness, the realities that don't have any awareness. For instance, our bodies are rupa and when we think our belly is hungry, it is citta that knows hunger and decides to have the body eat. When there is pain, the body doesn't know it, citta does. Q: Oh... so that's why the dentist gives you laughing gas. There is still pain, but you're not so aware of it. A: I don't know how nitrous oxide works, but citta would be less aware of the pain. There are also a lot of different kinds of citta depending on the method of classifying them, but we won't get into all the different kinds of nama and rupa today. The important things are that everything, all dhammas, can be classified according to the two main divisions of nama and rupa and that anyone who claims to be Enlightened should be able to explain this. Q: If you are for non-attachment, what do you think about people getting married? A: What people? Q: You know, people who are in love and want to spend their lives together. Is that wrong? A: I think I haven't explained non-attachment or anatta very well, but there is a difference between what we call love as metta and love as attachment. A lot of what we call love is just selfish attachment and wanting sensual pleasure but not really about the other person and what is best for them. We like to think of love as all pure and good, something sacred, but we are caught up in our own ideas of what we call people and what we get out of being in love. Buddha spoke of two kinds of truth... conventional and ultimate and to some extent, right and wrong mean different things depending on what kind of truth we mean. 'People in love' is a conventional expression, but if they have the same real love and beliefs or understanding, they can be together in many lifetimes. You can read about different people's past lives and how they were related at different times in the Jataka tales. In another sense though, 'people' are just what we call certain groupings or aggregates of five components: consciousness, rupa, feelings, perception and forces that condition psychic activity. Nothing special to be in love with or to want someone else to love. It's said that it's not even kind to encourage someone else to become attached to you and one of the five things we should think about every day is that "All that is mine, beloved and pleasing, will become otherwise, will become separated from me." More love, more pain. But non-attachment is about giving up things like all forms of delusion, conceit and aversion, not depriving ourselves and spending all our time thinking about how miserable we are. "Enjoy what there is to enjoy and suffer what there is to suffer" without thinking it is who we are or that things last. You might hear "don't be swayed by the winds of fortune", which are worldly concerns like fame and praise or loss and pain and their opposites. We want to keep reminding ourselves that every step might be our last and should be on the path to freedom. We talk about the world being on fire or how we should have the same sense of urgency we would have if there was a fire on our heads. Q: Does the goal for this lifetime have to be Nirvana? A: Maybe in the back of our mind somewhere we'd like it to be, but it's just a fantasy until the first time it happens. If we learn to be in the present with wise attention, I think there is no goal and no one to reach it. We should be more concerned with accumulating the causes that would eventually lead to that... to developing right understanding of realities and taking advantage of opportunities to accumulate merit or kusala. There's also the Mahayana Bodhisattva ideal that says you would delay Nibbana in order to help other people. Q: I read that only monks can reach Nirvana. A: There are quite a few householders in the Suttas who attain some level of Nibbana, but there is something about anyone who has reached a certain level would have to join the Order to stay alive... I'm sorry I don't remember it right now. It's either that same day or within three days. The Suttas are probably what most people think of when they think about the Buddhist Canon, but the Tipitaka is actually 3 Collections or Baskets of books about eleven times the size of the Bible. The Vinaya or Discipline section covers everything from a monk not licking his bowl or his lips when he eats and how to behave at people's houses to how the Order conducts meetings and what happens when different rules are broken. All the different rules came about in response to different situations and problems that came up with more and more monks living together and the stories behind them are also there. The Sutta-Pitaka are the books where you find things like how a couple should live together or Buddha's thoughts on an ideal ruler. Suttas are the teachings according to the level of the audience's understanding and what would be the most beneficial thing for them to hear at the time. The Abhidhamma or Higher Doctrines explains ultimate truths and doesn't talk about things like people. Some people also call it the Buddha's moral psychology. I know you're familiar with some of the suttas, so I'd like to read part of a paragraph explaining a thought process in Abhidhamma terms just to give you some idea of the difference: "The millionth of the second that the arammana is experienced by the vinnana cittas of the different panca dvaras is followed by the vithi vara cittas of the dvara and then the mano dvara arises to experience the same arammana in sequence, so the arammana is always known by its own dvara vithi vara and the mano dvara vithi vara, after some bhavanga interposes." But you don't have to learn to talk like that to realize it and even though the Baskets are written differently, they talk about the same things. I wouldn't say that one was more right than another, just that they address different levels of practice or understanding and different people can find the approach that suits them best. Q: Were they in written in Sanskrit? A: The Theravadan or Elders' Doctrines were originally in Pali, but most of the later, Mahayana or Great Vehicle texts were in Sanskrit and you find a lot of variation in the different translations. The Tibetan Vajrayana or Diamond Way texts came from Mahayana. When you see karma, sutra or nirvana, that's Sanskrit and if it's kamma, sutta and nibbana, that's Pali, but it seems like even Theravadan writers are using the Sanskrit forms more now, especially when they have a Western audience, so it doesn't necessarily tell you which tradition you're reading about. 21762 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 8:29am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Dear Sukin, Thank you for your reply. I have as much to learn from your postings as well as others. I wish to clarify that I write out of deep respect for the Dhamma and for this reason only. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > I think all kusala helps one along the path, but as you corrected later, it > must be with right view. One of the wonderful things about > Buddhadhamma is the teachings on the Parami. It shows me that not > only every form of kusala should not be overlooked, but that they > actually relate to one another in such a way that one should not be > isolated at the exclusion of others. > Anytime kusala citta arises at moments of dana or sila, it is good to be > aware of it as just a dhamma, not self. Knowing it for what it is will > accumulate as parami, otherwise if it is done with 'self' then it is not so > beneficial. One ends up taking it as my dana, my sila etc. There is a discourse in the Samyutta Nikaya which I am not about to trace it online. In this discourse a group of villagers living in Veludvara asked the Buddha, "We want to have many children, pleasant things such as perfumes, flowers, gold, and silver in this life, and after death we want to be reborn in the deva worlds. How could we accomplich this?" To which the Buddha replied by telling them to reflect in the following manner: "I want to live. I don't want to die. I am fond of pleasure and dislike pain and suffering. Now if someone were to kill me, it would not be pleasing and delightful. If I kill someone else, it won't be pleasing and delightful to him. A condition that isn't pleasing to me isn't pleasing to others, so how can I impose a condition that isn't pleasing and delightful to me on others?" "In the same way, stealing, sexual misconduct, ...... In this discourse, all are about "I", "Mine", "Self". But it is so skillfully delivered by the Buddha that non-beleivers were inducted to the Dhamma. > Likewise I think that when one concentrates on one of the 'factors of > awakening' and try to develop it with a 'self', then it may not lead to the > correct results. Here is a story in the Dhammapada commentery that proves otherwise. A certain weaver's daughter received instructions from the Buddha and meditated on Death. She reflected thus: "Uncertain is my life. Certain is my death. I shall surely die. Death will be the termination of my life. Life is unstable. Death is sure." For three years she meditated thus day and night. After answering correctly four questions put to her by the Buddha, she became a sotapana after the Buddha pronounced the stanzas: "Blind is this world; few are there here that see; as few go to heaven as birds escape from a net." http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2h.htm#weavergirl Alternative reading: Buddhist Legends. > I don't think that any of the factors of the 8th fold path can be developed > seperately. They arise by conditions, the primary of which is > understanding nama and rupa as it is, constantly, again and again. I > think there is a difference in conventional understanding of energy, > livelihood, concentration etc. from the corresponding factors in the Noble > path. Giving it conventional interpretation will give rise to idea of > developing them one by one. Let us go hear the discourse preached by the Buddha to Ganaka- Moggallana, sweet in the beginning, sweet in the middle and sweet in the end: "Thus I have heard: At one time the Lord was staying near Savatthi in the palace of Migara's mother in the Eastern Monastery. Then the brahman Ganaka-Moggallana approached the Lord; having approached he exchanged greetings with the Lord; having conversed in a friendly and courteous way, he sat down at a respectful distance. As he was sitting down at a respectful distance, Ganaka-Moggallana the brahman spoke thus to the Lord: "Just as, good Gotama, in this palace of Migara's mother there can be seen a gradual training, a gradual doing, a gradual practice, that is to say as far as the last flight of stairs,[1] so, too, good Gotama, for these brahmans there can be seen a gradual training, a gradual doing, a gradual practice, that is to say in the study [of the Vedas];[2] so too, good Gotama, for these archers there can be seen a gradual... practice, that is to say in archery; so too, good Gotama, for us whose livelihood is calculation [3] there can be seen a gradual training, a gradual practice, that is to say in accountancy. For when we get a pupil, good Gotama, we first of all make him calculate: 'One one, two twos, three threes, four fours, five fives, six sixes, seven sevens, eight eights, nine nines, ten tens,' and we, good Gotama, also make him calculate a hundred. Is it not possible, good Gotama, to lay down a similar gradual training, gradual doing, gradual practice in respect of this dhamma and discipline? "It is possible, brahman, to lay down a gradual training, a gradual doing, a gradual practice in respect of this dhamma and discipline, Brahman, even a skilled trainer of horses, having taken on a beautiful thoroughbred first of all gets it used to the training in respect of wearing the bit. Then he gets it used to further training - - even so brahman, the Tathagata, having taken on a man to be tamed, first of all disciplines him thus:...... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn107.html > I don't even think that one can develop panna by trying to develop > panna. One ends up 'doing' things, like meditating and reading the > suttas. But I think it is the function of panna itself with the help of > chandha, which leads to seeking more understanding and hence > conditioning more panna. If self comes in, then what is read may not be > understood at all. Enough said. Sarah and Howard had a good discussion on this subject. Which comes first? Chicken or egg? > > > direct perception. One must come to know the objects through > > > the six- > > > senses first. > > > > S: There are two approaches: 1. Sila, Samadha, Panna; 2. Panna, > > Sila, Samadhi. Either approach can lead to insight. > > But every step of the way must require panna to be present. I don't think > it is a question of approach, but varying strengths. Besides what is > panna in isolation, is not panna in relation to some reality? Panna in > relation to sila, panna in relation to dana, pana in relation to bhavana, > no?! See above: Ganaka-Moggallana Sutta. smallchap 21763 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 8:39am Subject: Mana and other akusala Dear All, Between lobha, dosa and mana, I seem to have most problems with mana. Lobha is pleasant, so I object to it only when my stomach is full. But even while it is there, it can be known for what it is and the attachment does not stay. Dosa arises very easily in me and I can explode like a bomb, but just like a bomb, once exploded is no more, my anger too usually subsides and its forgotten. Milder forms can come to awareness and here too what might otherwise build up doesn't. Mana on the other hand completely overwhelms me. And even though in the examples above the awareness is only on the 'thinking' level, it nevertheless works, but with mana no matter how I try to talk myself into it, it feels like a thick barrier to cut through. So often it will take a few hours before it subsides, but that would have been due to conditions other than my attention to it. My question is, does anyone have the same problem. If so, do you know why this is so? Does dosa play part in maintaining mana? In mana there is a ‘me’ standing against ‘other’, does this then also mean that it conditions ditthi, particularly sakyaditthi? I know myself to have an extremely high degree of uddhacca, this is reflected in the fact that I will still be on page one reading something, when others have already reached page five. Does uddhacca play a part in conditioning mana? Mine is usually a inferiority mana, but is this only the other side of the same coin as superiority mana, just depending on conditions which will become apparent? Does mana decrease only by being more familiar with it, or are there opposing qualities which when developed decreases mana? I have other questions in mind, but maybe will ask them later. Thanks in advance. Sukin 21764 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:12am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, no 1. November-December 2002 Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang. Preface The quiet surroundings for our Dhamma discussions could not have been better: the Kraeng Kacang Country Club and Khun Duangduen¹s house further up in the hills. Everything had been beautifully arranged and organized by Mom Betty Bongkojpriya Yugala. We enjoyed the warm hospitality of Acharn Sujin, her sister Khun Jid and Khun Duangduen. They treated us on one delicious meal after another, also high up at the lake. At sunset we walked down the lane, looking at the stars and listening to the voices of the forest, just relaxing or again discussing points of the Dhamma. It was all very peaceful and inspiring. We are most grateful for all the hospitality. Later on I attended Dhamma discussions in Thai at the Foundation, the building of the ³Dhamma Study and Support Foundation². There were discussions on the Satipaììhåna Sutta, for two hours and after that, I attended the meeting of the Board of the Foundation. Here was discussed whether only the first hour of the discussions on the Satipaììhåna Sutta should be spent with questions and after that the second hour with the text. It was feared that the time spent on the discussions could become longer so that there would be less time for the text itself. Acharn Sujin said: the questions are most important, because if people do not understand satipaììhåna pertaining to this moment, they cannot understand the text. It does not matter whether the second part of the time dedicated to the text becomes shorter and it would take even a year to deal with only a few parts of the texts. This was a long discussion but it brought home to me the importance of the principles that were discussed. We should not understand just the names of realities, but the characteristics which appear now. Without right understanding of satipaììhåna, we cannot grasp the meaning of the texts of the Tipiìaka. Many of my Thai friends have become very skilled at Pali (the Pali lesson starts at eight on Sunday morning at the Foundation) but they also realize that it is the understanding of the reality now that matters, not theoretical understanding. I was greatly impressed by the dedication and enthusiasm of the teachers who assisted Acharn Sujin in the explanation of the Dhamma. I really had píti (rapture) and paamojja.m (delight) being with them, it bolstered my confidence in the teachings. ******** 21765 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 10:12am Subject: New series: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang Dear friends, I am beginning a new series about the Dhamma discussions we had at the end of last year in Thailand. You will recognize a great deal of our discussions here on dsg which I also used for this series. Nina. 21766 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 0:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New series: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang After reading number 1 I was wondering about the discussions, and hoping you would post more about them. Thank you very much for starting a new series on the discussions. This list is really a gem...thanks again...Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: "nina van gorkom" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2003 10:12 AM Subject: [dsg] New series: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang > Dear friends, > I am beginning a new series about the Dhamma discussions we had at the end > of last year in Thailand. You will recognize a great deal of our discussions > here on dsg which I also used for this series. > Nina. > 21767 From: Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 4:34pm Subject: Way 82, Feeling cont. Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Feeling, continued This is another method of understanding: (He) understands, "I experience a pleasant feeling" = Sukham vedanam vediyamiti pajanati. By the absence of painful feeling at the moment of pleasant feeling, he knows, while experiencing a pleasant feeling: "I am experiencing a pleasant feeling." By reason of that knowledge of the experiencing of pleasant feeling, owing to the absence now of whatsoever painful feeling that existed before and owing to the absence of this pleasant feeling, before the present time, feeling is called an impermanent, a not lasting, and a changeful thing. When he knows the pleasant feeling, in the pleasant feeling, thus, there is clear comprehension. For it is said, in the 78th Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya, by the Blessed One: "When one experiences a pleasant feeling, Aggivessana, then one does not experience a painful feeling or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. Only the pleasant feeling does one then experience. When one experiences a painful feeling, Aggivessana, then one does not experience a pleasant or a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. Only a painful feeling does one then experience. When one experiences a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling, then, one does not experience a pleasant or a painful feeling. Only a neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling does one then experience. Pleasant feeling, indeed, Aggivessana, is a thing that is impermanent, put-together, dependently originating, decaying, passing away, fading and ceasing. So is painful feeling, and the neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. The learned, real disciple, Aggivessana, seeing thus, turns away from the pleasant feeling even as he does from the painful, and the neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings. Turning away, he detaches himself; by absence of attachment, he frees himself; freed, he knows thus: "I am freed of craving. Destroyed by me is rebirth; lived by me is the Highest Life of the Real Way; done by me is the work of developing the Real Way that must be developed; and (concerning the sixteen-fold work of the development of the Royal Way) there is no more work to be done by me." Pleasant worldly feeling refers to the six joyful feelings connected with the six sense-doors, and dependent on that which is tainted by defilements. Pleasant spiritual feeling refers to the six joyful feelings connected with the six sense-doors, and not dependent on sense-desire. Painful worldly feeling refers to the six feelings of grief connected with the six sense-doors, and dependent on that which is tainted by defilements. Painful spiritual feeling refers to the six feelings of grief connected with the six sense-doors, and not dependent on sense-desire. Worldly neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling refers to the six feelings of indifference connected with the six sense-doors, and dependent on that which is tainted by defilements. Spiritual neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling refers to the six feelings of indifference connected with the six sense-doors, and not dependent on sense-desire. The division into pleasant worldly feeling and so forth is in the 137th Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya. Ajjhattam = "Internally": The bhikkhu dwells contemplating feelings in the feelings that are his own by laying hold of the pleasant, painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful feeling. Or he dwells contemplating feelings in the feelings of others by laying hold of the pleasant, painful or neither-pleasant-nor-painful feelings, in the way told above. Or at one time he contemplates his own feelings and at another time, another's. Samudayadhammanupassi = "Contemplating origination-things." In this contemplation of feeling, the bhikkhu dwells seeing the origination and the dissolution of the aggregate of feeling or seeing the origination of feeling at one time and the dissolution of feeling at another time, by way of ignorance, craving and so forth, in the five ways mentioned in the Section on the Modes of Deportment.[32] From here on it should be understood that the exposition is just according to the method followed in the explanation of body-contemplation. Indeed, the mindfulness that lays hold of feeling is the Truth of Suffering. Thus the portal of deliverance for the bhikkhu who lays hold of feeling should be understood. 32. He, thinking: 'the origination of feeling comes to be through the origination of ignorance,' in the sense of the origin of conditions sees the arising of the aggregate of feeling... (Patisambhida Magga P.T.S. Edition Page 55). 21768 From: robmoult Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 4:51pm Subject: Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slides 27-30 for comment Classifying Cittas Slide Contents ============== 1.0 Citta: Consciousness (89 or 121 Cittas) 1.1 Sense Sphere (54 Cittas) 1.1.1 Unwholesome (12 Cittas) These cittas create "bad kamma" - Greed-Rooted - Hatred-Rooted - Delusion-Rooted 1.1.2 Rootless (18 Cittas) These cittas sense what happens to us (seeing, hearing, etc.) Note: slightly simplified - Resultant 1.1.3 Beautiful (24 Cittas) Wholesome create "good kamma"; Resultant acts as "subconscious" - Wholesome - Resultant 1.2 Fine Material Sphere (15 Cittas) 1.3 Immaterial Sphere (12 Cittas) 1.4 Supramundane (8 or 40 Cittas) Speaker Notes ============= Many people's first impression of Abhidhamma is that there are long lists of complicated Pali terms to be memorized. The Abhidhamma does contain many lists. The Abhidhamma lists the 89 or 121 possible mental states, which can be broken into four categories: - Sense Sphere Mental States; these are the mental states we experience in our day to day lives - Fine-Material Sphere Mental States; these are the mental states of experienced meditators when they meditate on objects - Immaterial Sphere Mental States; these are the mental states of experienced meditators when they meditate on concepts - Supramundane Mental States; these are the mental states of those who are approaching enlightenment In our discussion today, we will only focus on the sense sphere mental states. The first group are the unwholesome mental states. The unwholesome mental states are further broken into greed-rooted, hatred-rooted and delusion-rooted. All unwholesome mental states create bad kamma. The "weight" of the kamma created depends on the intensity of the volition, or will, behind the mental state. Strong will means strong kamma. The second group are the rootless mental states. They are called rootless because they do not have bad roots (greed, hatred, delusion), nor do they have good roots (non-greed or generosity, non- hatred or loving kindness, non-delusion or wisdom). These mental states are called resultants, (vipâka in Pali). According to Buddhism, things happen to us because of our past kamma. The mental state associated with an instant of seeing or hearing is, in fact, the result of some past kammic action. The third group are the beautiful mental states. The wholesome beautiful mental states are the opposites to the unwholesome mental states. These mental states create good kamma for us. There is also a type of beautiful resultant mental state, which acts as our subconscious. The subconscious is what the mind is doing when it is not doing anything else. In Pali, this is called a "bhavanga" mental state. Because being born as a human is very fortunate, the subconscious mental state is beautiful. 