18052 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 7:07pm Subject: Peter Da Costa Messages All, We have no idea what has happened - I imagine some computer glitch or bug at Peter's end which I'm sure he doesn't realize. We've sent him a message and just put his account under moderation (only just seen). We'll also erase the posts on the website. Apologies to all who have got all these in their in boxes. If Kom or anyone else has any idea, pls contact Peter or Jon. Sarah ====== 18053 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:02pm Subject: What exactly IS metta? Dear Group, In the past, there has often been discussion about Metta and whether it was meant to be directed towards oneself, oneself first and then others , or only toward others. This post is asking the question "what exactly IS metta?" Is it prayer? Is it a healing energy that actually reaches the intended recipient? Can it alter situations that the person who is the object/target of metta is experiencing? Should one announce to the person who is the object of metta, or publicly, that one is radiating it to them? Or is it something that benefits and changes only the person radiating it? Do the scriptures give a clear indication either way? metta, :-) Christine 18054 From: Peter Da Costa Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Peter Da Costa Messages Respectfully to All I guess I wasn't carefull when 'messing around' with my system. I was endevoring to send all the last batch of posts, using Eudora, to a pop3 forwarding address to as to post it back to myself on another client, Turnpike, which has a rather nice feature for threading mailing list messages. As I sent them off, I realised that I had inadvertantly sent them back to the dsg address, oops! My tail is well between my legs, my head is both bowed and hidden is shame. My apologies seem inadequate, but it is all I can offer. But more important from a practical pov I will endevour to ensure that it never happens again. I will abandon all attemps to try to thread my downloaded dsg mesages, and instead make do with the facilities offered at the dsg web site, no matter how awkward it seems at the present time. Respects Peter At 11:07 21/12/2002 +0800, you wrote: >All, > >We have no idea what has happened - I imagine some computer glitch or bug >at Peter's end which I'm sure he doesn't realize. We've sent him a message >and just put his account under moderation (only just seen). We'll also >erase the posts on the website. > >Apologies to all who have got all these in their in boxes. > >If Kom or anyone else has any idea, pls contact Peter or Jon. > >Sarah >====== Peter Da Costa peterd@p... 18055 From: James Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 8:57pm Subject: The Anatta of a Baseball Hey All, Okay, I have been honing down onto this concept of `anatta' and I feel I need some input at this point. Historical analysis points to so many interpretations of this concept that I am beside myself in trying to pin down the correct one…or perhaps more than one is correct. It seems to me that many people proclaim that they understand anatta, and they don't understand anything of the sort. Some actually proclaim that such understanding is easy to reach…then I really know that they have no clue of the concept. Anatta is more difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and Hawkings combined. Those who say it comes easy are not even up to bat. They are just sitting in the stands bragging about how easy they could hit a homerun or strike out a batter, as they swig down their third beer. I would like some input from those who don't overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth of the Lord Buddha's teachings. Rather than dealing with the anatta of people, too complicated a subject to begin with, let me address the anatta of a baseball. Okay, there are different theories, even among those directly taught by the Lord Buddha, about anatta. Using a baseball as the subject, let's go through some of the major theories, as I perceive them: Theory One: A baseball is anatta because it is composed of many things that aren't `baseball'. It is composed of a hard, rubber core wrapped tightly in many strands of rubber. This is covered with two pieces of leather, pieced together similar to a ying-yang symbol, and stitched together with reinforced thread. So `baseball' is not really `baseball' at all; it is a collection of rubber, leather, and thread. This is the anatta of a baseball. Theory Two: A baseball is anatta because the materials that compose it, the rubber, leather, and thread, when examined at the most microscopic level, are unstable and constantly phasing in and out. All of the substances of the baseball, when examined closely, don't exist at all. Some call this the `emptiness' or `void' of the baseball. What appears to be a solid object is not really solid for any one moment…and doesn't really exist for any one moment. This is the anatta of a baseball. Theory Three: A baseball is anatta because the materials that hold it together as `baseball' do not last. Even if the baseball was put into a time capsule and untouched for several millenniums, it would still break apart into other elements. While this may seem related to `impermanence', it is different because it applies to the concept and object of `baseball' rather than elements. Impermanence relates to elements and anatta relates to conceptual objects, but the two go hand-in-hand. This is the anatta of a baseball. Theory Four: A baseball is anatta because even though several people may look at the same baseball, and even think of it as `baseball', they will not all see it the same way. If asked to draw it, they would each draw it differently. If asked what they thought of it, they would each think of it differently. While some things