21769 From: azita gill Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana and other akusala --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Dear All, > dear Sukin, Hello. I have enjoyed reading your posts. How are you, hope you are well. Just a few weeks ago, I posed a similar question to the group. Can't remember dates but I think I called it 'mana and ditthi'. I too, have many problems with Mana. This very morning I was in tears [which is dosa conditioned by what I perceive to be Mana]. I was thinking that most of my friends are fools, the people that I actually see from day to day. Then I give myself a hard time about being so arrogant; and I decided that maybe I should just stay away from them all, but then I felt lonely and now I have a headache!!!!!!!! Quote from Nina's Cetasikas: 'The Attasalini gives the following definition of conceit: ...herein conceit is fancying [deeming, vain imagining]. It has haughtiness as characteristic, self-praise as function, desire to advertise self like, [unquote: here I would add self dislike] quote: a banner as self manifestation, greed disassociated from wrong view as proximate cause, and should be regarded as a form of lunacy'. .. So, consider me a lunatic. ... Further on in Cetasikas, we read: 'Conceit can only be eradicated when one has realised arahatship. So long as conceit has not been eradicated there are many opportunities for the arising of conceit.' It actually made me feel somewhat relieved to know that conceit is so difficult so eradicate, strange I know, but I give myself such a hard time about not being 'perfect', that to know even a sotapanna has conceit is kind of comforting. I do become despondant at times, but to know that that is just a conditioned state 'I' can't do anything about it, it arises and passes away, has a strange calming effect. To have the wonderful Dhamma friends like you and the others on this group, really helps me to keep going. Maybe my other friends are fools, but at least now, instead of yelling at them, I hold my tongue and try to think of something good about them. You ask does Dosa play a part in maintaining Mana. Again, in Nina's Cetasikas, she states that comparing ourselves to others gives rise to many akusala cittas, so I guess the answer is yes. I too, have more to say on this, but right now I'm off to yoga, often a good way for me to 'work out' my bad feelings. May we all have lots of courage to keep going. cheers, Azita. > Between lobha, dosa and mana, I seem to have most > problems with mana. > Lobha is pleasant, so I object to it only when my > stomach is full. > But even while it is there, it can be known for what > it is and the > attachment does not stay. > Dosa arises very easily in me and I can explode like > a bomb, but > just like a bomb, once exploded is no more, my anger > too usually > subsides and its forgotten. Milder forms can come to > awareness and > here too what might otherwise build up doesn't. > Mana on the other hand completely overwhelms me. And > even though in > the examples above the awareness is only on the > 'thinking' level, it > nevertheless works, but with mana no matter how I > try to talk myself > into it, it feels like a thick barrier to cut > through. So often it > will take a few hours before it subsides, but that > would have been > due to conditions other than my attention to it. > > My question is, does anyone have the same problem. > If so, do you > know why this is so? > > Does dosa play part in maintaining mana? > > In mana there is a ‘me’ standing against > ‘other’, does this then > also mean that it conditions ditthi, particularly > sakyaditthi? > > I know myself to have an extremely high degree of > uddhacca, this is > reflected in the fact that I will still be on page > one reading > something, when others have already reached page > five. Does uddhacca > play a part in conditioning mana? > > Mine is usually a inferiority mana, but is this only > the other side > of the same coin as superiority mana, just depending > on conditions > which will become apparent? > > Does mana decrease only by being more familiar with > it, or are there > opposing qualities which when developed decreqses > mana? > > I have other questions in mind, but maybe will ask > them later. > > Thanks in advance. > > Sukin 21770 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues 6, no 2. Dear smallchap, op 29-04-2003 07:32 schreef smallchap op smallchap@y...: I liked your quote about Khema. By the way I also liked your quote about the weaver's daughter. King Suddhodana, well I do not know the answer. I just translated this Issue from Thai for the Foundation in Bangkok. Maybe someone else knows a reason? I am interested. Could there be an exception or a special reason for this case? Do you have a text? I read in Pali Proper Names, II, p. 1201: when he was about to die, the Buddha came from Vesali to see him and preach to him, and Suddhodana became an arahat and died as a lay arahat. It does not say about a week. We do not know how long he was on his death bed. With appreciation, Nina. > > I find this interesting passage in the Dhammapada Commentery > (Buddhist Legends, Bk 24, 5): > > "...At the conclusion of the lesson Khema was established in > Arahatship; the multitude also profited by the lesson. > > "Said the Teacher to the King, "Great King, Khema ought either > to retire from the world or to pass into Nibbana." The King > replied, "Reverend Sir, admit her to the Order; as for Nibbana, > never!" She retired from the world and became one of the > Teacher's foremost famale disciple in wisdom."{end quote} > > You may wish to note that King Suddhodana, the father of the > Buddha, lived for seven days after he attained Arahatship before > passing into parinibbana. > > 21771 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Week 5 (Jul 7, 02) No 3 Dear Jaran, very useful. It reminds me of our discussions about thinking in Kraeng Kacan. See below. op 29-04-2003 12:06 schreef Jaran Jainhuknan op jjn@b...: One important thing to note is that between the > moments of satipatthana, there is thinking. Although thinking always > arises after seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting and > touching, we hardly know the quality of thinking. > > If vipassana ~na~na is to arise now to penetrate the > characteristics of dhamma, it will understand the quality of > dhamma, as usual, only more profoundly with finer detail. > Vipassana ~na~na understands the characteristics of thinking > that it is different from seeing, hearing etc. > (snip) > > Even for thinking (contemplating), vipassana~na~na can arise > to be aware of it and panna can study its characteristics. > At the moment of thinking, it is a natural phenomenon; > thinking is an element, not self, knowing an object. When > vipassana~na~na falls away, that person knows that thinking > cannot be controlled because the understanding prior to the > arising of nama-rupaparicchada~na~na and after it are > different. Furthermore, pa~n~na at the level of vipassana > ~na~na cannot choose to experience an element, but it arise > due to conditions. N: We discussed a great deal about control and no control, but through panna which directly experiences nama and rupa this will be clear. And this is very clear: < the understanding prior to the arising of nama-rupaparicchada~na~na and after it are different.> There is no more doubt about or in which way to see it. No control whether thinking arises or not. And panna cannot choose what the object will be at a given moment, thinking or any other reality, it maybe akusala dhamma. This can also be object of insight. With appreciation, Nina. 21772 From: Date: Tue Apr 29, 2003 5:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To Sukin: In a message dated 4/29/03 1:03:01 AM, sukin@k... writes: << I do not wish to risk lowering the quality of discussions that otherwise goes on here with my uninformed views. Beside my habit of making generalizations is still quite strong. I have also noticed the quick reacti= on to defend my position when threatened. It is almost like I frantically search for files from amongst different drawers.:-/ But this is where I am and can work from.... I have a fairly good idea of what satipatthana is about, but I know almost nothing about jhana. I hope what I have remarked about outer and inner conditions for jhana practice is only misconception, and that you, Howard and Larry are actually reaping the fruits of jhana. I say this = also because even if this is the case, it does not make any difference in my understanding of the importance of satipatthana as a practice involving no formal sitting nor prior accumulations of concentration. More comments following yours: >> %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I am quite sure my good friend, if you establish a daily practice, and you keep up your practice over a number of years, and you practice diligently you will know what jhana is form personal experience. %%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: I can think of two different kinds of ¡¥detachment¡|, tell me which one if any, fits with the practice of jhana. On the one hand there is recognition of akusala states and choosing to reject it. On the other, there is just the recognition of an arising dhamma, knowing that it is conditioned and anatta. In the first case there is a preference for kusala. In the second there is no such discrimination, though following moments may make such value judgments. In the first case, the detachment is from judging akusala as undesirable. In the second, it is panna which sees the true nature of the phenomena, by its very nature, does not cling. After all, cling to what if all is evanescent and not-self? In the first case there is movement along the path towards more refined states or at least dwelling in the existent state, in the second the next moment may be kusala, but it does not involve the process of ¡¥becoming¡|. I feel the first is still the stuff of which samsara is made; the second has the taste of ¡§release¡¨. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: No, my friend I speak of only one detachment. If one lets go, does not attach, and remains alert and mindful, then the "unholsome" deminish and the "holsom are exposed as non-arising subtle perception of delight and happiness. %%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: The three characteristic is not penetrated because of concentration, but from growing in understanding about the nature of dhammas. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Freedom is not, my good friend, an intellectual process. The mind, as we know it in the West as the thinking process, cannot grasp freedom, liberation because it is the very cause of the imprisonment. We need only free ourselves of the tyranny of our own thinking, concepts and mental states to know freedom. %%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: As I become more and more familiar with my own mind states seeing the notoriety of ignorance and other accumulated akusala, at this point I am also seeing more and more what it means by the fact that it takes incalculable years to become enlightened. %%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Or, it can be an instant in which you let go of those "mind states." Best to you, layman Jeff 21773 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:28am Subject: Re: Mana and other akusala Hello Sukin, 'glad to see you're in message-posting mode again; it's always a treat. You asked why I have been quiet for so long; actually, I respond to dsg posts almost every day but rarely hit the "send" button. Often, I have a fear of saying the wrong thing. Mike has kindly suggested that this is due to ottappa (moral dread), but I think we all know mana (conceit), is the most likely culprit. I can't help with your questions, sorry, they're too technical. But I notice that you don't make a show of being hard on yourself; you make an objective appraisal of the cetasikas involved. I should learn from that; putting myself down, as I often do, probably doesn't help anyone. People are bound to wonder, "If he says that about himself, what must he say about us?" This leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask for some time: We are told that whenever kusala citta has the concept of another living being as its object, then either metta, karuna, mudita or upekkha arises with it. What is the case when kusala citta has the concept of one's own self as object? I accept that there can't be metta, (maybe there could be upekkha), but I wonder if such a kusala citta even exists. In other words, I wonder if all concepts of one's own self are akusala.(?) Certainly, even an arahant has to think of himself conceptually from time to time -- as RobK says; how else could he cross the street? But I'm getting the impression from Nina's thread, "Dhamma Issues 6," that an arahant conceptualises himself as being a monk and that is kusala (or kirya, in his case). Could it be that, to conceptualise himself in any other way -- as he would have to do if he wasn't ordained -- would be akusala and therefore beyond him? Am I on the right track or am I rambling? Kind regards, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear All, > > Between lobha, dosa and mana, I seem to have most problems with mana. 21774 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 1:34am Subject: Jhanas Dear Group, I am confused about the Jhanas. Did the Buddha strongly recommend mastery of the jhanas, not only as a refuge for here and now, but also as an essential part of the path? Are they essential? What about panna, what about vipassana, what about seeing things as they really are in this moment? metta, Christine 21775 From: yasalalaka Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:07am Subject: Re: Jhanas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am confused about the Jhanas. Did the Buddha strongly recommend > mastery of the jhanas, not only as a refuge for here and now, but > also as an essential part of the path? Are they essential? What > about panna, what about vipassana, what about seeing things as they > really are in this moment? > > metta, > Christine ********* Christine, I am copying below my post No;21711 , which tried to explain the place of jhana in the teachings of the Buddha. After reading this, please say whether, this provided you with the necessary information or you would like to have further elaboration. with metta Yasalalaka ******** I was reading the several posts on Jhana, Samatha, and Meditation. I was beginning to discuss some of these very same matters with, Sukin, and he showed a disinclination to continue the discussion with me and I thought I had stepped on to unknown ground in trying to discuss meditation, when the members of the forum are primarily here to discus Abhidhamma. However, having read the several post I have mentioned, and being a member of this group to learn Abhidhamma, I thought I will make my contribution on Meditation and allied matters. During the time the Prince Siddhartha was born in ancient India, there was 62 different schools of philosophy. The well known teachers of some of them were, Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Ghosala, Ajita Kesakambila, Pakuddha Kachchayana, Niganta Nataputta and Sanjay Belathaputta. They practiced samata ( quietude)meditation, using Kasina, which are the 40 different types of arammana to develop concentration . In samath, the mind is quietened first by attaining one pointed concentration( samadhi). Continuing to develop the concentration, with the eyes fixed on the Kasina, they attain jhana( dyana) absorptions. There are eight stages of jhana absorptions, four rupa jhana, ( first, second, third ,forth) and four arupa jhana. (fifth,sixth,seventh, and eighth). The first four jhana develop the mind and go into a deep "silence", very calm and serene, no thoughts arise in the mind. At the third and the fourth stages, mind is so deeply concentrated the meditator will not be aware of the body. Thereafter, the fifth to eight stages of absorptions give the meditator supernatural power. The Hindu teachers,and philosophers practiced these meditations even before the Prince Siddhartha was born. Prince Siddhartha, saw the four signs, and knew there was untold suffering , among beings and thought that there must be a cause for this, and that one may be able to stop it by eliminating the cause. He studied under some of the great teachers at the time, I had mentioned earlier. But he was disappointed . Ascetic Siddhartha, thought that it is through self-inflicted pain that he may be able to delve into the truth, and practiced austerity for six years, having failed in that endeavour, he left his five devoted companions, and went on his own. The rest of the story we know. Lord Buddha, practiced the samatha, meditation following the anapanasati,( taking the in and out breath) as the object of concentration(arammana). That was a means of clearing the mind of the incessantly arising and falling away of the thought processes. At the forth jhana absorption the mind is clear, serene, calm, and alert, but incapable of any other mental activity. Therefore the Buddha, after attaining the fourth jhana, came out of it and continued looking into the causes of suffering, looking at the mental activity in different ways, that was the insight meditation (vipassana), the unique method found by the Buddha himself. In vipassana, the Buddha tried to see the ` working', not just the understanding, of impermanence(anicca), unsatisfactoriness( dukkha ) and no-self (anatta). It is only through this insight or penetrating into the working of his own mind that the Buddha, `saw' dukkha, its cause, the way out of it and its cessation. He was able to differentiate between the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. A being is just five aggregates ( rupakkhandha, vedenakkhandha,sannanakkhandha, vinnanakkhandha and sankharakkhandha), and the cause of this suffering is rooted in lobha, dosa, moha, which has created in the mind of the being that he is a person, a "self", and every thing around is permanent, pleasant, and that they are for his enjoyment. The Buddha knew that once the beings become aware of the irreality of this thinking, they will turn to his teaching, which will enable them to go through the same experience he went through and attain nibbana. With metta, Yasalalaka 21776 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:16am Subject: Re: Change (Anicca) Hi Smallchap, Thank you for your attempt to try to make me see the limitation of my views and looking up the texts to find relevant quotes. I appreciate the effort you put into it and I wish I could also do the same, but I am not well read at all. I depend almost entirely on dsg for my dhamma reading, so when anyone posts a sutta quote I am grateful. And since I depend so much on dsg for my daily dhamma, I also rely on certain members to do the interpretation for me. So at this point I will have to ask some of these members to help me with interpreting the suttas you have posted. But I do have some understandings which I would like to express first. First of all, I do not deny that the Buddha used conventional examples to teach dhamma. But I think you will agree that it is only ultimate realities which he always meant for his disciples to know. There is nothing in the conventional realities themselves which have the characteristic of anicca and dukkha. What you may not agree with however, is that these teachings were specific to the audience and that it may not be applicable to others. Hence we should neither think that we can meditate on the same objects nor that *we* know what is suitable for ourselves. This would be underestimating one's own accumulated ignorance. I picture the situation during Buddha's times to be as when many people who had the excellent accumulations and good kamma to be born. They all knew from the very beginning the difference between kusala and akusala at a level some of us can't differentiate even after hearing the dhamma. When the Buddha spoke, it was like they were familiar with the lingo as would those living in a particular closed community understand the local language, while outsiders would have a hard time comprehending it. So it was no problem at all if Buddha used conventional examples. Likewise using I, me, mine, self, was never a problem. However, not all had equal accumulations, so it is no surprise that some took longer than others to attain levels of realization. And also it is not surprising that, certain special objects of meditation were given to individuals to bolster their practice. However it must always be the case that "satipatthana" was the basic practice, and these other additional objects of contemplation were only support. Here again, only the Buddha would know what is best. I can imagine that if the Buddha was here today, he would readily find the right objects even for us to support our satipatthana practice!?! But the foundation *must* be satipatthana, other methods cannot lead anyone anywhere. Metta, Sukin *I have not included our past posts here since it would be too long. 21777 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:22am Subject: [dsg] Re: Change (Anicca)Victor, Howard Dear Victor and Howard, Sorry for the delay in responding. Victor, it is no doubt useful - as other members have said - to consider that everything is impermanent. For example maranasati (meditation on death) takes our life and considers how very soon we will die. Done in the right way it leads to a great deal of detachment and is highly kusala. Still I believe that that any consideration of the five khandhas, no matter how skillful, is not sufficient to lead to full understanding. There has to be a study of the actual elements as they arise. You mention desk and how the thinking of it is not the same as the actual desk. Right. And so it is when we think of 'ourselves' or even when we think of feeling or sankhara or vinanna or sanna. No matter how wise the thinking is it cannot be as direct as knowing the moment. While we are thinking there can be insight into the thinking process and then we gradually see that all our problems depend on thinking and not seeing the khandhas as they really are. Take an extreme example: we are involved in a serious car accident. I spoke about this with a friend on Sunday. It can happen the next time we drive. Anyway something happens, and we see another car travelling towards us. We try to avoid but can't and the cars collide and we are badly injured. Maybe already someone reading this can imagine it happening and feels just a tad uneasy. This is because of thinking taking concepts as object. In fact, it is no different if it really happens. If there isn't the dwelling in concepts, if there can be insight, then there is simply seeing, and hearing, and feeling and sanna and sankhara.- Maybe painful feeling through the bodysense, but that is not so bad, unless, because of not understanding the moment, there is fear and aversion to the pain. In other words just like this moment, empty elements. No rule, of course, that one should have insight at such moments, but if study of elements is habitual then it is more likely that it will occur. This reply might be off the point but perhaps it is enough for now. RobertK > > > Dear Victor, > > I do see why this appears to be a contradiction - that a concept > > doesn't exist (is asabhava) and yet it can still be a object of > > citta. > > Let's take an example now. Think of a flying purple elephant. While > > thinking of this there is vedanakkhandha (the aggregate of feeling), > > there is sannakkhandha (the aggregate of perception, memory ) > > that 'remembers' the shape of an elephant and the color purple. > > There is sankharakkhanda (the formations that includes all other > > cetasikas) and there is vinnakkhandha (the aggregate of > > consciousness). These are all paramattha dhammas, they are > > conditioned and impermanent and not self. > > But there is no purple, flying elephant - that is pannati, concept, > > and yet it is the object at that time. It is dhammarammana. But it > > is the dhammarammana that is asabhava, non-existant. > > RobertK > > > ========================== > Victor::: Hi Robert K, Thanks for your feedback! I would like to say that concept of a desk, for instance, is not one and the same as a desk. Your feedback on the following is much appreciated. Concepts are formed by citta, or in Jon's words, they are assembled by mind. Whatever is formed/assembled, disintegrates, does not last, subject to change, passes away. In that sense, a concept is impermanent. What is impermanent is dukkha. What is impermanent, subject to change is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." Seeing thus, one grows dispassionate towards concept. _________________________ Howard:: Agreed that there exists no purple, flying elephant. (In fact, there > is no keyboard on which I am typing at this very moment!) But more critical, > I think, is the question of whether there is the *idea/thought* of a purple, > flying elephant, for *that* is what most people would mean by the concept of > "purple, flying elephant". Are you saying that there is no single mind-door > object that is that idea/thought, but only a group of various mind- door > objects, including several images, verbal phrases, mentally, and > collectively, labelled by 'purple, flying elephant'? If that is your point, I > think it is a reasonable one. Some concepts are, indeed, single mind-door > objects, and other supposedly single concepts are actually not single at all. > (Just as we put labels on mentally collected groups of rupas, we do the same > with mind-door objects.) > > 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) > > > > > 21778 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken H and Sukin, --- kenhowardau wrote: > Hello Sukin, > > 'glad to see you're in message-posting mode again; it's > always a treat. ..... ...and to hear from you, too;-) (Also pls nudge Andrew to send his useful quotes on-list rather than off-list too.....) ..... > You asked why I have been quiet for so long; actually, I > respond to dsg posts almost every day but rarely hit the > "send" button. Often, I have a fear of saying the wrong > thing. Mike has kindly suggested that this is due to > ottappa (moral dread), but I think we all know mana > (conceit), is the most likely culprit. ..... Just think of us all with metta and hit ‘send’;-) As far as I'm concerned, you always say just the right thing! I’ll leave it to ‘your’ sati and panna to know the cittas. I liked this sentence from one of Nina’s recent posts: “It is thanks o the Abhidhamma that we can learn what we do not know, otherwise we may believe that we have a great deal of understanding, we may accumulate even more conceit than we have already.” So, Sukin, just be glad there is some wise reflecting and comprehension of these states and some realisation of their unwholesome characteristics....otherwise it could be even worse;-) You may like to review these posts in U.P. which contain a lot of info. I think the last one (by Jon) answers questions about mana and wrong view: ***** Conceit (mana) 4072, 4405, 7594, 11570, 11650, 11866, 12931, 13626, 13674, 17732, 20227 Conceit vs wrong view of self 11868, 20141 ***** I think we can all see how much time is spent concerned with ourselves in one way or other - even now whilst wishing there was less conceit or less thinking of self, there is still the finding of oneself as important in one way or other. ..... > I can't help with your questions, sorry, they're too > technical. But I notice that you don't make a show of > being hard on yourself; you make an objective appraisal > of the cetasikas involved. I should learn from that; > putting myself down, as I often do, probably doesn't help > anyone. People are bound to wonder, "If he says that > about himself, what must he say about us?" ..... ;-) ..... > This leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask for > some time: We are told that whenever kusala citta has > the concept of another living being as its object, then > either metta, karuna, mudita or upekkha arises with it. > What is the case when kusala citta has the concept of > one's own self as object? I accept that there can't be > metta, (maybe there could be upekkha), but I wonder if > such a kusala citta even exists. In other words, I > wonder if all concepts of one's own self are akusala.(?) ..... I think it was suggested recently that adosa (non-aversion) and metta were synonymous. I think that metta is one kind of adosa and whilst the brahma viharas including metta can only be to others, there can in theory be adosa with oneself as object. Adosa and alobha accompany all kusala cittas. However, I think that moments of thinking of oneself with kusala cittas must be extremely rare. It’s easier for me to think of examples for the Buddha reflecting on the qualities of the Tathagata, for example. Certainly when we wish ourselves well or other common examples given, the reflections are rooted in attachment, I think . ..... > Certainly, even an arahant has to think of himself > conceptually from time to time -- as RobK says; how else > could he cross the street? ..... Exactly. The aim is not to stop thinking about particular objects (inc. oneself), but to understand the different dhammas. In our case, unlike the arahant’s, moha and attachment would be predominant I think at these times. ..... I’ll leave your other question as I need to read the D. Issues first. maybe Sukin or Nina will help. Metta, Sarah ===== 21779 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] anapanasati sutta Dear Nina, Mike & Sukin, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > > I translated from the Co I have in Thai. And I used the Visuddhimagga on > all > the tetrads. (To be found under U.P. I think) We have to consider: to > whom > was this sutta addressed. > This is a long series (good for a rainy day), ending with the > thirtyseven > factors of enlightenment. > Nina. ..... Yes, the series is under anapanasati at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts There is a lot of detail and none of it is easy. I think you might have missed it before, Mike. I'd be glad if you, Sukin or Chris reposted any sections in small portions for further discussion. Metta, Sarah ======== 21780 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana and other akusala Hi Azita, Thanks for your post. I am fine. My main problem is just general self- consciousness, not necessarily comparing myself with others. I will get furious if someone honks his horn behind me when I am driving or on the other hand feel so nervous when I perceive others as waiting for me to quickly park my car so that they can move on, that I may end up scraping it against a pillar or something. This applies to other situations as well. Anyway, I found it helpful enough to think as you quoted Nina saying, " comparing ourselves to others gives rise to many akusala cittas." And I won't try to figure out what these might be. I guess I'll just take i= t one step at a time and the real answer may come out one day.:-) Thanks for the encouragement Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula > wrote: > Dear All, > > > dear Sukin, > Hello. I have enjoyed reading your posts. How > are you, hope you are well. > Just a few weeks ago, I posed a similar > question to the group. Can't remember dates but I > think I called it 'mana and ditthi'. > I too, have many problems with Mana. This very > morning I was in tears [which is dosa conditioned by > what I perceive to be Mana]. I was thinking that most > of my friends are fools, the people that I actually > see from day to day. Then I give myself a hard time > about being so arrogant; and I decided that maybe I > should just stay away from them all, but then I felt > lonely and now I have a headache!!!!!!!! > Quote from Nina's Cetasikas: > 'The Attasalini gives the following definition of > conceit: > ...herein conceit is fancying [deeming, vain > imagining]. It has haughtiness as characteristic, > self-praise as function, desire to advertise self > like, [unquote: here I would add self dislike] quote: > a banner as self manifestation, greed disassociated > from wrong view as proximate cause, and should be > regarded as a form of lunacy'. > .. So, consider me a lunatic. ... > Further on in Cetasikas, we read: > 'Conceit can only be eradicated when one has > realised arahatship. So long as conceit has not been > eradicated there are many opportunities for the > arising of conceit.' > It actually made me feel somewhat relieved to > know that conceit is so difficult so eradicate, > strange I know, but I give myself such a hard time > about not being 'perfect', that to know even a > sotapanna has conceit is kind of comforting. > I do become despondant at times, but to know > that that is just a conditioned state 'I' can't do > anything about it, it arises and passes away, has a > strange calming effect. > To have the wonderful Dhamma friends like you > and the others on this group, really helps me to keep > going. Maybe my other friends are fools, but at > least now, instead of yelling at them, I hold my > tongue and try to think of something good about them. > You ask does Dosa play a part in maintaining > Mana. Again, in Nina's Cetasikas, she states that > comparing ourselves to others gives rise to many > akusala cittas, so I guess the answer is yes. > I too, have more to say on this, but right now > I'm off to yoga, often a good way for me to 'work out' > my bad feelings. > May we all have lots of courage to keep going. > cheers, > Azita. > > > Between lobha, dosa and mana, I seem to have most > > problems with mana. > > Lobha is pleasant, so I object to it only when my > > stomach is full. > > But even while it is there, it can be known for what > > it is and the > > attachment does not stay. > > Dosa arises very easily in me and I can explode like > > a bomb, but > > just like a bomb, once exploded is no more, my anger > > too usually > > subsides and its forgotten. Milder forms can come to > > awareness and > > here too what might otherwise build up doesn't. > > Mana on the other hand completely overwhelms me. And > > even though in > > the examples above the awareness is only on the > > 'thinking' level, it > > nevertheless works, but with mana no matter how I > > try to talk myself > > into it, it feels like a thick barrier to cut > > through. So often it > > will take a few hours before it subsides, but that > > would have been > > due to conditions other than my attention to it. > > > > My question is, does anyone have the same problem. > > If so, do you > > know why this is so? > > > > Does dosa play part in maintaining mana? > > > > In mana there is a ‘me’ standing against > > ‘other’, does this then > > also mean that it conditions ditthi, particularly > > sakyaditthi? > > > > I know myself to have an extremely high degree of > > uddhacca, this is > > reflected in the fact that I will still be on page > > one reading > > something, when others have already reached page > > five. Does uddhacca > > play a part in conditioning mana? > > > > Mine is usually a inferiority mana, but is this only > > the other side > > of the same coin as superiority mana, just depending > > on conditions > > which will become apparent? > > > > Does mana decrease only by being more familiar with > > it, or are there > > opposing qualities which when developed decreases > > mana? > > > > I have other questions in mind, but maybe will ask > > them later. > > > > Thanks in advance. > > > > Sukin 21781 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, I think your two posts on Q & A contain a wealth of valuable information and I think your audience were fortunate to hear such clear explanations and good dhamma (imho);-) I’m amazed at how much ground you cover with your number series and the Q & A. They are good Q too - obviously a very responsive group. Hopefully some will be interested to continue the discussions with you - maybe even here;-) I like it all, but will pick out a few paras for brief comments: --- connie wrote: > Q: I was reading someone who was very adamant about saying Buddhism is > definitely not a religion. What do you say about that? > > A: I say our understanding and agreement on anything we try to talk > about is more important than the words we use and that the everyday > words we just assume we understand are very misleading if we don't > question them. Religion is one of those words people tend to be adamant > about. To me, all our beliefs and everything about our lives is our > religion. I'm more concerned with whether our beliefs are true and > beneficial than what we call them because whether we call ourselves > religious or not, our beliefs determine how we live and when our beliefs > are wrong, we don't live according to the truth and I think that's > harmful. ..... ;-) ;-) > Q: So you don't think God can help us? >..............But I believe the best help we ever got from > God was when Buddha was sitting under the bo tree and might have decided > not to teach the Truth he had Enlightened to if Brahma had not said some > people would be able to understand. ..... A further Q to you or anyone: The Buddha was omniscient, so what is the significance of Brahma saying what he would have known anyway? It also reminds me of the Parinibbana sutta and the ‘hint’ about living for a normal lifespan which Ananda is reported not to have responded to (and was later rebuked for at the First Council) - why should Ananda’s response or lack of be of such significance in determining the outcome of what would surely have been to everyone’s benefit? ..... >....... For the most part, I think we are > insignificant to the beings in other planes but you might like to be on > the safe side and extend metta, but not with any expectation of reward > or them saving you from yourself. ..... ;-) ..... > You might think rebirth is only about a whole life-time from conception > to death, but really, our whole life is only as long as a single moment > of consciousness. The whole world is only that long and the kind of > world it is depends on the type of consciousness... whether it is a > world of sound or taste or any other sense. The next moment, it's > different. We talk about being reborn in different planes, but can also > think of them as being different mind states and see how we make our own > heaven or hell as we go thru a single day. We react to things with joy > and we're in heaven. We justify rudeness or war and are more concerned > with getting what we want than who we might hurt and we act like animals > or people in hell. .... ..... Very well put. I’d like to encourage you to reply to any of the Starkids or others too. ..... Thanks again, Metta Sarah ==== 21782 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 4:36am Subject: Re: Jhanas Hi Christine, First, I would say that Right Concentration is an essential part of the path in the sense that it is a necessary but not a sufficient condition that leads to liberation, the cessation of dukkha. Second, what is right concentration? I would say that, in short, it is the mastery of the four jhanas. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-samadhi.html This is how I see it: Mastery of the four jhanas, as well as wisdom, is an essential part of the Noble Eightfold Path. Your comment is appreciated! Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am confused about the Jhanas. Did the Buddha strongly recommend > mastery of the jhanas, not only as a refuge for here and now, but > also as an essential part of the path? Are they essential? What > about panna, what about vipassana, what about seeing things as they > really are in this moment? > > metta, > Christine 21783 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 5:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhanas Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am confused about the Jhanas. Did the Buddha strongly recommend > mastery of the jhanas, not only as a refuge for here and now, but > also as an essential part of the path? Are they essential? What > about panna, what about vipassana, what about seeing things as they > really are in this moment? ..... I know you will have read deeply and widely on the subject and also followed many discussions here and elsewhere. Perhaps you’d kindly also share some of your reflections (which I don’t believe we’ve ever heard) and collection of links for further consideration. Metta, Sarah ===== 21784 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana and other akusala Hi Azita, --- azita gill wrote: ..... > I too, have many problems with Mana. This very > morning I was in tears [which is dosa conditioned by > what I perceive to be Mana]. I was thinking that most > of my friends are fools, the people that I actually > see from day to day. Then I give myself a hard time > about being so arrogant; and I decided that maybe I > should just stay away from them all, but then I felt > lonely and now I have a headache!!!!!!!! ..... Your posts always make us smile or laugh;-) I know Nina will be smiling too and I think the reason is that all these states are so common and natural in daily life for us all. To my mind it shows a certain lack of mana to reveal them and be able to laugh at oneself. I think it helps us all to see that getting upset or having mana is no big deal. Minding about it won’t help, but is conditioned that way too. So much clinging to self for all of us, I think. After I wrote to Sukin & KenH, I was considering about times when one reflects on one’s kusala, such as on dana (generosity). Different cittas, but some moments of kusala with oneself as object I think, in between more mana and attachment and so on. Thanks for repeating the helpful quotes and yes we’re all lunatics most the time;-) Hope the yoga fixed the headache;-) Metta, Sarah p.s. Nina’s new series from Kang Krajan prompts me to say that I hope our get-together next Dec in Bkk works out again. All our planned trips so far for this year so far have been cancelled for one reason or other including Bkk at this time and also the Alaska trip is now cancelled for everyone due to SARS. =========================================== 21785 From: connie Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:16am Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Last ones, Sarah. peace, connie. Q: What language do you chant in? A: In Theravadan countries, like Thailand, they chant in Pali but most of the Mahayana Buddhists chant in their native tongue. I was taught to chant in Japanese and recite a portion of one sutra in Classical Chinese, but I don't read those languages. Q: How does chanting relate to meditation? A: Basically, there are two kinds of formal meditation: samatha and vipassana. Samatha or tranquility meditation is not strictly Buddhist, but also practiced by other religions and the form people did even before Buddha. That's the one with the different jhana or 'altered consciousness' levels and that'll get you to different heavens, but not out of samsara, the endless wandering through the cycle of birth and death. For that, you need vipassana or insight. Chanting would be related to tranquility if you think of it as a kind of meditation. What you hear about chanting or meditation will depend on who you ask. Some people don't even like to use the word practice and some people I know who chant are very vehement when they say it's not meditation. Ideally, we would all be aware of whatever reality is happening at any time, regardless of what it is, with wise attention, and there would be constant bhavana, mental development. Q: I've heard that drinking isn't really prohibited as long as you keep it under control and don't lose mindfulness. A: It is an individual choice and I think you're right that the ideas behind the rules are more important than the actual words, but I disagree with whoever said that. I also think intoxicants can be any number of things that distract us from the path, not just drugs and alcohol. I would wonder how clearly the person who says that really sees things, but that's me and I should be more concerned with how I see things. Just being human, I am already limited by what my senses can pick up and how much of that do I not even notice? I also tend to twist things around to fit my understanding. If you write it down, you can see a lot of ignorance is just ignoring truth. Another point to that precept is that we are less guarded about what we might do and end up having cause for regret. But I'm not saying that just because I don't care for laughing gas, that I'd turn down novocaine, either. The five basic precepts involve non-injury, metta, sexual propriety, honesty and sobriety and are more like guidelines than vows or commandments. Sometimes, usually full moon days, you might also fast after noon, not dance or sing or watch shows and not get all decked out like a peacock. Novice monks add 2 more rules to the eight for lay-people and change the third one to include celibacy and fully ordained monks have over 200 precepts, but even monks don't take vows and are free to leave the Order if they decide they don't have the right accumulations to make it the best way for them to live or whatever their reason. When we talk about the Eightfold Path as Three Trainings, we group the steps under panna or wisdom, sila or morality and samadhi or concentration but either way, it's like a positive feedback loop where each step feeds the next and comes back around to feed the previous ones to higher and higher levels. There has to be a balance, but we have to start where we are. There are some people who say that it doesn't do any good to take precepts at all anymore and I think they might be saying we shouldn't put too much emphasis on just the morality aspects, but to ignore it is wrong, too. And we don't have to think in terms of precepts per se. We can think about being respectful, giving, metta or even just having a positive attitude. I don't mean we can just say 'Ok, today I'm not going to do this or that or I would never hurt anyone'. We don't know what's going to happen and all we can do is our best. We can't even say we won't hear something unpleasant and get angry about it. Even if I have no right understanding, I can follow rules until I learn to see that they really are the best way and then I have a little more understanding, at least on a worldly level. Q: Do you think we are more responsible or have a higher responsibility the more advanced we become? That there are higher standards for our behaviour? A: Yes. There is a sutta about one of the monks being reproached by a deva for stealing when all he had done is smell a flower and when he protested that he hadn't hurt anything the deva basically said he had to hold himself to higher standards and that smaller things should be more important to him than to someone who wasn't as pure. It also goes back to how far the gods will help us because when he asked the deva to watch over him and let him know if he was going to do something like that again, the deva told him he should be able to figure it out himself. Q: Would karma be worse for someone like that than say an innocent baby? A: I don't know about that. First, being born human is a result of good kamma and I'd agree that a baby is ignorant, but I'm not sure how innocent any of us ever is or what that really means. Then, not everything that happens to us is a result of kamma. Kamma is just one of the five natural orders of laws and 24 paccayas or conditions that come into play and is so complicated that Buddha called it one of the four imponderables, saying it would make us crazy to think too much about it. Even when something is due to kamma, like when you see something, it's a result or vipaka. People usually don't make a distinction and call both the cause and the result kamma, but that's not right. Kamma is formed during the seven thought moments called javanas and involves cetana, volition, so that is where the question of 'innocence' or purity would come in. Do we inform our thought process with right understanding or do we let akusala propel us forward? I think real innocence wouldn't create any new kamma. Actually, both kamma and vipaka are mental. No two people will have the same kamma or the same circumstances for the result to happen in the same way and not all kamma will ripen during this lifetime. We can't say bad things don't happen to good people. Even one of the early monks who had attained a high level was beaten to death for something he'd done in a previous life. Q: Can you practice Buddhism and another religion? A: Truth is truth wherever you find it and just because I call it Buddhism doesn't mean only Buddhists can know it. Anyone who walks the path Buddha pointed out would be Buddhist to my mind and my calling myself Buddhist doesn't mean that I have it right. In fact, I think you could argue that no one is a true Buddhist until they have attained what we call 'change of lineage' or stream entry, but that probably wouldn't make you a lot of friends. Also, a lot of what we think of as Buddhism is really mixed with other religious and cultural traditions, so you have to look beyond the ritual and display and not just accept that everything called Buddhism is what Buddha taught. You have to ask yourself if it fits the guidelines. A lot of Buddhists make Nibbana sound like some kind of heaven where the soul lives happily ever after. American Buddhism is going to look different than say, Tibetan Buddhism, which has a lot of the traditional Bon beliefs mixed in. Q: When I read the "Tibetan Book of the Dead" I really got confused about the different states and everything the dead person goes through. Can you explain that? A: The dying process and bardo states. I don't remember very much about that and don't understand a lot of the Tibetan things I read. There are other Mahayana stories, too about the dead person going before the court of Yama, the Lord of Hell, to have his whole life replayed before them to decide where he'll go next, but I think the idea is just about how we are 'heirs to our kamma'. I think that if there are intermediate states, whether they last 3 days or 7 weeks or that's just a way of saying it's outside of time as we know it, those could be considered as the next lives in a series, but I don't remember ever being dead. We're dying right now and on some level, all the stories are pointing to something that's happening now, I think. 21786 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi Connie, --- connie wrote: > Hi, Sarah ~ > more talking. ..... Likewise! Again, You gave good answers to difficult Qs. Just a few comments to just a few phrases.... ..... ***** >We're not just > going to read some 'Copernicus Proves Buddhism' book and get it because > we have faith in Science. .... ;-) ..... ***** > Q: Oh... so that's why the dentist gives you laughing gas. There is > still pain, but you're not so aware of it. > > A: I don't know how nitrous oxide works, but citta would be less aware > of the pain. There are also a lot of different kinds of citta depending > on the method of classifying them, but we won't get into all the > different kinds of nama and rupa today. ..... An interesing question and it reminded me of a point Howard raised before. As we know, kayavinnana (body-consciousness)only ever experiences hardness/softness, temperature and motion/pressure. The painful bodily feeling is a mental factor accompanying the citta, I think, which is akusala vipaka (result of kamma). So when the gas is given, it must be a decisive support condition for particular rupas not to be experienced by the akusala vipaka. In other words no conditions now for kamma to bring that same result with its accompanying painful/unpleasant bodily feeling. A very advance Q and I’m just speculating out loud but will be glad to hear any further comments. ***** > Q: You know, people who are in love and want to spend their lives > together. Is that wrong? > > A: I think I haven't explained non-attachment or anatta very well, but > there is a difference between what we call love as metta and love as > attachment. A lot of what we call love is just selfish attachment and > wanting sensual pleasure but not really about the other person and what > is best for them. We like to think of love as all pure and good, > something sacred, but we are caught up in our own ideas of what we call > people and what we get out of being in love. Buddha spoke of two kinds > of truth... conventional and ultimate and to some extent, right and > wrong mean different things depending on what kind of truth we mean. > 'People in love' is a conventional expression,..... ..... Great response.....And now we may all hand Victor over to you as we take a holiday on ‘conventional’ and ‘ultimate’ realities;-) (just kidding, Victor;-)) ..... ***** > In another sense though, 'people' are just what we call certain > groupings or aggregates of five components: consciousness, rupa, > feelings, perception and forces that condition psychic activity. > Nothing special to be in love with or to want someone else to love. > It's said that it's not even kind to encourage someone else to become > attached to you and one of the five things we should think about every > day is that "All that is mine, beloved and pleasing, will become > otherwise, will become separated from me." More love, more pain. But > non-attachment is about giving up things like all forms of delusion, > conceit and aversion, not depriving ourselves and spending all our time > thinking about how miserable we are. "Enjoy what there is to enjoy and > suffer what there is to suffer" without thinking it is who we are or > that things last. ..... Good points and so nicely put. ..... ***** > Q: I read that only monks can reach Nirvana. > > A: There are quite a few householders in the Suttas who attain some > level of Nibbana, but there is something about anyone who has reached a > certain level would have to join the Order to stay alive... I'm sorry I > don't remember it right now. It's either that same day or within three > days. ..... Nina is discussing this in her Foundation series with Smallchap. It relates to arahants needing to join the Order the same day or die. (Nina & Smallchap - I also tried to trace the account about the death of the Buddha’s father and the time without success. I’d be very interested to see any reference you can find, Smallchap). ..... ***** Thanks again, Connie. I look forward to any more. Metta, Sarah ====== 21787 From: Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 2:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi, Victor and Christine - In a message dated 4/30/03 7:37:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Christine, > > First, I would say that Right Concentration is an essential part of > the path in the sense that it is a necessary but not a sufficient > condition that leads to liberation, the cessation of dukkha. > Second, what is right concentration? > I would say that, in short, it is the mastery of the four jhanas. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-samadhi.html > > This is how I see it: > Mastery of the four jhanas, as well as wisdom, is an essential part > of the Noble Eightfold Path. > > Your comment is appreciated! > > Regards, > Victor > =============================== How many "votes" there are for a particular interpretation/understanding, is, of course, not the measure of truth! ;-) But, just for the record, Victor, I view this matter just as you do. 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) 21788 From: Sarah Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Topics of Conversation (Re: the Bogor group) Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your reply! Like Jon and Robert K have said earlier, > concepts are assembled by mind or formed by citta, and this is how I > tend to regard concepts. Since they are formed/assembled, they are > subject to change, impermanent, does not last. Likewise for thoughts > and ideas. I tend to see concepts, thoughts, and ideas as belonging > to the formations aggregate since they are formed/assembled/created > by mind. ...... I think I’m understanding you better these days and you make good points and raise good questions in my mind. I see why you come to these conclusions and I think they may be based on the use and translation of sankhara and also the English terms ‘assembled’ and ‘formed’. In brief, when we talk about concepts/ideas/thoughts being assembled or formed by the citta, it is referring to the process of thinking itself, accompanied by sanna, vitakka, vicara and other mental factors which ‘create’ those particular objects. They are not sankhara or conditioned by kamma or other factors as the khandhas are. When the Buddha refers to ‘sabbe sankhara...’ it is just to the paramattha dhammas included in the khandhas, as I understand. I think it might be useful to look at the various ways sankhara is used in different contexts. These are discussed in N’s dictionary here: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/s_t/sankhaara.htm I think RobM also wrote a very helpful post on this topic (to you): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17137 Let me just requote the first part: “The definition of "sankhara" in Nyanatiloka's "Manual of Buddhist Terms and Doctrines" starts, "This term has, according to its context, different shades of meaning, which should be carefully distinguished...." It then proceeds to give multiple definitions. You are probably familiar with the term "sankhara" as applied as one of the five aggregates. In this case, it means all of the cetasikas minus feeling and perception. The definition of "sankhara" when used as part of dependent origination is quite different. In dependent origination, "sankhara" is the 29 rebirth-producing cetana which fall into three classes: - Formations of merit (punnabhisankhara): cetana in the 8 maha kusala cittas and cetana in the 5 rupavacara cittas - Formations of demerit (apunnabhisankhara): cetana in the 12 akusala cittas - Formations of the imperturbable (anenjabhisankhara): cetana in the 4 arupavacara cittas In short, sankhara represents the 29 types of kamma (kamma = cetana)associated with the 17 lokiya kusala cittas and the 12 akusala cittas.” ***** >I also tend to see situations such as marriage or > relationship or not getting what is wanted or being with unloved also > belonging to the formation aggregate since all these situations are > formed with volition/intention. > > Thanks again for your reply!! Your comments and feedback are welcome! ..... Thanks Victor. I think the last part of Connie’s post on marriage and relationships (which I just responded to)is also relevant. I’m hoping she may also discuss it further with you;-) I’m not sure if any of this clarifies further. I do understand that the phrases ‘formed up’ and ‘formations’ can be misleading as can what some of us write here (myself included). Sometimes, like Sukin, I also feel tongue-tied, but I learn a little in the process. Look forward to your comments. Metta, Sarah ====== 21789 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as dukkha KKT --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: Allow me to pop in here. > > I think there is wisdom > in regarding a computer > (or whatever 'conventional' thing) > as something that doesn't last forever. > > Such seeing makes one more > detached from the mundane things. Thanks for coming in here. Does reflection about the impermanence of conventional objects make us more detached from mundane things? I'm not sure that it does in the long run (what is the evidence for this? ;-)). But more important is the question as to whether this kind of reflection makes us more detached from the idea of self. We all know that the body is impermanent, for example, yet this doesn't seem to help us have any less an idea of self, does it? To my understanding, insight into impermanence *as a characteristic* of conditioned phenomena can only occur when there is insight into the true nature of one of those conditioned phenomena. Jon 21790 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:08am Subject: R u suprised ??? ^.^ Dear Sandy: Hello!!! I am Kiana^^. Are you suprised? I didn't write to you for a long time. I hope you don't mind. Did you learn anything about Buddha? Do you think it is interesting? Can you tell me why. Remember take care your health, don't get sick, because H.K is in trouble with the SARS. Take care of your health, Metta Kiana. 21791 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:09am Subject: Kim......my~!* Dear Kimmy: Hi~! I'm Kiana.^^Are you suprised to hear from me? Are you interested in Buddhism? Can you tell me the reason? Do you trust it? How do you think of it? Remember take care of your health!!!^.^ Metta, Kiana. 21792 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Smallchap --- smallchap wrote: > Dear Jon, > > I know you are setting me up. I am a willing victim. :) Yes, I should tread carefully, if I were you ... > --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: ... > > Yes, but may I ask, Does a computer arise, and if so, what are > > some > > of the conditions for its arising (that cause it to arise)? > > > > Jon > > Yes. It does arise. > > Here are some of the conditions for it arising: > 1. the intention to build a computer; > 2. the availability of the necessary materials and components > for building a computer; > 3. the facilities; > 4. and the knowledge of building a computer. > > smallchap But is this an instance of what the Buddha was talking about when he spoke of all 'sankhara'/'conditioned dhammas' being conditioned? The knowledge that a computer is built from parts and did not spontaneously come into existence as an assembled whole is not the kind of knowledge that is peculiar to the teaching of a Buddha. To my understanding, the arising and falling away that the Buddha talked about in suttas such as M.148 quoted by Swee Boon recently is momentary rising and falling away, something that is not at all apparent to one who has not developed insight into the true nature of dhammas/fundamental phenomena. So I woud say that we need to distinguish between conventional ideas of impermanence (or conditioned nature), and impermanence (or conditioned nature) in the ultimate sense as taught by the Buddha. Jon 21793 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Swee Boon When I replied to this post of yours earlier I did not discuss the 2 passages you have quoted from the Mahasatipatthana Sutta (DN 22), which also appear in the Satipatthana Sutta (MN 10), available with commentary as 'The Way of Mindfulness' by Soma Thera (http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html) --------------- nidive wrote: ... SB: I do not think that the distinction between concepts and ultimate realities is that crucial. Otherwise the Buddha would have merely taught the ultimate teaching. [4] "Furthermore... just as if a sack with openings at both ends were full of various kinds of grain -- wheat, rice, mung beans, kidney beans, sesame seeds, husked rice -- and a man with good eyesight, pouring it out, were to reflect, 'This is wheat. This is rice. These are mung beans. These are kidney beans. These are sesame seeds. This is husked rice,' in the same way, monks, a monk reflects on this very body from the soles of the feet on up, from the crown of the head on down, surrounded by skin and full of various kinds of unclean things: 'In this body there are head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, tendons, bones, bone marrow, kidneys, heart, liver, pleura, spleen, lungs, large intestines, small intestines, gorge, feces, bile, phlegm, pus, blood, sweat, fat, tears, skin-oil, saliva, mucus, fluid in the joints, urine.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html All these things in the body are merely concepts. Yet the Buddha tells us to contemplate the body in this manner. [5] "Furthermore... just as a skilled butcher or his apprentice, having killed a cow, would sit at a crossroads cutting it up into pieces, the monk contemplates this very body -- however it stands, however it is disposed -- in terms of properties: 'In this body there is the earth property, the liquid property, the fire property, & the wind property.' "In this way he remains focused internally on the body in & of itself, or focused externally... unsustained by anything in the world. This is how a monk remains focused on the body in & of itself. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html Here, the Buddha presents the ultimate teaching. Why would the Buddha present both conventional and ultimate teachings in one single sutta? If insight into the four great elements is crucial for everyone, the Buddha would not have presented so many choices as how to be mindful of the body in and of itself. --------------- J: As you know the section on mindfulness of the body is divided into 6 main parts. Your 2 passages are from the parts dealing with reflection on the repulsiveness of the body and reflection on the modes of materiality (elements, dhatu). I agree with your comment that reflection on the repulsiveness of the body was something encouraged by the Buddha. It was encouraged in a number of suttas, in the wider context of samatha bhavana. Indeed, it is included in the 40 meditation subjects in the 'Concentration' section of the Visuddhi-Magga , under the meditation subject of the recollection on 'mindfulness occupied with the body'. To my understanding, reflection on the repulsiveness of the body is not given in the sutta as an means of 'satipatthana practice' in and of itself. It is an aspect of samatha bhavana that is included in this section on mindfulness of the body in the Satipatthana Sutta to show how mindfulness can be developed while samatha is also being developed (i.e., even though the object of the contemplation is a concept). In the commentary to this passage in the Satipatthana Sutta it says: "This mindfulness has been explained in the following sections: Breathing-in-and-out; four kinds of deportment; the fourfold clear comprehension; the reflection on repulsiveness; the reflection on the elements or modes of existence [your second passage - J]; and the nine cemetery contemplations. In other words, mindfulness being discussed in the case of reflection on the repulsiveness of the body is exactly the same as the mindfulness discussed for other 5 aspects of 'mindfulness of the body', including your second passage (Refection on the elements). There are not 6 different 'practices' of mindfulness. I hope this helps clarify any apparent inconsistency in the use of conventional and ultimate references within the same sutta. Jon 21794 From: yasalalaka Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mana and other akusala Sarah and all, I thought of contributing to the discussions on the Forum on conceit (mana). It is one of the ten fetters (samyojanas), which keeps us bound to the cycle of birth and death (samasara) Five lower fetters are: Self-identity view, ( sakkaya ditti) Doubt (vicikiccha) Clinging to rules and rituals (silabbata paramasa) Sensual Desire( kama raga) Ill-will (viyapada) Five higher fetters are: Passion for form, (rupa raga) Passion for formless (arupa raga) Conceit (mana) Restlessness(uddacca) Ignorance (avijja) On reaching the stage of a stream entrant (sotapanna), one is free from, self-identity, doubt,Clinging to rules and rituals, after the stage of a stream entrant, over coming sensual desire and Ill-will, one becomes a once returner(sakadagami), when one is fully freed from the first five lower fetters he is a non returner (anagama). After that, by freeing from the five higher fetters, one becomes an Arahat – a Holy One. Conceit (mana) is a strong fetter that one can free oneself from only on becoming an Arahat.Therefore, you can imagine, until then we will be subject to mana. We have to live with it.It is very good that one is aware of the conceit in him. That helps one to diminish its effect on one self and on others. There are three types of conceit (mana): 1. Equality conceit (mana) 2. Inferiority-conceit (omana) and 3. Superiority conceit (atimana) This comes from the attachment to "self ", it can be confused with anger, jealousy, or pride. One should know which type of emotion it is , to be aware of it. Being aware of it, one may refrain from reacting to it. Being aware of it may also reduce its effect or make it temporarily disappear. Being mindful helps to keep it in check. It can be very subtle, such that one will not know it is mana, that caused your reaction. It also comes from judging others, and putting them into frames . When one knows one has mana, one should refrain from reacting to it, keep silent, and let the moment pass. Thinking of one self and the other as impermanent may help to assuage ones attitude, in the presence of rising conceit… It counts probably as a akusala cetasika based on moha. According to scriptures, "a prominent aspect of conceit is stiffness and rigidity. One''s mind feels stiff and bloated, like a python that has just swallowed some other creature. This aspect of mana is also reflected as tension in the body and posture. Its victims get big-headed and a thus may find it difficult to bow respectfully to others. It, destroys gratitude, making it difficult to acknowledge that one owes any kind of debt to another person…..one also actively conceals the virtues of others so that no one will hold them in esteem." (In this Very Life by Sayadaw U Pandita). " Arahatta Suttam (A.vi.49) Cha, bhikkhave, dhamma appahäya abhabbo arahattam sacchikätum. Katame cha? Mänam, omänam, atimänam, adhimänam, thambham, atinipätam. Ime kho, bhikkhave, cha dhamme appahäya abhabbo arahattam sacchikättum. Cha, bhikkhave, dhamma pahäya bhabbo arahattam sacchikätum. Katame cha? Mänam, omänam, atimänam, adhimänam, thambham, atinipätam. Ime kho, bhikkhave, cha dhamme pahäya bhabbo arahattam sacchikättum. Bhikkhus, without dispelling six things it is not possible to realize worthiness. What six? Pride, flying high, conceit, undue estimation of oneself, unyielding nature and falling low. Bhikkhus, without dispelling these six things it is not possible to realize worthiness. Bhikkhus, dispelling six things it is possible to realize worthiness. What six? Pride, flying high, conceit, undue estimation of oneself, unyielding nature and falling low. Bhikkhus, dispelling these six things it is possible to realize worthiness." When the Buddha after his enlightenment went to see, his former companions, the five ascetics at Isipatana.,the ascetics, saw the Buddha approaching, and said to each other that the Samana is coming back, let us not go and meet him, but as the Buddha approached, they could not help going towards him and receiving him. But they called him friend, until the Buddha reminded them thrice, that he was Tatagata, and not appropriate to address him as "friend". When the Buddha visited his Sakyan kinsman, they thought of Buddha as an inferior wandering beggar, and the Buddha using his miraculous powers created a bridge over them and walked on it, over their heads. With metta, Yasa 21795 From: m. nease Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Dear Howard and Victor, First, I have great respect for both your understanding and the quality of your posts. That said, I hope you're both wrong about this(!), as I certainly don't ever expect to master the jhaanas. Assuming you're right, though, let me ask this: Do you think the great many laypeople in the suttanttaa who attained enlightenment were all jhaana masters? Certainly the path arose and was perfected in them. In my (often faulty) memory of the discourses, I don't recall the Buddha instructing laypeople in jhaana bhavana (corrections welcomed). My impression is that this was (is?) an activity for recluses and that 'amateur' jhaana bhavana by laypeople is a modern phenomena. In fact, it has always seemed to me to be largely the basis for the Buddha's (vastly) favorable comparisons to the life of a bhikkhu over that of a layperson--that is, that the extraordinary moral/mental purity of conduct (in the daily life of a bhikkhu) created a suitable environment for jhaana bhavana. So, again (please excuse my long-windedness), were all these laypeople jhaana masters? mike ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 6:30 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas > In a message dated 4/30/03 7:37:17 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: ... > > First, I would say that Right Concentration is an essential part of > > the path in the sense that it is a necessary but not a sufficient > > condition that leads to liberation, the cessation of dukkha. > > Second, what is right concentration? > > I would say that, in short, it is the mastery of the four jhanas. ... Howard: > How many "votes" there are for a particular > interpretation/understanding, is, of course, not the measure of truth! ;-) > But, just for the record, Victor, I view this matter just as you do. ... 21796 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:27am Subject: Re: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken and Sarah, > > You asked why I have been quiet for so long; actually, I > > respond to dsg posts almost every day but rarely hit the > > "send" button. Often, I have a fear of saying the wrong > > thing. Mike has kindly suggested that this is due to > > ottappa (moral dread), but I think we all know mana > > (conceit), is the most likely culprit. > ..... > Just think of us all with metta and hit Â`sendÂ';-) As far as I'm concerned, > you always say just the right thing! I agree with Sarah here and you may like to compare with this; I write, I fear of saying the wrong thing, I consider if I should send or not, and I do so because I have wasted so much time and energy in writing, that I believe that it should be good enough. Mana + attachment here. Also I think Mike is right to some extent. I do believe that someone such as you, would be having many moments of ottapa arising as well, it can't be all mana. :-) I think the habit of judging oneself is something we all have been conditioned from very young age, it has been the way people around us use to correct our behavior. There is a feeling that if I detect my faults, I am somehow being good. But only now with dhamma do we know that it is akusala, no different from judging others. So I absolutely agree with the following. > Â"It is thanks o the Abhidhamma that we can learn what we do not know, > otherwise we may believe that we have a great deal of understanding, we > may accumulate even more conceit than we have already.Â" > > So, Sukin, just be glad there is some wise reflecting and comprehension of > these states and some realisation of their unwholesome > characteristics....otherwise it could be even worse;-) :-) > You may like to review these posts in U.P. which contain a lot of info. I > think the last one (by Jon) answers questions about mana and wrong view: > ***** > Conceit (mana) > 4072, 4405, 7594, 11570, 11650, 11866, 12931, 13626, 13674, 17732, 20227 > > Conceit vs wrong view of self > 11868, 20141 > ***** :-( Too much hard work and no time.... > I think we can all see how much time is spent concerned with ourselves in > one way or other - even now whilst wishing there was less conceit or less > thinking of self, there is still the finding of oneself as important in > one way or other. You should have seen what my initial thoughts were!! I noticed the self importance part, but I wrote something anyway. But I was also interested in knowing the answer because like I said, this was different from other akusala. I have never had resenment for more than a few minutes, and the object of lobha easily changes. But this seemed very persistent and I was wondering what it was that was feeding the general mood. I know that there is always thinking of a story, but even when I identify this story, (or maybe it is a misidentification?), it does not go away. But I have caught it in the initial stages, and during such time, it does go away. And of course I now keep this in the drawer, the same section as the imponderables. :-)) > ..... > > I can't help with your questions, sorry, they're too > > technical. But I notice that you don't make a show of > > being hard on yourself; you make an objective appraisal > > of the cetasikas involved. I should learn from that; > > putting myself down, as I often do, probably doesn't help > > anyone. People are bound to wonder, "If he says that > > about himself, what must he say about us?" > ..... > ;-) > ..... > > This leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask for > > some time: We are told that whenever kusala citta has > > the concept of another living being as its object, then > > either metta, karuna, mudita or upekkha arises with it. > > What is the case when kusala citta has the concept of > > one's own self as object? I accept that there can't be > > metta, (maybe there could be upekkha), but I wonder if > > such a kusala citta even exists. In other words, I > > wonder if all concepts of one's own self are akusala.(?) > ..... > I think it was suggested recently that adosa (non-aversion) and metta were > synonymous. I think that metta is one kind of adosa and whilst the brahma > viharas including metta can only be to others, there can in theory be > adosa with oneself as object. Adosa and alobha accompany all kusala > cittas. However, I think that moments of thinking of oneself with kusala > cittas must be extremely rare. ItÂ's easier for me to think of examples for > the Buddha reflecting on the qualities of the Tathagata, for example. > Certainly when we wish ourselves well or other common examples given, the > reflections are rooted in attachment, I think . I wonder what it would be to think of oneself with kusala...??!! > ..... > > Certainly, even an arahant has to think of himself > > conceptually from time to time -- as RobK says; how else > > could he cross the street? > ..... > Exactly. The aim is not to stop thinking about particular objects (inc. > oneself), but to understand the different dhammas. In our case, unlike the > arahantÂ's, moha and attachment would be predominant I think at these > times. > ..... > IÂ'll leave your other question as I need to read the D. Issues first. > maybe Sukin or Nina will help. Nina! not Sukin. Sukin only knows how to expand on what others have written. But I like the question, it gives me a new view of what really is a monk. Thanks to you both. Metta, Sukin. 21797 From: nidive Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 8:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts & Ultimate Realities Jon, > In other words, mindfulness being discussed in the case of reflection > on the repulsiveness of the body is exactly the same as the > mindfulness discussed for other 5 aspects of 'mindfulness of the > body', including your second passage (Refection on the elements). > There are not 6 different 'practices' of mindfulness. Yes, the mindfulness is the same. But the way of achieving it could be different. It could be either contemplating conceptually or ultimately in and of the body itself. Or he remains focused on the phenomenon of origination with regard to the body, on the phenomenon of passing away with regard to the body, or on the phenomenon of origination & passing away with regard to the body. Or his mindfulness that 'There is a body' is maintained to the extent of knowledge & remembrance. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html Is there a difference between these two statements? Isn't the statement 'There is a body' conceptual? > I hope this helps clarify any apparent inconsistency in the use of > conventional and ultimate references within the same sutta. No, there is no inconsistency. Conventional or ultimate doesn't matter. There isn't a need for such a differentiation. That's why the Buddha taught both conventional and ultimate in the same sutta. Swee Boon Weight Age Gender Female Male 21798 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:14am Subject: Abhidhamma discussion in Kraeng Kacang, no 2 Chapter 1 Theory and Practice In Kraeng Kacang we were reminded time and again that we cannot understand the Tipitaka without developing awareness and understanding of this very moment. We have heard many times that there are three levels of understanding: understanding stemming from listening and reading, pariyatti; understanding that is developed through awareness of nåma and rúpa, patipatti or practice; understanding that is the direct realization of the truth, pativedha. While we are reading texts we may become absorbed in them without any awareness of nåma and rúpa. Realities, nåma and rúpa, appear all the time, but mostly we are only thinking about them. We were reminded by Acharn Sujin that we should know that there is dhamma at this moment, a reality with its own characteristic. If we have merely theoretical knowledge, we know only the names of realities. When sati-sampajañña arises realities can be studied with direct awareness of them. Sampajañña, another term for paññå (understanding) is often translated as clear comprehension. We should remember that this is not theoretical understanding. The term sati-sampajañña (mindfulness and understanding), is also used in samatha (tranquil meditation), and there it denotes sati and pañña of the degree of discerning between akusala citta and kusala citta right at the present moment; sati-sampajañña knows whether there is attachment to calm, and it knows how to subdue defilements by means of a meditation subject. In the development of insight, sati-sampajañña is awareness and direct understanding of the characteristic of nåma or rúpa appearing at the present moment. The conditions for sati-sampajañña are the study of realities as taught in the Tipitaka and careful consideration of what one has learnt. Acharn Sujin said that without the understanding of the Abhidhamma satipatthåna cannot be developed. By Abhidhamma she did not mean theoretical knowledge of all the details of the Abhidhamma, but a basic understanding of nåma, mental phenomena, and rúpa, physical phenomena. We should know that nåma is the reality that experiences an object and rúpa is the reality that does not experience anything. People may doubt whether rúpa is real, they believe that only nåma is real. If we have doubt about the existence of rúpa, a reality that does not know anything, how can we develop right understanding of the difference between nåma and rúpa? Insight is developed in different stages and the first stage is knowing the difference between the characteristic of nåma and of rúpa. If one has not reached this stage, the impermanence of nåma and rúpa can never be realized. The three levels of understanding, pariyatti, patipatti and paìivedha follow one upon the other and they must be in conformity with each other. Study, practice and realization of the truth must refer to the same basic realities. 21799 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:14am Subject: Perfections, Ch 9. Determination, no 3 Perfections, Ch 9. Determination, no 3 From then on the Bodhisatta pretended to be dumb, cripple and deaf. His parents and the wetnurses, when taking into account the formation of the jaws of the dumb, the structure of the ears of the deaf, the hands and the feet of the crippled, noticed that all those characteristics were not to be found in him. They thought that there should be a reason for his behaviour. Therefore, they started to test the prince by giving him no milk for a whole day. Although he was hungry, he uttered no sound to make known that he wanted milk. His mother thought, ³The boy is famished, the wetnurses should give him milk² and she made the wetnurses gave him milk. They gave him milk at intervals for a whole year, but they could not discover his weak point. The wetnurses thought that children usually like cakes, dainties, fruits, toys and different kinds of special food. They gave him all those things so that they could test whether he was really handicapped, but during the five years they tested him they could not discover any weak point. Then the wetnurses thought that children usually are afraid of fire, of a wild elephant, of serpents, of a man brandishing a sword, and therefore they tested the prince with those things, but he did not see any danger in them. The Bodhisatta was unshakable in his resolution because he thought of the danger of hell. He thought, ³the danger of hell is more fearful, it is a hundredfold, a thousandfold, even a tenthousandfold more fearful.² The wetnurses who tested him in these ways did not see any weak point in the Bodhisatta. They thought that children usually like to watch mimes and therefore they arranged for an assembly of mimes, they arranged for players of conches and drums to cause deafening noises, but they could not make the Bodhisatta change his mind. They lighted lamps in the darkness or a blaze of fire to light up the darkness. They smeared his whole body with molasses and let him lie down in a place infested with flies. They did not let him bathe and made him lie down in his excrements and urine. People were sarcastic towards him, they ridiculed and scolded him, they disapproved of him, because he was laying in his own urine and excrement. They lighted pans of blazing hot fire and put these in the bed under him, they used many tricks to test him, but inspite of all this they could not make the prince change his mind. The wetnurses tested him until he was sixteen years old. They considered, ³When children are sixteen years old, no matter whether they are cripple, deaf and dumb, they all delight in what is enjoyable, or they want to see things that are worth seeing. Therefore we shall arrange for women performing dramas to seduce the prince.² They bathed him in perfumed water and adorned him like a son of the gods, they invited him to a royal suite full of pleasing things. They filled his inner chamber with flowers, with unguents and garlands, just as a dwelling of the gods. They made the women who looked as graceful as Apassara goddesses wait on the prince in order to seduce him and to cause him to take delight in them. However, the Bodhisatta, in his perfect wisdom, stopped his inhalations and exhalations, hoping that the women would not touch his body. When those women could not touch the prince¹s body, they thought, ³This boy has a rigid body, and thus, he is not a human, but he must be a yakka.² Then they all returned. 21800 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:16am Subject: [dsg] Re: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken and Sarah, > > You asked why I have been quiet for so long; actually, I > > respond to dsg posts almost every day but rarely hit the > > "send" button. Often, I have a fear of saying the wrong > > thing. Mike has kindly suggested that this is due to > > ottappa (moral dread), but I think we all know mana > > (conceit), is the most likely culprit. > ..... > Just think of us all with metta and hit Â`sendÂ';-) As far as I'm concerned, > you always say just the right thing! I agree with Sarah here and you may like to compare with this; I write, I fear of saying the wrong thing, I consider if I should send or not, and I do so because I have wasted so much time and energy in writing, that I believe that it should be good enough. Mana + attachment here. Also I think Mike is right to some extent. I do believe that someone such as you, would be having many moments of ottapa arising as well, it can't be all mana. :-) I think the habit of judging oneself is something we all have been conditioned from very young age, it has been the way people around us use to correct our behavior. There is a feeling that if I detect my faults, I am somehow being good. But only now with dhamma do we know that it is akusala, no different from judging others. So I absolutely agree with the following. > Â"It is thanks o the Abhidhamma that we can learn what we do not know, > otherwise we may believe that we have a great deal of understanding, we > may accumulate even more conceit than we have already.Â" > > So, Sukin, just be glad there is some wise reflecting and comprehension of > these states and some realisation of their unwholesome > characteristics....otherwise it could be even worse;-) :-) > You may like to review these posts in U.P. which contain a lot of info. I > think the last one (by Jon) answers questions about mana and wrong view: > ***** > Conceit (mana) > 4072, 4405, 7594, 11570, 11650, 11866, 12931, 13626, 13674, 17732, 20227 > > Conceit vs wrong view of self > 11868, 20141 > ***** :-( Too much hard work and no time.... > I think we can all see how much time is spent concerned with ourselves in > one way or other - even now whilst wishing there was less conceit or less > thinking of self, there is still the finding of oneself as important in > one way or other. You should have seen what my initial thoughts were!! I noticed the self importance part, but I wrote something anyway. But I was also interested in knowing the answer because like I said, this was different from other akusala. I have never had resenment for more than a few minutes, and the object of lobha easily changes. But this seemed very persistent and I was wondering what it was that was feeding the general mood. I know that there is always thinking of a story, but even when I identify this story, (or maybe it is a misidentification?), it does not go away. But I have caught it in the initial stages, and during such time, it does go away. And of course I now keep this in the drawer, the same section as the imponderables. :-)) > ..... > > I can't help with your questions, sorry, they're too > > technical. But I notice that you don't make a show of > > being hard on yourself; you make an objective appraisal > > of the cetasikas involved. I should learn from that; > > putting myself down, as I often do, probably doesn't help > > anyone. People are bound to wonder, "If he says that > > about himself, what must he say about us?" > ..... > ;-) > ..... > > This leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask for > > some time: We are told that whenever kusala citta has > > the concept of another living being as its object, then > > either metta, karuna, mudita or upekkha arises with it. > > What is the case when kusala citta has the concept of > > one's own self as object? I accept that there can't be > > metta, (maybe there could be upekkha), but I wonder if > > such a kusala citta even exists. In other words, I > > wonder if all concepts of one's own self are akusala.(?) > ..... > I think it was suggested recently that adosa (non-aversion) and metta were > synonymous. I think that metta is one kind of adosa and whilst the brahma > viharas including metta can only be to others, there can in theory be > adosa with oneself as object. Adosa and alobha accompany all kusala > cittas. However, I think that moments of thinking of oneself with kusala > cittas must be extremely rare. ItÂ's easier for me to think of examples for > the Buddha reflecting on the qualities of the Tathagata, for example. > Certainly when we wish ourselves well or other common examples given, the > reflections are rooted in attachment, I think . I wonder what it would be to think of oneself with kusala...??!! > ..... > > Certainly, even an arahant has to think of himself > > conceptually from time to time -- as RobK says; how else > > could he cross the street? > ..... > Exactly. The aim is not to stop thinking about particular objects (inc. > oneself), but to understand the different dhammas. In our case, unlike the > arahantÂ's, moha and attachment would be predominant I think at these > times. > ..... > IÂ'll leave your other question as I need to read the D. Issues first. > maybe Sukin or Nina will help. Nina! not Sukin. Sukin only knows how to expand on what others have written. But I like the question, it gives me a new view of what really is a monk. Thanks to you both. Metta, Sukin. 21801 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Dear Rob M, Thank you very much. I just have one point that puzzles me somewhat:as I understand it, the other cittas in the eye-door process also experience visible object, not a mental image. I remember I had a conversation about this or something similar with Howard. It is just the term mental image. Also in the subsequent mind-door process the object is visible object, not a mental image. There was some discussion about this before in view of vipassana nana: it is visible object that is realized by insight knowledge through the mind-door, in a mind-door process. It knows through the mind-door nama as nama and rupa as rupa, not a mental image of rupa. It helps to differentiate the functions of physical base, vatthu and doorway, dvara. I see it more this way: cittas know on object through a doorway, I would not stress: they access it through a base, since this is only the place of origin of the citta, although it is the same rupa in the case of seeing, namely the eyesense. I would not use the word mindbase for the physical base of cittas, since this is also the word used for manaayaatana. If you like to avoid the word heart base, you could say, the rupa which is the base for those cittas. After seeing has seen visible object it is succeeded by other cittas which also experience visible object since this has not fallen away, it lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, comparing the duration of rupa with the duration of citta. Thus, it is still experienced, it is not a mental image. Perhaps Dhamma Issues no. 1 on ayatanas could be of interest here, quoting only a part : Nina. op 29-04-2003 06:25 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > The seeing consciousness citta is the only citta in the > sense door citta process that "directly" touches the rupa (visible > object); the subsequent cittas in the same sense door citta process > only access a mental image (through the mind-base). > - In the case of the remaining 16 cittas, the object must be > accessed through the mind-base. For these cittas, the object is a > mental image. This is a "less direct" connection than occurs with > the seeing consciousness, so there is a need for the cetasiaka > vitakka "to provide an introduction to the object" and there is a > need for the cetasika vicara to "sustain connection with the object". 21802 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hi Again!!!!!!!!!!!! Hi Janice, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Friday, April 25, 2003 4:30 AM > > Hi Kom, > Sorry I did not write to you for so long as I > spent most of my time in San Francisco during my > Easter holidays!!!!! I hope you find some colorful eggs :-). > Here are some questions: > Did the Buddha die because of illness or sacrificed > himself? What is the dhamma anyways? How does > mindfulness help you when you are frustrated or if you > cannot solve a problem? > That is it for now!!!!!! > Metta, > Janice > > The Buddha is said to die of old age. The Buddha sacraficed himself not by dying, but by accumulating wisdom for aeons to bring forth the knowledge of dhamma to people. The teaching of the Buddha is called the dhamma. But dhamma is also all the things that we experience. When you type, your fingers touch the keyboard, but what you really experience is the hardness/softness, heat/coldness of the keyboard. Hardness/softness, heat/coldness are called the dhamma. When you feel angry, you feel this unpleasant feeling, this unpleasant feeling is also the dhamma. Dhamma is all the things that we experience. When there is mindfulness, there is actually no anger or frustration. If you have lots of mindfulness, you actually won't feel too angry or frustrated. For people with wisdom (and mindfulness), they know that the anger/frustration is also just a dhamma, something that is out of control. When anger/frustration arises, can you say (truthfully) that there is no anger? All things come to be by its own conditions, and hence, if there are conditions for anger, anger must arise --- we cannot control the dhamma. Anger and frustration are not very useful emotions/dhammas. If you know this, and you are mindful that you are having one of it, then you may be bound to have less of it. This is the power of mindfulness and wisdom. kom 21803 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 6:35pm Subject: Re: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken and Sarah, > This leads me to a question I've been meaning to ask for > some time: We are told that whenever kusala citta has > the concept of another living being as its object, then > either metta, karuna, mudita or upekkha arises with it. > What is the case when kusala citta has the concept of > one's own self as object? I accept that there can't be > metta, (maybe there could be upekkha), but I wonder if > such a kusala citta even exists. In other words, I > wonder if all concepts of one's own self are akusala.(?) What about if one is wisely reflecting on the benefit of moderation in eating, and then one turns the attention to applying it to oneself? Metta, Sukin 21804 From: Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 3:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi, Mike (and Victor) - In a message dated 4/30/03 11:05:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, mlnease@z... writes: > > Dear Howard and Victor, > > First, I have great respect for both your understanding and the quality of > your posts. That said, I hope you're both wrong about this(!), as I > certainly don't ever expect to master the jhaanas. Assuming you're right, > though, let me ask this: Do you think the great many laypeople in the > suttanttaa who attained enlightenment were all jhaana masters? Certainly > the path arose and was perfected in them. > > In my (often faulty) memory of the discourses, I don't recall the Buddha > instructing laypeople in jhaana bhavana (corrections welcomed). My > impression is that this was (is?) an activity for recluses and that > 'amateur' jhaana bhavana by laypeople is a modern phenomena. In fact, it > has always seemed to me to be largely the basis for the Buddha's (vastly) > favorable comparisons to the life of a bhikkhu over that of a > layperson--that is, that the extraordinary moral/mental purity of conduct > (in the daily life of a bhikkhu) created a suitable environment for jhaana > bhavana. > > So, again (please excuse my long-windedness), were all these laypeople > jhaana masters? > > mike > ========================== I certainly don't think they were all jhana "masters"! I suspect that many had some jhana experience, but most didn't have even that. I think that stream entry is likely possible without any jhana experience, though access-level concentration is surely needed. I do think that attaining the jhanas, even "mastering" them is a possibility for many laypersons in many parts of today's world, due to the relatively easier life the mass of people have today compared to 2500 years ago. There are a good number of people fortunate enough to have the time and the financial wherewithal to attend many and lengthy meditation retreats, and to maintain a significant meditation practice on an ongoing basis throughout their life. Among these will be some with the "accumulations" conducive to mastering the jhanas. But, as I said, I do think that stream entry is a possibility even without jhana, and - hey! - obtaining stream entry wouldn't be a bad achievement for a lifetime, would it? (Let's not worry about becoming arahants at this point! ;-)) 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) 21805 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 7:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Jeff, > %%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > I am quite sure my good friend, if you establish a daily practice, and you > keep up your practice over a number of years, and you practice diligently you > will know what jhana is form personal experience. > %%%%%%%%%%% Thanks, but even if it really works, I wouldn't be able to. At work, five meters from my own shop, they sell computer speakers, so the level of noise is too high. At home I have two small boys who jump at me the moment I reach home, in fact on sundays if we don't go out, at the end of the day, I often end up with a fever. I don't even get much chance to sit and read mails. But the bathroom and in the car when caught in jams, are my favourite places for reading.:-) > %%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > No, my friend I speak of only one detachment. If one lets go, does not > attach, and remains alert and mindful, then the "unholsome" deminish and the > "holsom are exposed as non-arising subtle perception of delight and happiness. > %%%%%%%%%%% Maybe I should have added, that only a Buddha could see through the first kind of detachment. The rest were happy abiding in the first with the illusion that they had attained total liberation. > %%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Freedom is not, my good friend, an intellectual process. The mind, as we > know it in the West as the thinking process, cannot grasp freedom, liberation > because it is the very cause of the imprisonment. We need only free > ourselves of the tyranny of our own thinking, concepts and mental states to > know freedom. > %%%%%%%%%%% Allow me to express my understandings regarding this. It may not be the same as other though. When I study Abhidhamma, it is not about holding on to the descriptions and using it as a tool for explaining experiences, as would a physicist or a evolutionary biologist or psychologist do. There may be times when that happens, but this would have been because I cannot experience those states as described in the texts right at that moment, but need to explain certain things anyway or to find out what are the possible conditions that may be involved. However I am more concerned about learning what the texts say about my normal everyday experiences and I don't go about trying to identify these. Instead, when there is even a low level of awareness, I am simply reminded of what I have understood from reading and there may be a deeper level of understanding because I now have a fresh memory of the same states to directly study. This may happen for a fraction of a second followed my ignorance as usual, but depending on conditions, the subsequent moments of thinking can also be known. Hence the importance of repeated study and hearing of the correct dhamma, because there are so many different kinds of states alternating, that the wider knowledge we have and the frequency of being reminded, there may be conditions when more and more dhammas are known. There is I think a general misunderstanding about he study of Abhidhamma, from the outside and if one does not have a good teacher like K. Sujin to teach it, it will look like one takes the knowledge to *apply*, this may be what some consider an 'intellectual overlay'. But this is not the correct way to study. One must have a firm understanding of the distinction between concept and reality, so that one can recognize the difference when there is awareness. One must understand anatta and conditions quite well, so that one does not then *try* to catch realities nor think that 'sati' can be made to rise by will or certain ritualistic practice. And when one is not trying to be mindful, only then can there be genuine insight I think. As Nina said, 'without the teachings, we could not have known all this'. Which means to my understanding, that if we leave it to our own subjective experience, without the Buddhas guide, we will interpret it all wrong. > %%%%%%%%%%% > Jeff: > Or, it can be an instant in which you let go of those "mind states." > But the instant would have been the culmination of zillions of years of development. ;-) Best wishes, Sukin. 21806 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 8:35pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment Hi Jeff, I would like to correct the following: > There is I think a general misunderstanding about he study of > Abhidhamma, from the outside and if one does not have a good teacher > like K. Sujin to teach it, it will look like one takes the knowledge > to *apply*, this may be what some consider an 'intellectual > overlay'. There is 'application' however, as in when one is 'seeing', then one is reminded that what is actually seen is just 'visible object'. So there may be a moment of not being drawn to the signs and the particulars. So I guess I must distinguish between 'applying with 'self'' and 'application by conditions'.:-) Hope this is clear. Best, Sukin. 21807 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Introduction to the Abhidhamma -akusala citta, akusala kamma Dear Rob M, back to my old dilemma: is every akusala citta akusala kamma? Did you find something in Milinda? I still wonder about Atthasalini: who gives the different requirements for akusala to be akusala kamma patha. He is very definite here. Even when I take up glass thoughtlessly: already akusala kamma? Looking out of the window? I doubt about this, would this not give rise to undue fears and scruples? Nina op 30-04-2003 01:51 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > All unwholesome mental states create bad kamma. > The "weight" of the kamma created depends on the intensity of the > volition, or will, behind the mental state. Strong will means strong > kamma. 21808 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 9:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] get together. Dear Sarah, what about January next year? Lodewijk thought this time not in Dec but change it for once to January?? Nina. op 30-04-2003 14:59 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Sarah > p.s. Nina’s new series from Kang Krajan prompts me to say that I hope our > get-together next Dec in Bkk works out again. All our planned trips so far > for this year so far have been cancelled for one reason or other including > Bkk at this time and also the Alaska trip is now cancelled for everyone > due to SARS. 21809 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 10:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi Howard, Mike (and Victor), > ========================== > I certainly don't think they were all jhana "masters"! I suspect that > many had some jhana experience, but most didn't have even that. I think that > stream entry is likely possible without any jhana experience, though > access-level concentration is surely needed. > I do think that attaining the jhanas, even "mastering" them is a > possibility for many laypersons in many parts of today's world, due to the > relatively easier life the mass of people have today compared to 2500 years > ago. There are a good number of people fortunate enough to have the time and > the financial wherewithal to attend many and lengthy meditation retreats, and > to maintain a significant meditation practice on an ongoing basis throughout > their life. Among these will be some with the "accumulations" conducive to > mastering the jhanas. But, as I said, I do think that stream entry is a > possibility even without jhana, and - hey! - obtaining stream entry wouldn't > be a bad achievement for a lifetime, would it? (Let's not worry about > becoming arahants at this point! ;-)) ====================== But isn't jhana about relinquishing worldly attachment, seeing danger in it and the benefit of kusala? Is it just about sitting down because of previous accumulations and habit? How will a person who *feels* secure and comfortable with regard to the world know detachment? In this case insecurity and security is just two sides of the same coin, no? And it seems you are implying that a stream enterer will have to practice jhana if he wants to reach higher levels. But I thought that a stream enterer is assured of at most seven lives, no? If you are saying that he will by conditions automatically practice jhana, then what about the fact that he has overcome silabattaparamasa? Hope I have not misunderstood you. Metta, Sukin. 21810 From: connie Date: Wed Apr 30, 2003 11:42pm Subject: Re: Intro to Buddhism Hi, Sarah ~ I appreciate your encouragement, but like Sukin, have to say I only know how to expound on what others have written. I guess I still have some idea that telling people things is sort of like being one of the scribes copying the Torah with the belief that messing up one word will destroy the universe. But then, we want to end the world as we know it, don't we? >..............But I believe the best help we ever got from > God was when Buddha was sitting under the bo tree and might have decided > not to teach the Truth he had Enlightened to if Brahma had not said some > people would be able to understand. ..... Sarah: A further Q to you or anyone: The Buddha was omniscient, so what is the significance of Brahma saying what he would have known anyway? Connie: I don't know, but it's nice to be able to say 'God' did that for us and by implication, thinks 'practicing Buddhism' is the best way to honour him. How many times did Brahma have to say 'please teach'? In some of the Mahayana sutras, it is a big deal if Buddha starts to teach without being asked anything. There are also times when he has to be asked repeatedly, but for Pali Canon, now I can only think of when the dog (?) ascetic has to ask three times where those kinds of practices lead before Buddha answers. So maybe part of Brahma asking him is because of our resistance to really wanting to assimilate the truth? We are reminded that the highest gift (and responsibility?) is truth? Or that the biggest miracle involves teaching/learning rather than things like omniscience? Ok, there's my 3 guesses. ..... Sarah: It also reminds me of the Parinibbana sutta and the 'hint' about living for a normal lifespan which Ananda is reported not to have responded to (and was later rebuked for at the First Council) - why should Ananda's response or lack of be of such significance in determining the outcome of what would surely have been to everyone's benefit? Connie: And didn't Ananda, who listened to everything and obviously still missed the point (being wrapped up in his own thoughts?) also have three chances? Another reminder that we have to rely on ourselves... that if a Buddha was always around we might be even more complacent. And what was the point of him saying he would lay it all down in three months? peace, connie 21811 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 1, 2003 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhanas Dear Christine, ---------- > Did the Buddha strongly recommend mastery of the jhanas, not only as a refuge for here and now, but also as an essential part of the path? Are they essential? What about panna, what about ------------- Some rather broad questions there, Christine? :-) I see them as an invitation for speculative theorising. :-) So here goes: As you know, there are suttas in which the Buddha protects the priests of other religions. In the one I'm thinking of, he agreed to accept alms from a certain rich man, on condition that that man continue to support the priests of his former religion (who had become dependent upon him). Doesn't jhana fall into much the same scenario? Moments before the Buddha proclaimed his teaching, masters of jhana were the pinnacle of religious and intellectual hierarchy. They could teach a way that led to countless aeons of bliss. ('immediately followed by rebirth in the worlds of woe, but let's not be too critical.) Then, suddenly, there was a totally different Path that led, not to TEMPORARY release, but to FINAL release from dukkha. So who needs jhana masters? The Buddha spoke highly of them, he preached his first discourses to them and he encouraged them to continue their practices. He explained the ways in which an arahant with jhana attainment, was superior to an arahant without. But he also explained that, at Parinibbana, all arahants were equal. This included the omniscient Tathagatha, right down(!) to 'attainers by bare insight.' So how can there be any question as to which way we should go? I think it's a matter of samvega (sense of urgency). Do we have the time to learn jhana? We could die tomorrow, who knows when we will have another opportunity to hear the Dhamma? Had we the accumulations for jhana, our opportunity would be less tenuous. (I can't quote any sources for this, by the way.) In our preliminary practice, we would have developed, for example, the ability to remember past lives. So we would have the luxury of time. In such a case, it would be quite appropriate that we emulate the Buddha more closely and that we develop psychic powers. In so doing, we could both pay more respect and be better able to pass on the teaching. I think it's safe to say that you and I are not such highly developed beings -- but are any of us? If, twenty-six centuries ago, a person had the accumulations for jhana, wouldn't he/she have followed the Eight-fold Path to Parinibana by now? (The obvious exception would be a Bodhisattha, of course.) Since that time, would anyone have *acquired* accumulations for jhana? -- in preference to developing vipassana? I don't see why. So I wonder, today, in this human realm, is the real jhana taught or practised by anyone?(!) Kind regards, Ken H 21812 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 1, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: Mana and other akusala Hi Sukin, > > In other words, I > > wonder if all concepts of one's own self are akusala.(?) > > > What about if one is wisely reflecting on the benefit of moderation > in eating, and then one turns the attention to applying it to > oneself? > Ah, well, that may be the one exception :-) Trying to support my proposition though, I wonder why one would turn the attention to oneself. Isn't it enough to UNDERSTAND the benefits of moderation in eating? Thoughts of benefiting oneself, by practising moderation have an unseemly hint of self-centredness. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 21813 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:38am Subject: Addressing a Bhikkhuni Dear Group, I will be attending a lecture on Monday on Vipassana given by Bhikkhuni Kusuma. I would like to know how one addresses a Bhikkhuni? "Bhikkhuni Kusuma is a fully ordained nun in the Theravada tradition. This caused much controversy which is still not resolved today. The ordination of women in the Theravada tradition was brought to Sri Lanka in the third century BC by Ven Sanghamitta. The lineage mysteriously died out in Sri Lanka 1000 years ago. However, Sri Lankan bhikkhunis had migrated to China and then to Korea. Bhikkhuni Kusuma was ordained through the lineage in Korea and is now a leader in the international movement to revive the ordination of women in the Theravada tradition. She is a Pali scholar, with a PhD in the bhikkhuni vinaya and is head of the Ayya Khema International Buddha Mandir in Sri Lanka. Prior to ordaining, Bhikkhuni taught English at university in Sri Lanka for 20 years, and raised 6 children. She is a kind, wise and very warm person." metta, Christine 21814 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 1, 2003 4:44am Subject: Re: Mana and other akusala Hi Ken, I have a feeling that you are absolutely right in this, though it is not very clear in my mind. I feel it has to do with seperate moments with no need to refer to the self. Seeing the danger in overeating is seeing the danger in over eating, it has nothing to do with 'self'. Am I on the right track? I guess I might have been able to understand it more readily had I ever had any moments of kusasla with respect to eating!! :-) This leads me to something I have been thinking about. Conventionally we say things like, "I've learnt a lesson." In other religions we learn about kusala and akusala, but always in relation to 'self'. We think that if we learn from past akusala action or from what the religions say about right conduct, we are 'improving' ourselves. My question is, "Are we?" Can there be any uprooting of kilesas without satipatthana and vipassana? Can there be the correct course of action without right view? Maybe I should think more about this before putting forward the questions. But maybe I'll find out more about mana! :-) Metta, Sukin. 21815 From: Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi, Sukin - In a message dated 5/1/03 1:23:09 AM Eastern Daylight Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, Mike (and Victor), > > >========================== > > I certainly don't think they were all jhana "masters"! I suspect > that > >many had some jhana experience, but most didn't have even that. I > think that > >stream entry is likely possible without any jhana experience, though > >access-level concentration is surely needed. > > I do think that attaining the jhanas, even "mastering" them is a > >possibility for many laypersons in many parts of today's world, due to > the > >relatively easier life the mass of people have today compared to 2500 > years > >ago. There are a good number of people fortunate enough to have > the time and > >the financial wherewithal to attend many and lengthy meditation > retreats, and > >to maintain a significant meditation practice on an ongoing basis > throughout > >their life. Among these will be some with the "accumulations" > conducive to > >mastering the jhanas. But, as I said, I do think that stream entry is a > >possibility even without jhana, and - hey! - obtaining stream entry > wouldn't > >be a bad achievement for a lifetime, would it? (Let's not worry about > >becoming arahants at this point! ;-)) > ====================== > > But isn't jhana about relinquishing worldly attachment, seeing danger in > it and the benefit of kusala? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Jhana is about making the mind a fit tool. ------------------------------------------------------- Is it just about sitting down because of > > previous accumulations and habit? ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: For any endeavor, we do better at what we are better suited for. Obviously, howver, as the old saying goes, "practice makes perfect." ------------------------------------------------------ How will a person who *feels* > > secure and comfortable with regard to the world know detachment? In > this case insecurity and security is just two sides of the same coin, no? ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The point is that jhana practice takes lots of time. A person who leads a life that is a harsh, desperate battle for survival will not have that opportunity. Isn't that rather obvious? Even in the best of times, the Buddha saw being a "full-time practitioner," a bhikkhu, as optimal. ------------------------------------------------------ > > And it seems you are implying that a stream enterer will have to > practice jhana if he wants to reach higher levels. But I thought that a > stream enterer is assured of at most seven lives, no? > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know. Perhaps a stream enterer is in a better position to master jhanas. But I have read that it is possible to fall away from being a stream enterer. What have you read in that regard? --------------------------------------------------------- If you are saying > > that he will by conditions automatically practice jhana, then what about > the fact that he has overcome silabattaparamasa? > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: If you are implying that practicing the jhanas, as recommeneded again and again and again by the Buddha to his Bhikkhus, constututes an attachment to ritual, I think you are wildly off-base. The Buddha defined the first 4 jhanas as constituting right concentration, an integral part of the eightfold noble path. I find your position here to be extreme and off the mark. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Hope I have not misunderstood you. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I don't know. I hope I *have* misunderstood you. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Metta, > Sukin. > > ========================== 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) 21816 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 1, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi Howard, ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 7:23 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas > Hi, Mike (and Victor) - > > In a message dated 4/30/03 11:05:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > mlnease@z... writes: > > > > > Dear Howard and Victor, > > > > First, I have great respect for both your understanding and the quality of > > your posts. That said, I hope you're both wrong about this(!), as I > > certainly don't ever expect to master the jhaanas. Assuming you're right, > > though, let me ask this: Do you think the great many laypeople in the > > suttanttaa who attained enlightenment were all jhaana masters? Certainly > > the path arose and was perfected in them. > > > > In my (often faulty) memory of the discourses, I don't recall the Buddha > > instructing laypeople in jhaana bhavana (corrections welcomed). My > > impression is that this was (is?) an activity for recluses and that > > 'amateur' jhaana bhavana by laypeople is a modern phenomena. In fact, it > > has always seemed to me to be largely the basis for the Buddha's (vastly) > > favorable comparisons to the life of a bhikkhu over that of a > > layperson--that is, that the extraordinary moral/mental purity of conduct > > (in the daily life of a bhikkhu) created a suitable environment for jhaana > > bhavana. > > > > So, again (please excuse my long-windedness), were all these laypeople > > jhaana masters? > > > > mike > > > ========================== > I certainly don't think they were all jhana "masters"! I suspect that > many had some jhana experience, but most didn't have even that. This is the way it seems to me, too. > I think that > stream entry is likely possible without any jhana experience, though > access-level concentration is surely needed. Again, this seems just right to me. > I do think that attaining the jhanas, even "mastering" them is a > possibility for many laypersons in many parts of today's world, due to the > relatively easier life the mass of people have today compared to 2500 years > ago. Maybe so, I can't tell about this. > There are a good number of people fortunate enough to have the time and > the financial wherewithal to attend many and lengthy meditation retreats, and > to maintain a significant meditation practice on an ongoing basis throughout > their life. Among these will be some with the "accumulations" conducive to > mastering the jhanas. But, as I said, I do think that stream entry is a > possibility even without jhana, and - hey! - obtaining stream entry wouldn't > be a bad achievement for a lifetime, would it? Absolutely. > (Let's not worry about > becoming arahants at this point! ;-)) Quite right! I guess I had misunderstood your and Victor's posts to say that mastery of jhaana was a prerequisite to (or at least an essential component of, as the eighth factor) the arising of the path. Thanks for the clarification (what a relief!). Mike > 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) 21817 From: m. nease Date: Thu May 1, 2003 6:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Dear Nina and RobM, Just quickly--yes, of course, it's the other cittas in a process. I don't habitually think of 'processes' because I have no insight into this (and only fairly weak theoretical knowledge)--so my conceptualization of vi~n~naa.na is grossly undersimplified. Thanks for the reminders. Mike ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2003 10:14 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] seeing only sees. Dear Rob M, Thank you very much. I just have one point that puzzles me somewhat:as I understand it, the other cittas in the eye-door process also experience visible object, not a mental image. I remember I had a conversation about this or something similar with Howard. It is just the term mental image. Also in the subsequent mind-door process the object is visible object, not a mental image. There was some discussion about this before in view of vipassana nana: it is visible object that is realized by insight knowledge through the mind-door, in a mind-door process. It knows through the mind-door nama as nama and rupa as rupa, not a mental image of rupa. It helps to differentiate the functions of physical base, vatthu and doorway, dvara. I see it more this way: cittas know on object through a doorway, I would not stress: they access it through a base, since this is only the place of origin of the citta, although it is the same rupa in the case of seeing, namely the eyesense. I would not use the word mindbase for the physical base of cittas, since this is also the word used for manaayaatana. If you like to avoid the word heart base, you could say, the rupa which is the base for those cittas. After seeing has seen visible object it is succeeded by other cittas which also experience visible object since this has not fallen away, it lasts as long as seventeen moments of citta, comparing the duration of rupa with the duration of citta. Thus, it is still experienced, it is not a mental image. Perhaps Dhamma Issues no. 1 on ayatanas could be of interest here, quoting only a part : Nina. op 29-04-2003 06:25 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > The seeing consciousness citta is the only citta in the > sense door citta process that "directly" touches the rupa (visible > object); the subsequent cittas in the same sense door citta process > only access a mental image (through the mind-base). > - In the case of the remaining 16 cittas, the object must be > accessed through the mind-base. For these cittas, the object is a > mental image. This is a "less direct" connection than occurs with > the seeing consciousness, so there is a need for the cetasiaka > vitakka "to provide an introduction to the object" and there is a > need for the cetasika vicara to "sustain connection with the object". 21818 From: smallchap Date: Thu May 1, 2003 7:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Computer as conditioned Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > >S: I know you are setting me up. I am a willing victim. :) > >J: Yes, I should tread carefully, if I were you ... S: ;-) > J: Yes, but may I ask, Does a computer arise, and if so, what are > some > of the conditions for its arising (that cause it to arise)? > > S: Yes. It does arise. > > Here are some of the conditions for it arising: > 1. the intention to build a computer; > 2. the availability of the necessary materials and components > for building a computer; > 3. the facilities; > 4. and the knowledge of building a computer. > > J: But is this an instance of what the Buddha was talking about when he > spoke of all 'sankhara'/'conditioned dhammas' being conditioned? S: Of course not. But they condition the computer, don't you agree? > J: The knowledge that a computer is built from parts and did not > spontaneously come into existence as an assembled whole is not the > kind of knowledge that is peculiar to the teaching of a Buddha. S: I agree. > J: To my understanding, the arising and falling away that the Buddha > talked about in suttas such as M.148 quoted by Swee Boon recently is > momentary rising and falling away, something that is not at all > apparent to one who has not developed insight into the true nature of > dhammas/fundamental phenomena. S: I agree. > J: So I woud say that we need to distinguish between conventional ideas > of impermanence (or conditioned nature), and impermanence (or > conditioned nature) in the ultimate sense as taught by the Buddha. S: The thought of conventional impermanence often triggers insight. It has its place in developing insight. It should not be regarded as something that will hinder insight. In the Maha-cattarisaka Sutta (MN 117), it is said: "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 for 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. So, one should not disregard conventional right view. smallchap ps. During "insight meditation", with the arising of insight knowledge, one can "see" or "feel" (not thinking! Because it is impossible to think when samadhi is strong) the arising and falling of the khandhas and directly know them as anicca, dukkha and anatta. 21819 From: smallchap Date: Thu May 1, 2003 7:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues 6, no 2. Dear Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Maybe someone else knows a reason? > I am interested. Could there be an exception or a special reason for this > case? I discussed it with my teacher some years ago. He said it could be due to Suddhodana's extra-ordinary accumulation (Parami) but it was not conclusive. Do you have a text? > I read in Pali Proper Names, II, p. 1201: when he was about to die, the > Buddha came from Vesali to see him and preach to him, and Suddhodana became > an arahat and died as a lay arahat. It does not say about a week. We do not > know how long he was on his death bed. I read it from Narada Thera's "The Buddha and His Teaching" ch. 8 (he wrote "A Manual of Abhidhamma") but unfortunately no reference was given. The Pali Proper Names points to Therigatha Commentery 141. You may want to check it out. I have no access to it neither can I read Pali. smallchap 21820 From: Lee Dillion Date: Thu May 1, 2003 8:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas m. nease wrote: > Dear Howard and Victor, > > First, I have great respect for both your understanding and the quality of > your posts. That said, I hope you're both wrong about this(!), as I > certainly don't ever expect to master the jhaanas. Assuming you're right, > though, let me ask this: Do you think the great many laypeople in the > suttanttaa who attained enlightenment were all jhaana masters? Certainly > the path arose and was perfected in them. > > In my (often faulty) memory of the discourses, I don't recall the Buddha > instructing laypeople in jhaana bhavana (corrections welcomed). My > impression is that this was (is?) an activity for recluses and that > 'amateur' jhaana bhavana by laypeople is a modern phenomena. In fact, it > has always seemed to me to be largely the basis for the Buddha's (vastly) > favorable comparisons to the life of a bhikkhu over that of a > layperson--that is, that the extraordinary moral/mental purity of conduct > (in the daily life of a bhikkhu) created a suitable environment for jhaana > bhavana. > > So, again (please excuse my long-windedness), were all these laypeople > jhaana masters? The discussion of jhanas has been occurring across multiple lists for the past few weeks. Here is a post that I made to the dhamma-list last week that may be of some help in describing the type of "momentary concentration" that the author of the referenced article believes "fulfills the same function as the basic jhana of the serenity vehicle": ----- I doubt we will resolve the perennial question of jhanic v. insight practices within Buddhism, but you might be interested in the article on the Jhanas at http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel351.html (a theravadin site) that discusses the relationship between the two approaches. I read the full article to stand for the following propositions; 1. The jhanas are neither necessary nor sufficient for awakening, but can be an effective vehicle for many to develop the necessary basis of concentration for insight. 2. Insight meditation, while requiring a degree of concentration, does not require formal jhanic practices. The "momentary concentration" of the insight approach "fulfills the same function as the basic jhana of the serenity vehicle." I personally do not do any jhana type meditation, but I have no reason to doubt that many can benefit from this approach as long as it is understood as providing a basis for insight and not as an end unto itself. An excerpt from the article on the Jhanas is as follows: --------- The Theravada tradition recognizes two alternative approaches to the development of wisdom, between which practitioners are free to choose according to their aptitude and propensity. These two approaches are the vehicle of serenity (samathayana) and the vehicle of insight (vipassanayana). The meditators who follow them are called, respectively, the samathayanika, "one who makes serenity his vehicle," and the vipassanayanika, "one who makes insight his vehicle." Since both vehicles, despite their names, are approaches to developing insight, to prevent misunderstanding the latter type of meditator is sometimes called a suddhavipassanayanika, "one who makes bare insight his vehicle," or a sukkhavipassaka, "a dry-insight worker." Though all three terms appear initially in the commentaries rather than in the suttas, the recognition of the two vehicles seems implicit in a number of canonical passages. The samathayanika is a meditator who first attains access concentration or one of the eight mundane jhanas, then emerges and uses his attainment as a basis for cultivating insight until he arrives at the supramundane path. In contrast, the vipassanayanika does not attain mundane jhana prior to practicing insight contemplation, or if he does, does not use it as an instrument for cultivating insight. Instead, without entering and emerging from jhana, he proceeds directly to insight contemplation on mental and material phenomena and by means of this bare insight he reaches the noble path. For both kinds of meditator the experience of the path in any of its four stages always occurs at a level of jhanic intensity and thus necessarily includes supramundane jhana under the heading of right concentration (samma samadhi), the eighth factor of the Noble Eightfold Path. The classical source for the distinction between the two vehicles of serenity and insight is the Visuddhimagga where it is explained that when a meditator begins the development of wisdom "if firstly, his vehicle is serenity, [he] should emerge from any fine-material or immaterial jhana except the base consisting of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and he should discern, according to characteristic, function, etc. the jhana factors consisting of applied thought, etc. and the states associated with them" (Vism. 557; PP679-80). Other commentarial passages allow access concentration to suffice for the vehicle of serenity, but the last immaterial jhana is excluded because its factors are too subtle to be discerned. The meditator whose vehicle is pure insight, on the other hand, is advised to start directly by discerning material and mental phenomena, beginning with the four elements, without utilizing a jhana for this purpose (Vism. 558; PP.680). Thus the samathayanika first attains access concentration or mundane jhana and then develops insight knowledge, by means of which he reaches the supramundane path containing wisdom under the heading of right view, and supramundane jhana under the heading of right concentration. The vipassanayanika, in contrast, skips over mundane jhana and goes directly into insight contemplation. When he reaches the end of the progression of insight knowledge he arrives at the supramundane path which, as in the previous case, brings together wisdom with supramundane jhana. This jhana counts as his accomplishment of serenity. For a meditator following the vehicle of serenity the attainment of jhana fulfills two functions: first, it produces a basis of mental purity and inner collectedness needed for undertaking the work of insight contemplation; and second, it serves as an object to be examined with insight in order to discern the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering and non-self. Jhana accomplishes the first function by providing a powerful instrument for overcoming the five hindrances. As we have seen, for wisdom to arise the mind must first be concentrated well, and to be concentrated well it must be freed from the hindrances, a task accomplished pre-eminently by the attainment of jhana. Though access concentration will keep the hindrances at bay, jhana will ensure that they are removed to a much safer distance. In their capacity for producing concentration the jhanas are called the basis (pada) for insight, and that particular jhana a meditator enters and emerges from before commencing his practice of insight is designated his padakajjhana, the basic or foundational jhana. Insight cannot be practiced while absorbed in jhana, since insight meditation requires investigation and observation, which are impossible when the mind is immersed in one-pointed absorption. But after emerging from the jhana the mind is cleared of the hindrances, and the stillness and clarity that then result conduce to precise, penetrating insight. The jhanas also enter into the samathayanika's practice in second capacity, that is, as objects for scrutinization by insight. The practice of insight consists essentially in the examination of mental and physical phenomena to discover their marks of impermanence, suffering and non-self. The jhanas a meditator attains provide him with a readily available and strikingly clear object in which to seek out the three characteristics. After emerging from a jhana the meditator will proceed to examine the jhanic consciousness and to discern the way it exemplifies the three universal marks. This process is called sammasanañana, "comprehension knowledge," and the jhana subject to such treatment is termed sammasitajjhana, "the comprehended jhana" (Vism. 607-11; PP.706-10). Though the basic jhana and the comprehended jhana will often be the same, the two do not necessarily coincide. A meditator cannot practice comprehension on a jhana higher than he is capable of attaining, but one who uses a higher jhana as his padakajjhana can still practice insight comprehension on a lower jhana which he has previously attained and mastered. The admitted difference between the padakajjhana and the sammasitajjhana leads to discrepant theories about the supramundane concentration of the noble path, as we will see. Whereas the sequence of training undertaken by the samathayanika meditator is unproblematic, the vipassanayanika's approach presents the difficulty of accounting for the concentration he uses to provide a basis for insight. Concentration is needed in order to see and know things as they are, but without access concentration or jhana, what concentration can he use? The solution to this problem is found in a type of concentration distinct from the access and absorption concentrations pertaining to the vehicle of serenity, called "momentary concentration" (khanika samadhi). Despite its name, momentary concentration does not signify a single moment of concentration amidst a current of distracted thoughts, but a dynamic concentration which flows from object to object in the ever-changing flux of phenomena, retaining a constant degree of intensity and collectedness sufficient to purify the mind of the hindrances. Momentary concentration arises in the samathayanika simultaneously with his post-jhanic attainment of insight, but for the vipassanayanika it develops naturally and spontaneously in the course of his insight practice without his having to fix the mind upon a single exclusive object. Thus the follower of the vehicle of insight does not omit concentration altogether from his training, but develops it in a different manner from the practitioner of serenity. Without gaining jhana he goes directly into contemplation on the five aggregates and by observing them constantly from moment to moment acquires momentary concentration as an accompaniment of his investigations. This momentary concentration fulfills the same function as the basic jhana of the serenity vehicle, providing the foundation of mental clarity needed for insight to emerge. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel351.html#ch5.2 21821 From: yasalalaka Date: Thu May 1, 2003 9:15am Subject: Re: Jhanas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lee Dillion wrote: > m. nease wrote: > > > Dear Howard and Victor, > > > > First, I have great respect for both your understanding and the quality of > > your posts. That said, I hope you're both wrong about this(!), as I > > certainly don't ever expect to master the jhaanas. Assuming you're right, > > though, let me ask this: Do you think the great many laypeople in the > > suttanttaa who attained enlightenment were all jhaana masters? Certainly > > the path arose and was perfected in them. > > > > In my (often faulty) memory of the discourses, I don't recall the Buddha > > instructing laypeople in jhaana bhavana (corrections welcomed). My > > impression is that this was (is?) an activity for recluses and that > > 'amateur' jhaana bhavana by laypeople is a modern phenomena. In fact, it > > has always seemed to me to be largely the basis for the Buddha's (vastly) > > favorable comparisons to the life of a bhikkhu over that of a > > layperson--that is, that the extraordinary moral/mental purity of conduct > > (in the daily life of a bhikkhu) created a suitable environment for jhaana > > bhavana. > > > > So, again (please excuse my long-windedness), were all these laypeople > > jhaana masters? > > The discussion of jhanas has been occurring across multiple lists for > the past few weeks. Here is a post that I made to the dhamma-list last > week that may be of some help in describing the type of "momentary > concentration" that the author of the referenced article believes > "fulfills the same function as the basic jhana of the serenity vehicle": > > ----- > I doubt we will resolve the perennial question of jhanic v. insight > practices within Buddhism, but you might be interested in the article on > the Jhanas at > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel351.html (a > theravadin site) that discusses the relationship between the two > approaches. I read the full article to stand for the following > propositions; > > 1. The jhanas are neither necessary nor sufficient for awakening, but > can be an effective vehicle for many to develop the necessary basis of > concentration for insight. > > 2. Insight meditation, while requiring a degree of concentration, does > not require formal jhanic practices. The "momentary concentration" of > the insight approach "fulfills the same function as the basic jhana of > the serenity vehicle." > > I personally do not do any jhana type meditation, but I have no reason > to doubt that many can benefit from this approach as long as it is > understood as providing a basis for insight and not as an end unto itself. > > An excerpt from the article on the Jhanas is as follows: > > --------- > The Theravada tradition recognizes two alternative approaches to the > development of wisdom, between which practitioners are free to choose > according to their aptitude and propensity. These two approaches are the > vehicle of serenity (samathayana) and the vehicle of insight > (vipassanayana). The meditators who follow them are called, > respectively, the samathayanika, "one who makes serenity his vehicle," > and the vipassanayanika, "one who makes insight his vehicle." Since both > vehicles, despite their names, are approaches to developing insight, to > prevent misunderstanding the latter type of meditator is sometimes > called a suddhavipassanayanika, "one who makes bare insight his > vehicle," or a sukkhavipassaka, "a dry-insight worker." Though all three > terms appear initially in the commentaries rather than in the suttas, > the recognition of the two vehicles seems implicit in a number of > canonical passages. > > The samathayanika is a meditator who first attains access concentration > or one of the eight mundane jhanas, then emerges and uses his attainment > as a basis for cultivating insight until he arrives at the supramundane > path. In contrast, the vipassanayanika does not attain mundane jhana > prior to practicing insight contemplation, or if he does, does not use > it as an instrument for cultivating insight. Instead, without entering > and emerging from jhana, he proceeds directly to insight contemplation > on mental and material phenomena and by means of this bare insight he > reaches the noble path. For both kinds of meditator the experience of > the path in any of its four stages always occurs at a level of jhanic > intensity and thus necessarily includes supramundane jhana under the > heading of right concentration (samma samadhi), the eighth factor of the > Noble Eightfold Path. > > The classical source for the distinction between the two vehicles of > serenity and insight is the Visuddhimagga where it is explained that > when a meditator begins the development of wisdom "if firstly, his > vehicle is serenity, [he] should emerge from any fine-material or > immaterial jhana except the base consisting of > neither-perception-nor-non-perception, and he should discern, according > to characteristic, function, etc. the jhana factors consisting of > applied thought, etc. and the states associated with them" (Vism. 557; > PP679-80). Other commentarial passages allow access concentration to > suffice for the vehicle of serenity, but the last immaterial jhana is > excluded because its factors are too subtle to be discerned. The > meditator whose vehicle is pure insight, on the other hand, is advised > to start directly by discerning material and mental phenomena, beginning > with the four elements, without utilizing a jhana for this purpose > (Vism. 558; PP.680). Thus the samathayanika first attains access > concentration or mundane jhana and then develops insight knowledge, by > means of which he reaches the supramundane path containing wisdom under > the heading of right view, and supramundane jhana under the heading of > right concentration. The vipassanayanika, in contrast, skips over > mundane jhana and goes directly into insight contemplation. When he > reaches the end of the progression of insight knowledge he arrives at > the supramundane path which, as in the previous case, brings together > wisdom with supramundane jhana. This jhana counts as his accomplishment > of serenity. > > For a meditator following the vehicle of serenity the attainment of > jhana fulfills two functions: first, it produces a basis of mental > purity and inner collectedness needed for undertaking the work of > insight contemplation; and second, it serves as an object to be examined > with insight in order to discern the three characteristics of > impermanence, suffering and non-self. Jhana accomplishes the first > function by providing a powerful instrument for overcoming the five > hindrances. As we have seen, for wisdom to arise the mind must first be > concentrated well, and to be concentrated well it must be freed from the > hindrances, a task accomplished pre-eminently by the attainment of > jhana. Though access concentration will keep the hindrances at bay, > jhana will ensure that they are removed to a much safer distance. > > In their capacity for producing concentration the jhanas are called the > basis (pada) for insight, and that particular jhana a meditator enters > and emerges from before commencing his practice of insight is designated > his padakajjhana, the basic or foundational jhana. Insight cannot be > practiced while absorbed in jhana, since insight meditation requires > investigation and observation, which are impossible when the mind is > immersed in one-pointed absorption. But after emerging from the jhana > the mind is cleared of the hindrances, and the stillness and clarity > that then result conduce to precise, penetrating insight. > > The jhanas also enter into the samathayanika's practice in second > capacity, that is, as objects for scrutinization by insight. The > practice of insight consists essentially in the examination of mental > and physical phenomena to discover their marks of impermanence, > suffering and non-self. The jhanas a meditator attains provide him with > a readily available and strikingly clear object in which to seek out the > three characteristics. After emerging from a jhana the meditator will > proceed to examine the jhanic consciousness and to discern the way it > exemplifies the three universal marks. This process is called > sammasanañana, "comprehension knowledge," and the jhana subject to such > treatment is termed sammasitajjhana, "the comprehended jhana" (Vism. > 607-11; PP.706-10). Though the basic jhana and the comprehended jhana > will often be the same, the two do not necessarily coincide. A meditator > cannot practice comprehension on a jhana higher than he is capable of > attaining, but one who uses a higher jhana as his padakajjhana can still > practice insight comprehension on a lower jhana which he has previously > attained and mastered. The admitted difference between the padakajjhana > and the sammasitajjhana leads to discrepant theories about the > supramundane concentration of the noble path, as we will see. > > Whereas the sequence of training undertaken by the samathayanika > meditator is unproblematic, the vipassanayanika's approach presents the > difficulty of accounting for the concentration he uses to provide a > basis for insight. Concentration is needed in order to see and know > things as they are, but without access concentration or jhana, what > concentration can he use? The solution to this problem is found in a > type of concentration distinct from the access and absorption > concentrations pertaining to the vehicle of serenity, called "momentary > concentration" (khanika samadhi). Despite its name, momentary > concentration does not signify a single moment of concentration amidst a > current of distracted thoughts, but a dynamic concentration which flows > from object to object in the ever-changing flux of phenomena, retaining > a constant degree of intensity and collectedness sufficient to purify > the mind of the hindrances. Momentary concentration arises in the > samathayanika simultaneously with his post-jhanic attainment of insight, > but for the vipassanayanika it develops naturally and spontaneously in > the course of his insight practice without his having to fix the mind > upon a single exclusive object. Thus the follower of the vehicle of > insight does not omit concentration altogether from his training, but > develops it in a different manner from the practitioner of serenity. > Without gaining jhana he goes directly into contemplation on the five > aggregates and by observing them constantly from moment to moment > acquires momentary concentration as an accompaniment of his > investigations. This momentary concentration fulfills the same function > as the basic jhana of the serenity vehicle, providing the foundation of > mental clarity needed for insight to emerge. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel351.html#ch5.2 I am copying below my post No;21711 , which tried to explain the place of jhana in the teachings of the Buddha. After reading this, please say whether, this provided you with the necessary information or you would like to have further elaboration. with metta Yasalalaka ******** I was reading the several posts on Jhana, Samatha, and Meditation. I was beginning to discuss some of these very same matters with, Sukin, and he showed a disinclination to continue the discussion with me and I thought I had stepped on to unknown ground in trying to discuss meditation, when the members of the forum are primarily here to discus Abhidhamma. However, having read the several post I have mentioned, and being a member of this group to learn Abhidhamma, I thought I will make my contribution on Meditation and allied matters. During the time the Prince Siddhartha was born in ancient India, there was 62 different schools of philosophy. The well known teachers of some of them were, Purana Kassapa, Makkhali Ghosala, Ajita Kesakambila, Pakuddha Kachchayana, Niganta Nataputta and Sanjay Belathaputta. They practiced samata ( quietude)meditation, using Kasina, which are the 40 different types of arammana to develop concentration . In samath, the mind is quietened first by attaining one pointed concentration( samadhi). Continuing to develop the concentration, with the eyes fixed on the Kasina, they attain jhana( dyana) absorptions. There are eight stages of jhana absorptions, four rupa jhana, ( first, second, third ,forth) and four arupa jhana. (fifth,sixth,seventh, and eighth). The first four jhana develop the mind and go into a deep "silence", very calm and serene, no thoughts arise in the mind. At the third and the fourth stages, mind is so deeply concentrated the meditator will not be aware of the body. Thereafter, the fifth to eight stages of absorptions give the meditator supernatural power. The Hindu teachers,and philosophers practiced these meditations even before the Prince Siddhartha was born. Prince Siddhartha, saw the four signs, and knew there was untold suffering , among beings and thought that there must be a cause for this, and that one may be able to stop it by eliminating the cause. He studied under some of the great teachers at the time, I had mentioned earlier. But he was disappointed . Ascetic Siddhartha, thought that it is through self-inflicted pain that he may be able to delve into the truth, and practiced austerity for six years, having failed in that endeavour, he left his five devoted companions, and went on his own. The rest of the story we know. Lord Buddha, practiced the samatha, meditation following the anapanasati,( taking the in and out breath) as the object of concentration(arammana). That was a means of clearing the mind of the incessantly arising and falling away of the thought processes. At the forth jhana absorption the mind is clear, serene, calm, and alert, but incapable of any other mental activity. Therefore the Buddha, after attaining the fourth jhana, came out of it and continued looking into the causes of suffering, looking at the mental activity in different ways, that was the insight meditation (vipassana), the unique method found by the Buddha himself. In vipassana, the Buddha tried to see the ` working', not just the understanding, of impermanence(anicca), unsatisfactoriness( dukkha ) and no-self (anatta). It is only through this insight or penetrating into the working of his own mind that the Buddha, `saw' dukkha, its cause, the way out of it and its cessation. He was able to differentiate between the conventional truth and the ultimate truth. A being is just five aggregates ( rupakkhandha, vedenakkhandha,sannanakkhandha, vinnanakkhandha and sankharakkhandha), and the cause of this suffering is rooted in lobha, dosa, moha, which has created in the mind of the being that he is a person, a "self", and every thing around is permanent, pleasant, and that they are for his enjoyment. The Buddha knew that once the beings become aware of the irreality of this thinking, they will turn to his teaching, which will enable them to go through the same experience he went through and attain nibbana. With metta, Yasalalaka 21822 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu May 1, 2003 9:31am Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi Howard, I am not surprised if indeed I am being too extreme, since most of my understandings are from inference and I never have the energy nor patience to consider them thoroughly, hence there must be some slant. The other point is, since I tend to generalize, there must be some degree of attachment too. There is nothing much that I can do about it, except rely on dhamma friends to correct me. But being on either side is something I definitely don't want to be, I want to be on the Middle Path. So lets see if you can help me. But of course I won't be able to get away from creating the impression anyway, since my style of expression itself, gives some impression of that extremism, unlike your own, which is usually quite friendly. ;-) S: > > But isn't jhana about relinquishing worldly attachment, seeing danger in > > it and the benefit of kusala? > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Jhana is about making the mind a fit tool. > ------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Is it? Is this what the ancient masters had in mind when they practiced it, are you sure?! I thought jhana was about developing very high levels of kusala. ---------------------------------------------------------- S: > Is it just about sitting down because of > > > previous accumulations and habit? > ------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > For any endeavor, we do better at what we are better suited for. > Obviously, howver, as the old saying goes, "practice makes perfect." > ------------------------------------------------------ Sukin: If you think that "Jhana is about making the mind a fit tool", then I can understand why you would make this conclusion. But we will have to establish "what is jhana" in the first place. So now I will have to invite other members to join in!! >------------------------------------------------------ S: How will a person who *feels* > > > secure and comfortable with regard to the world know detachment? In > > this case insecurity and security is just two sides of the same coin, no? > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The point is that jhana practice takes lots of time. A person who > leads a life that is a harsh, desperate battle for survival will not have > that opportunity. Isn't that rather obvious? Even in the best of times, the > Buddha saw being a "full-time practitioner," a bhikkhu, as optimal. > ------------------------------------------------------ Sukin: But if my understanding of jhana is correct, then I see equal danger in the life of luxury and comfort, ie, if he clings to it. I think a serious jhana practtioner must have resolved to relinquish all attachment to pleasure as well as pain. But I do agree that if he does not at least get food regularly and have a comfortable place to live, then it would not be conducive. It is for similar reason, I feel, that someone in those times would choose to ordained (leaving out exceptions). Only in this case it would be taking refuge in the Triple Gem primarily. Becoming a bhikkhu was not to practice jhana, but whatever it takes to reach vipassana. And jhana is not *the* practice for reaching vipassana, but satipatthana is. But all kusala supports one's development, and jhana is the highest kind of kusala with the exception of vipassana. So monks who had accumulations for jhana, practiced it, *why fight it*, besides one cannot be expected to have satipatthana all he time. But on the other hand, those who didn't have the accumulations, did not have to, they could practice bare-insight. And *why fight these accumulations* and make an attempt to practice jhana? --------------------------------------------------- S: > > And it seems you are implying that a stream enterer will have to > > practice jhana if he wants to reach higher levels. But I thought that a > > stream enterer is assured of at most seven lives, no? > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't know. Perhaps a stream enterer is in a better position to > master jhanas. But I have read that it is possible to fall away from being a > stream enterer. What have you read in that regard? > --------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Only that they have at most seven lives to live, and falling away from it is out of the question. It is an imposibility, no more kilesas that would make them puthujanas again. -------------------------------------------------------- S: > If you are saying > > > that he will by conditions automatically practice jhana, then what about > > the fact that he has overcome silabattaparamasa? > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > If you are implying that practicing the jhanas, as recommeneded again > and again and again by the Buddha to his Bhikkhus, constututes an attachment > to ritual, I think you are wildly off-base. The Buddha defined the first 4 > jhanas as constituting right concentration, an integral part of the eightfold > noble path. I find your position here to be extreme and off the mark. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: I hope my explanation above helps to make my position clearer. When the Buddha asked his Bhikkhus to practice jhana, it was because that was natural to them. But since it does not have anything directly to do with the development of the path itself, it wouldn't constitute silabattaparamasa. But if you do make a connection between jhana and the ultimate goal of enlightenment, saying that jhana is indispensable, then it is silabattaparamasa. And if you insist that a sotapana must practice it, then it is a contradiction. ------------------------------------------------------ S: > > Hope I have not misunderstood you. > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I don't know. I hope I *have* misunderstood you. > ----------------------------------------------------------- Sukin: Hope we both get it right, ultimately. :-) Metta, Sukin 21823 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu May 1, 2003 10:20am Subject: Abhidhamma in Kraeng Kacang, no 3. At this moment a dhamma appears and it has a characteristic that can be known in accordance with what we learnt through the theoretical knowledge of realities. Citta, consciousness, is nåma and it is accompanied by several mental factors, cetasikas which are also nåma. Cetasikas experience the same object as the citta they accompany, but they perform each their own function. We were reminded time and again: ³People study citta, but they do not know the citta that is appearing now.² Seeing is a citta, it is nåma that experiences visible object. Visible object is rúpa that appears through the eyes. Hearing is another citta, different from seeing. I said to Acharn Sujin that I am forgetful of seeing that appears now, and hearing that appears now. She answered that I should listen again to the Dhamma, that I should listen and consider realities very often. Paññå does not know something other than what naturally appears at this moment. When a reality appears one at a time, nothing else can appear at that moment. It is true that only one dhamma appears at a time, and that the next moment another dhamma appears. We can verify that when seeing arises, there cannot be hearing at the same time. These two types of cittas arise because of different conditions: they experience a different object and they are dependent on a different base. We think about the dhamma that appears and we cling to it. However, this prevents us from being aware of other dhammas that appear afterwards. Acharn Sujin said to me: ²Never forget that at this moment a reality is appearing, and that one characteristic appears at a time.² Realities are appearing all the time, but they are not objects of sati, because we are forgetful. I was reminded that we only think of the story, the subject matter of nåma and rúpa. We have to be very sincere as to our own understanding. We may read a great deal about nåma and rúpa, but this is only theoretical understanding, different from sati-sampajaññå arising at the present moment. Understanding of the difference between thinking of realities and direct understanding of them is essential. I find that this was the most important lesson I learnt when I was in Thailand this time. I remarked that each time I come to Thailand, I realize more how little I know. Jonothan answered: ³When you realize this, does that not mean that there is more understanding? That is encouraging.² It is true: when we realize our deeply engrained ignorance and wrong view, it helps us not to have vain expectations about the growth of paññå. The Buddha taught people to develop right understanding of what appears at the present moment, and this is satipatthåna. 21824 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu May 1, 2003 0:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi Sukin, Howard, and all, Pardon me for jumping in. Sukin, could you explain what "silabattaparamasa" means? I tried to look it up but couldn't find it in the online Pali-English dictionary. Your explanation is appreciated. I would think that when the Buddha asked bhikkhus to practice jhana, it was not because that was natural to them. Rather, I would think it is because right concentration, like seven other factors in the Noble Eightfold Path, is necessary for reaching the goal of liberation. I would not say that jhana is not *the* practice for reaching vipassana. In fact, I see that concentration is necessary for reaching insight.* Your comments are much appreciated!! Regards, Victor * "The knowledge and vision of things as they really are, monks, also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for the knowledge and vision of things as they really are? 'Concentration' should be the reply." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-023a.html --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Hi Howard, > [snip] > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > Jhana is about making the mind a fit tool. > > ------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > Is it? Is this what the ancient masters had in mind when they > practiced it, are you sure?! I thought jhana was about developing > very high levels of kusala. > ---------------------------------------------------------- > S: > > Is it just about sitting down because of > > > > previous accumulations and habit? > > ------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > For any endeavor, we do better at what we are better suited > for. > > Obviously, howver, as the old saying goes, "practice makes > perfect." > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sukin: > If you think that "Jhana is about making the mind a fit tool", then > I can understand why you would make this conclusion. But we will > have to establish "what is jhana" in the first place. So now I will > have to invite other members to join in!! > >------------------------------------------------------ > S: How will a person who *feels* > > > > secure and comfortable with regard to the world know detachment? > In > > > this case insecurity and security is just two sides of the same > coin, no? > > ------------------------------------------------------ > > Howard: > > The point is that jhana practice takes lots of time. A > person who > > leads a life that is a harsh, desperate battle for survival will > not have > > that opportunity. Isn't that rather obvious? Even in the best of > times, the > > Buddha saw being a "full-time practitioner," a bhikkhu, as optimal. > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Sukin: > But if my understanding of jhana is correct, then I see equal danger > in the life of luxury and comfort, ie, if he clings to it. I think a > serious jhana practtioner must have resolved to relinquish all > attachment to pleasure as well as pain. > But I do agree that if he does not at least get food regularly and > have a comfortable place to live, then it would not be conducive. > > It is for similar reason, I feel, that someone in those times would > choose to ordained (leaving out exceptions). Only in this case it > would be taking refuge in the Triple Gem primarily. Becoming a > bhikkhu was not to practice jhana, but whatever it takes to reach > vipassana. And jhana is not *the* practice for reaching vipassana, > but satipatthana is. But all kusala supports one's development, and > jhana is the highest kind of kusala with the exception of vipassana. > So monks who had accumulations for jhana, practiced it, *why fight > it*, besides one cannot be expected to have satipatthana all he > time. But on the other hand, those who didn't have the > accumulations, did not have to, they could practice bare-insight. > And *why fight these accumulations* and make an attempt to practice > jhana? > --------------------------------------------------- > S: > > > And it seems you are implying that a stream enterer will have to > > > practice jhana if he wants to reach higher levels. But I thought > that a > > > stream enterer is assured of at most seven lives, no? > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I don't know. Perhaps a stream enterer is in a better > position to > > master jhanas. But I have read that it is possible to fall away > from being a > > stream enterer. What have you read in that regard? > > --------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > Only that they have at most seven lives to live, and falling away > from it is out of the question. It is an imposibility, no more > kilesas that would make them puthujanas again. > -------------------------------------------------------- > S: > > If you are saying > > > > that he will by conditions automatically practice jhana, then > what about > > > the fact that he has overcome silabattaparamasa? > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > If you are implying that practicing the jhanas, as > recommeneded again > > and again and again by the Buddha to his Bhikkhus, constututes an > attachment > > to ritual, I think you are wildly off-base. The Buddha defined the > first 4 > > jhanas as constituting right concentration, an integral part of > the eightfold > > noble path. I find your position here to be extreme and off the > mark. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > I hope my explanation above helps to make my position clearer. When > the Buddha asked his Bhikkhus to practice jhana, it was because that > was natural to them. But since it does not have anything directly to > do with the development of the path itself, it wouldn't constitute > silabattaparamasa. But if you do make a connection between jhana and > the ultimate goal of enlightenment, saying that jhana is > indispensable, then it is silabattaparamasa. And if you insist that > a sotapana must practice it, then it is a contradiction. > ------------------------------------------------------ > S: > > > Hope I have not misunderstood you. > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I don't know. I hope I *have* misunderstood you. > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Sukin: > Hope we both get it right, ultimately. :-) > > Metta, > Sukin 21825 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu May 1, 2003 1:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hello Victor, Nyanatiloka has an entry for silabbata-paramasa at: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_s.htm "sílabbata-parámása and -upádána: 'attachment (or clinging) to mere rules and ritual', is the 3rd of the 10 fetters (samyojana, q.v.), and one of the 4 kinds of clinging (upádána, q.v.). It disappears on attaining to Stream-entry (sotápatti). For definition, s. upádána." In an entry for 'upadana', silabbat is mentioned as part of a larger entry at: http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html "They are classified as 4 upadanani or four Graspings viz. kam°, ditth°, silabbat°, attavad° or the graspings arising from sense-- desires, speculation, belief in rites, belief in the soul--theory D II.58; III.230; M I.51, 66; S II.3; V 59; Dhs 1213; Ps I.129; II.46, 47; Vbh 375; Nett 48; Vism 569." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Sukin, Howard, and all, > > Pardon me for jumping in. > > Sukin, could you explain what "silabattaparamasa" means? I tried to > look it up but couldn't find it in the online Pali-English > dictionary. Your explanation is appreciated. > > I would think that when the Buddha asked bhikkhus to practice jhana, > it was not because that was natural to them. Rather, I would think > it is because right concentration, like seven other factors in the > Noble Eightfold Path, is necessary for reaching the goal of > liberation. > > I would not say that jhana is not *the* practice for reaching > vipassana. In fact, I see that concentration is necessary for > reaching insight.* > > Your comments are much appreciated!! > > Regards, > Victor > > * "The knowledge and vision of things as they really are, monks, > also has a supporting condition, I say, it does not lack a > supporting condition. And what is the supporting condition for the > knowledge and vision of things as they really are? 'Concentration' > should be the reply." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-023a.html > 21826 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu May 1, 2003 2:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hello Christine, Thank you very much for the references!! Now I understand what the word means! Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, > > Nyanatiloka has an entry for silabbata-paramasa at: > > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_s.htm > > "sílabbata-parámása and -upádána: 'attachment (or clinging) to mere > rules and ritual', is the 3rd of the 10 fetters (samyojana, q.v.), > and one of the 4 kinds of clinging (upádána, q.v.). It disappears on > attaining to Stream-entry (sotápatti). For definition, s. upádána." > > In an entry for 'upadana', silabbat is mentioned as part of a larger > entry at: > > http://dsal.uchicago.edu/dictionaries/pali/index.html > > "They are classified as 4 upadanani or four Graspings viz. kam°, > ditth°, silabbat°, attavad° or the graspings arising from sense-- > desires, speculation, belief in rites, belief in the soul--theory D > II.58; III.230; M I.51, 66; S II.3; V 59; Dhs 1213; Ps I.129; II.46, > 47; Vbh 375; Nett 48; Vism 569." > > metta, > > Christine 21827 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu May 1, 2003 1:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Jhanas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Howard: > If you are implying that practicing the jhanas, as recommeneded again > and again and again by the Buddha to his Bhikkhus, constututes an attachment > to ritual, I think you are wildly off-base. The Buddha defined the first 4 > jhanas as constituting right concentration, an integral part of the eightfold > noble path. I find your position here to be extreme and off the mark. > ----------------------------------------------------------- > Dear Howard, Just a small point. The Visuddhimagga notes about silabataparamsa (clinging to sila and ritual ) that it can include all levels of akusala (unwholesome) AND kusala(except satipatthana): So any kusala can be a support for satipatthana, but if it is seen wrongly it can atke one in the wrong direction too. "So rite and ritual clinging is a condition for all three namely the sense desire , fine material (the planes attained by the first 4 jhanas) and immaterial (the planes attained by jhanas 5 -8)kinds of becoming with their analysis and synthesis."XVii 267. The atthasalini differentiates between the type of jhana that arises when nibbana is attained. Even dry insight workers who have no experience of mundane jhana attain this special type of jhana that arises "in a momentary flash"- just for that instant. It is different from mundane jhana. Mundane jhana is said to add to the wall of samsara whereas supramundane jhana breaks the wall down. Robertk 21828 From: Date: Thu May 1, 2003 11:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhanas Hi, Robert - In a message dated 5/1/03 5:18:58 PM Eastern Daylight Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > Just a small point. The Visuddhimagga notes about silabataparamsa > (clinging to sila and ritual ) that it can include all levels of > akusala (unwholesome) AND kusala(except satipatthana): > So any kusala can be a support for satipatthana, but if it is seen > wrongly it can atke one in the wrong direction too. "So rite and > ritual clinging is a condition for all three namely the sense > desire , fine material (the planes attained by the first 4 jhanas) > and immaterial (the planes attained by jhanas 5 -8)kinds of becoming > with their analysis and synthesis."XVii 267. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Thank you for the details, Robert. No doubt one can cling to practically any conditioned dhamma, including the jhanas. Such clinging is, of course, akusala and counterproductive. ------------------------------------------------------ > The atthasalini differentiates between the type of jhana that arises > when nibbana is attained. Even dry insight workers who have no > experience of mundane jhana attain this special type of jhana that > arises "in a momentary flash"- just for that instant. It is > different from mundane jhana. Mundane jhana is said to add to the > wall of samsara whereas supramundane jhana breaks the wall down. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: From my reading, the Buddha encouraged his Bhikkhus repeatedly to practice the jhanas, and this applied even to mere stream enterers and to worldlings; so we are talking about the mundane jhanas. The Majjhima Nikaya is *filled* with exhortations in that direction. Moreover, it is clear from a couple suttas that the Buddha used the base of the 4th jhana for his final liberation, and Sariputta, as recorded in the Anapada Sutta, used all 8 jhanas as a means to complete liberation. Certainly the Buddha didn't encourage his monks to "add to the wall of samsara". I have seen some Buddhists imply that the jhanas are practically the whole of the path, and I have seen others say the jhanas are completely expendable. I think these are two opposite extremities both of which are incorrect. ------------------------------------------------------- Robertk> > > =========================== 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) 21829 From: Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:54pm Subject: Way 83, Consciousness Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, "The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of Consciousness After explaining the ninefold Arousing of Mindfulness in regard to feeling, the Master began the explanation of the contemplation of consciousness in the sixteenfold way with the words, "And, how, o bhikkhus." In this section there is no reference to supramundane truth because in the sifting of things thoroughly to see their transient, pain-laden and soulless nature only the mundane things are handled, and so there is in this matter of penetrative knowledge of things no bringing together of mundane and supramundane things. Here follows the elucidation of terms mentioned in this section: Saragam cittam = "The consciousness with lust." Karmically unwholesome eight conscious states of the plane of existence of sense-experience. These are together with greed in the sense of springing from it. Vitaragam cittam = "The consciousness without lust." Karmically wholesome and karmically neutral mundane states of consciousness. The two spontaneous and non-spontaneous conscious states karmically unwholesome, accompanied by grief, linked to resentment, and springing from hate; the conscious state karmically unwholesome, accompanied by neither pain nor pleasure, linked to doubt and springing from ignorance; and the conscious state karmically unwholesome, accompanied by neither pain nor pleasure, linked to agitation, springing from ignorance -- these four do not associate with the consciousness-with-lust-division or the consciousness-without-lust division. Sodosam cittam = "The consciousness with hate." The two conscious states, karmically unwholesome, accompanied, by grief (mentioned above). Vitadosam cittam = "The consciousness without hate." Karmically wholesome and karmically neutral mundane states of consciousness. The other ten karmically unwholesome conscious states of the plane of existence of sense-experience do not associate with either the consciousness-with-hate division or the consciousness-without-hate division. Samoham cittam = "The consciousness with ignorance." The conscious state, karmically unwholesome, linked to doubt (mentioned above), and the conscious state, karmically unwholesome, linked to agitation (mentioned above). Because, indeed, ignorance arises in all karmically bad states, the other karmically bad states too should be mentioned, here. In just this division all the twelve karmically bad, unwholesome or unskillful conscious states are included. Vitamoham cittam = "The consciousness without ignorance." Karmically wholesome and karmically neutral mundane states of consciousness. Sankhittam cittam = "The shrunken state of consciousness." The conscious state fallen into sloth and torpor. That is called the shrivelled or contracted state of mind. Vikkhittam cittam = "The distracted state of consciousness." The conscious state accompanied by agitation. That is called the dissipated mind. Mahaggatam cittam = "The state of consciousness become great." The conscious state of the sensuous-ethereal [rupavacara] plane of existence and of the purely ethereal [arupavacara] plane of existence. Amahaggatam cittam = "The state of consciousness not become great." The conscious state of the plane of existence of sense-experience. Sauttaram cittam = "The state of consciousness with some other mental state superior to it." That refers to any conscious state belonging to the plane of sense-experience. Anuttaram cittam = "The state of consciousness with no other mental state superior to it." That refers to any conscious state belonging to the sensuous-ethereal [rupavacara] or the purely ethereal [arupavacara] plane. Samahitam cittam = "The quieted state of consciousness." It refers to the conscious state of him who has full or partial absorption. Asamahitam cittam = "The state of consciousness not quieted." It refers to the conscious state without either absorption. Vimuttam cittam = "the freed state of consciousness." That refers to the conscious state, emancipated partially from defilements through systematic or radical reflection, or to the conscious state, emancipated through the suppression of the defilements in absorption. Both these kinds of emancipation are temporary. Avimuttam cittam = "The unfreed state of consciousness." That refers to any conscious state without either kind of temporary emancipation. In the mundane path [lokiya magga] of the beginner there is no place for the supramundane kinds of emancipation through extirpation [samuccheda], stilling [patipassaddha] and final release [nissarana]. 21830 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu May 1, 2003 7:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mana and other akusala Sukin (and Sarah), ----------- > I have a feeling that you are absolutely right in this, ---------- Thanks. As you, [and also Sarah and Nina], have been saying lately, we should find out what the Abhidhamma has to say. Otherwise, we might be headed down a blind alley. Sarah has already joined in on this thread, so I look forward to her further comment/exposition. --------------- > We think that if we learn from past akusala action or from what the religions say about right conduct, we are 'improving' ourselves. My question is, "Are we?" Can there be any uprooting of kilesas without satipatthana and vipassana? Can there be the correct course of action without right view? > ----------------- I don't know either. We are told that even jhana can only suppress -- it can't eradicate. I suspect we have seen the answers to this on dsg but I, at least, have not fully absorbed them. For instance, RobK once wrote about how the word 'kusala' was derived from 'kusa grass' -- because it cuts both ways. He explained it twice for me but I have forgotten; does it mean kusala kamma eradicates akusala kamma in some way? On another occasion, I was having a non-cyberspace conversation with Sundara about the benefits of kusala. I couldn't see what was so good about it if it wasn't accompanied by right view. If it leads to continued existence in samsara, what's the ultimate use of it? Jon briefly commented, "Because, if it's not kusala, it's akusala." I'm sure I'm missing something but the impression I get from this, is that without right view, we have only one choice; the frying-pan or the fire. ------------- > Maybe I should think more about this before putting forward the questions. But maybe I'll find out more about mana! :-) > ------------ When you've solved the question of mana, I'll seek your impressions on macchariya (stinginess). At a recent meeting, Andrew told us that macchariya included 'stinginess with the Dhamma.' (!!!!) I have to wonder if my usual reluctance to contribute to dsg discussions doesn't amount to macchariya. Even poorly thought-out contributions are of value -- when they lead to helpful, kusala, corrections. Am I begrudging people this benefit on the basis, "I would have thought of that if I'd taken more time!" :-) Kind regards, Ken H 21831 From: Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To Sukin: In a message dated 4/30/03 8:12:54 PM, sukin@k... writes: << Thanks, but even if it really works, I wouldn't be able to. At work, five meters from my own shop, they sell computer speakers, so the level of noise is too high. At home I have two small boys who jump at me the moment I reach home, in fact on sundays if we don't go out, at the end of the day, I often end up with a fever. I don't even get much chance to sit and read mails. But the bathroom and in the car when caught in jams, are my favourite places for reading.:-)>> %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, my good friend Sukin, I know the house holder's path very well. When my children were born they had constant colic for 3 months, then it turned into constant teething. My daily practice was bouncing the little ones on my knee with my finger in their mouth to suck one while I sat in meditation. Now my youngest is 17 and I have had my sleep disrupted every other day for the last two weeks because he has been sneaking out of the house in the middle of the night and getting himself arrested with some under age girl drinking and driving. Yes, I know the householder's path very well. Believe me, if you are intent on enlightenment, you would find a way to meditate with a screaming child sucking on your finger, or while spending time in jail, or while being audited by the IRS or getting divorced or filing bankruptcy. I have though all of these, and yes, I know how difficult the house holders path is. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: Maybe I should have added, that only a Buddha could see through the first kind of detachment. The rest were happy abiding in the first with the illusion that they had attained total liberation. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Possibly, but remember attachment prevents jhana. If one is attached, there is no jhana. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: There is I think a general misunderstanding about he study of Abhidhamma, from the outside and if one does not have a good teacher like K. Sujin to teach it, it will look like one takes the knowledge to *apply*, this may be what some consider an 'intellectual overlay'. But this is not the correct way to study. One must have a firm understanding of the distinction between concept and reality, so that one can recognize the difference when there is awareness. One must understand anatta and conditions quite well, so that one does not then *try* to catch realities nor think that 'sati' can be made to rise by will or certain ritualistic practice. And when one is not trying to be mindful, only then can there be genuine insight I think. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Yes, I agree, I have no problem with scholarship. I have read the writings of the various masters all along after all. I found solace and guidance. But, I also practice avidly as well. That is all I urge anyone to do, is don't just read. One has to practice as often as possible. Best once or more a day. And, one should make an effort to attend retreats. All of my vacation time from work was spent on retreats. Now that I am a student, I have longer holidays, but no money. Fortunately the forest monasteries have opened, so I don't have to pay to practice. I can just go and offer myself to them and they are happy someone wants to practice. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: As Nina said, 'without the teachings, we could not have known all this'. Which means to my understanding, that if we leave it to our own subjective experience, without the Buddhas guide, we will interpret it all wrong. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: While I agree that the Buddha's instructions as recorded in the Pali canon are most excellent. There have been many Buddhas and many of them have left a written record, so there is Dhamma every where one looks. But, I also believe that the process of enlightenment is as natural as learning how to walk. Even without instruction, one who practices diligently will become enlightened. %%%%%%%%%%%%% Sukin: But the instant would have been the culmination of zillions of years of development. ;-) %%%%%%%%%%%%% Jeff: No, my friend, have more faith in yourself. In this very lifetime with all of the chaos in your life you can become enlightened. You just have to want freedom more than breath itself. Adalante Siempre adalante layman Jeff 21832 From: Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Jhana, Introduction to the Abhidhamma - Slide 1 for comment To Sukin: In a message dated 4/30/03 8:36:04 PM, sukin@k... writes: << Hi Jeff, I would like to correct the following: > There is I think a general misunderstanding about he study of > Abhidhamma, from the outside and if one does not have a good teacher > like K. Sujin to teach it, it will look like one takes the knowledge > to *apply*, this may be what some consider an 'intellectual > overlay'. There is 'application' however, as in when one is 'seeing', then one is reminded that what is actually seen is just 'visible object'. So there may be a moment of not being drawn to the signs and the particulars. So I guess I must distinguish between 'applying with 'self'' and 'application by conditions'.:-) Hope this is clear. Best, Sukin. >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: Thank-you kind sir for your clarification. Might I ask, do you mean, to be drawn to the 'signs' and 'particulars,' to mean in some way to be in perception, or to grasp at a sense object? best to you, layman Jeff 21833 From: Date: Thu May 1, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Jhanas To Ken H: In a message dated 5/1/03 12:05:06 AM, kenhowardau@y... writes: << Doesn't jhana fall into much the same scenario? Moments before the Buddha proclaimed his teaching, masters of jhana were the pinnacle of religious and intellectual hierarchy. They could teach a way that led to countless aeons of bliss. ('immediately followed by rebirth in the worlds of woe, but let's not be too critical.) Then, suddenly, there was a totally different Path that led, not to TEMPORARY release, but to FINAL release from dukkha. So who needs jhana masters? >> %%%%%%%%%% Jeff: I find your assumption, while intriguing, not supported by my practice, attainment nor the canon: Potthapada Sutta, DN. 9-17 9-10. (One scrutinizes) the sense doors...Having reached the first jhana, (one) remains in it. Whatever sensations (that were there) disappear. At that time there is present a true but subtle perception of delight and happiness, born of detachment, and (one) becomes one(,) who is conscious of this delight and happiness. In this way some perceptions arise through training, and some pass way. This is that training... 11. ...With the subsiding of thinking, by gaining inner tranquillity and unity of mind (consciousness), (one) reaches and remains in the second jhana, which is free from thinking, born of concentration, filled with delight and happiness. At (this) time there arises a true but subtle perception of delight and happiness born of concentration, and (one) becomes one(,) who is conscious of this delight and happiness. In this way some perceptions arise through training, and some pass way. 12. ...Dwelling in equanimity, mindful and clearly aware, (one) experiences in (one's) body that pleasant feeling of which the Noble Ones say: "Happy dwells the (one) of equanimity and mindfulness," (thus one) reaches and remains in the third jhana...There arises at this time a true but subtle sense of equanimity and happiness. In this way some perceptions arise through training, and some pass way. 13. ...With the abandoning of pleasure and pain, and with the disappearance of previous joy and grief, one reaches and remains in the fourth jhana, a state beyond pleasure and pain, purified by equanimity and mindfulness...and there arises a true and subtle sense of neither happiness nor unhappiness, and (one) becomes one(,) who is conscious of this subtle sense of neither happiness nor unhappiness. In this way some perceptions arise through training, and some pass way. 14. ...By passing entirely beyond bodily sensations, by the disappearance of all sense of resistance and by non-attraction to the (diverse perceptions), seeing that space is infinite, (one) reaches and remains in the sphere of Infinite Space. In this way some perceptions arise through training, and some pass away. 15. ...By passing entirely beyond the Sphere of Infinite Space, seeing that consciousness is infinite (one) reaches and remains in the Sphere of Infinite Consciousness. In this way some perceptions arise through training, and some pass away. 16. ...By passing entirely beyond the Sphe