would be similar, the majority of the `viewings' of the baseball would be different. This shows that there is no concept of `baseball' that can be universally pinned down. Therefore, a `baseball' has no self which all can agree to. This is the anatta of a baseball. Okay, which of these is the correct interpretation for anatta? Or is there one that I haven't listed which is correct? Is anatta all of the above interpretations because they are somehow linked? Or are they entirely different? This is where I am stuck. If anyone can nudge me in the correct direction with a good reason as to why that is the correct direction, I would be most appreciative. Metta, James 18056 From: azita gill Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: just chatting - to Nina and Lo dewijk --- Jaran Jainhuknan wrote: > Hi Nina and Lodewijk: > > Sorry to hear about the loss. As I heard A. Sujin > (and probably > Rob K) said once, when someone was sad because of > the death of a > loved one, that they're already reborn, we should be > happy for that. > > ` Dear Nina & Lodewijk, I also am sorry to hear of your loss. The above comment is so very true, while we mourn and weep that being is already born again somewhere else. I discussed death with my daughters one time, and told them that it is really only our attachment that makes us cry when we lose someone we love. That being has gone, but we still cling to our memories of that being. " there are many different things found in the world, Nagasena, but tell me what is not to be found in the world" " there are 3 things O King, that are not to be found in the world. Anything either conscious or unconscious, that does not decay or perish; that formation [sankhara] or conditioned thing that is permanent is not to be found, and in the ultimate sense, there is no such thing as a being" I really enjoy Nagasena and the King's discussions. May we all have patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. 18057 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:38pm Subject: Re: just chatting --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jaran Jainhuknan wrote: > Hi Nina and Lodewijk: > > Sorry to hear about the loss. As I heard A. Sujin (and probably > Rob K) said once, when someone was sad because of the death of a > loved one, that they're already reborn, we should be happy for that. > > With Sympathy, > jaran ____________ Dear Jaran, Nice to meet you for the first time last month, I really enjoyed the time with you, Num and Sukin driving down to Kaeng Krachan . Lots of joking and dhamma discussion as well. I want to explain a bit more about what Acharn Sujin said: One saturday ( 6 weeks back), just before meeting with A. Sujin , I got an email saying one of my best and oldest friends had just being crushed to death while working on a bus (he was a mechanic). I happened to mention this at the discussion and Sujin said he was now born again. I think this wasn't meant to imply that birth was a happy event but rather that birth is just as unpleasant as death because without birth there can be no death. I found it a very helpful thing to say. Thinking about the death of friends and family it may be we attach to the concept of "my friend," and then there wil be aversion and unpleasant feeling. Unfortunately many people imagine that compassion should come with sad feeling but this is never compassion in the true sense - instead it is citta rooted in moha (ignorance) and dosa(aversion), productive of more of the same. But one can also reflect about the death of those we know in ways that come without attachment , with wisdom . RobertK 18058 From: James Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:51pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? Hi Christine, Good question. From my perspective, Metta must surely be a mental energy that is directed from one person to another or others. Metta doesn't even have to be completely selfless, as in dana, because the Buddha advised his monks to generate metta as a way to protect themselves: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-067.html Since metta is a mental energy, it can only affect others mentally. It cannot heal sickness (unless such is mentally-based), bring good luck, or anything else along those lines. It is the energy and influence from one stable and happy mind directed toward other minds to make them stable and happy. Of course the most pure metta is from one who has realized anatta, selflessness. Then it is a wish for the other to attain all that life has to offer…a wish for the absolute best...anatta. But even wishes of metta from corrupted minds are beneficial. We often can do for others what we sometimes cannot do for ourselves. But if done enough, it may rub off. Just my interpretation from my readings; there is mental and physical interconnectedness. Metta, James 18059 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 10:32pm Subject: Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Victor, Here is my best guess at answers to your questions plus a little help from Bhikkhu Bodhi. Victor: 1. How is the word "name" used in everyday life? C: "Name" is used to to facilitate communication by using a commonly agreed sound (in speech), or group of letters which point to that sound, indicating a particular object. ---------------------------- Victor: 2. What does it mean by the word "name" in the context of "my name is Victor" or "my name is Christine"? C: In this context, it allows identification of a particular object (an individual human) out of very many similar ones. -------------------------- Victor: In Samyutta Nikaya XII.2, Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, Analysis of Dependent Co-arising, feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention is called name. 3. What do feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention have in common such that they are called name? C: I don't think they are called 'name'. I think they are part of the combination 'name-and-form', often rendered by translators as the combination 'mentality-materiality'. The full verse is "And what, bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this name and this form are together called name-and-form." (6) In the general introduction to the Samyutta Nikaya p, 47 - 49 Bhikkhu Bodhi says (in part): "Though I render nama as name, this should not be taken too literally. Nama is the assemblage of mental factors involved in cognitiion: feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention (vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa, manasikara; II 3, v.34-35). These are called name because they contribute to the process of cognition by which objects are subsumed under conceptual designations." The note (6) to the verse quoted above on p. 727 Samyutta Nikaya (Bodhi) states: "nama denotes the three aggregates - of feeling, perception, and volitional formations - which are called thus because of their "bending" (namana) on to an object (in the act of cognizing it). Volition, contact, and attention belong to the aggregate of volitional formations and, according to Spk, have been selected to represent that aggregate here because they are operative even in the weakest classes of consciousness." metta, Christine 18060 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 11:58pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? Hi James, Thanks James - I think you are right. In 'Metta - The Philosophy and Practice of Universal Love' by Acharya Buddharakkhita. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel365.html "The Pali word metta is a multi-significant term meaning loving- kindness, friendliness, goodwill, benevolence, fellowship, amity, concord, inoffensiveness and non-violence. The Pali commentators define metta as the strong wish for the welfare and happiness of others (parahita-parasukha-kamana). Essentially metta is an altruistic attitude of love and friendliness as distinguished from mere amiability based on self-interest. Through metta one refuses to be offensive and renounces bitterness, resentment and animosity of every kind, developing instead a mind of friendliness, accommodativeness and benevolence which seeks the well-being and happiness of others. True metta is devoid of self-interest. It evokes within a warm-hearted feeling of fellowship, sympathy and love, which grows boundless with practice and overcomes all social, religious, racial, political and economic barriers. Metta is indeed a universal, unselfish and all-embracing love. Metta makes one a pure font of well-being and safety for others. Just as a mother gives her own life to protect her child, so metta only gives and never wants anything in return. To promote one's own interest is a primordial motivation of human nature. When this urge is transformed into the desire to promote the interest and happiness of others, not only is the basic urge of self-seeking overcome, but the mind becomes universal by identifying its own interest with the interest of all. By making this change one also promotes one's own well-being in the best possible manner. Metta is the protective and immensely patient attitude of a mother who forbears all difficulties for the sake of her child and ever protects it despite its misbehavior. Metta is also the attitude of a friend who wants to give one the best to further one's well-being. If these qualities of metta are sufficiently cultivated through metta- bhavana -- the meditation on universal love -- the result is the acquisition of a tremendous inner power which preserves, protects and heals both oneself and others." ------------------------------ In the chapter on The Power of Metta, its affect on others is explained. There are stories here of Metta being sensed by and affecting others. e.g. The Buddha stopped an enraged elephant in its tracks by radiating metta towards it. One wonders why though, In the suttas below, the benefits of metta are indicated as belonging to the person practicing it - there is no indication that another benefits, or can be helped by it. Anguttara Nikaya XI.16 Metta Sutta 'Discourse on Advantages of Loving- kindness' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-016.html Sutta Nipata I.8 Karaniya Metta Sutta 'Good Will' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-08.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Good question. From my perspective, Metta must surely be a mental > energy that is directed from one person to another or others. Metta > doesn't even have to be completely selfless, as in dana, because the > Buddha advised his monks to generate metta as a way to protect > themselves: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-067.html > > Since metta is a mental energy, it can only affect others mentally. > It cannot heal sickness (unless such is mentally-based), bring good > luck, or anything else along those lines. It is the energy and > influence from one stable and happy mind directed toward other minds > to make them stable and happy. Of course the most pure metta is from > one who has realized anatta, selflessness. Then it is a wish for the > other to attain all that life has to offer…a wish for the absolute > best...anatta. But even wishes of metta from corrupted minds are > beneficial. We often can do for others what we sometimes cannot do > for ourselves. But if done enough, it may rub off. > > Just my interpretation from my readings; there is mental and physical > interconnectedness. > > Metta, James 18061 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Sarah, Thanks for this additional information on right livelihood; I'm so far out of my depth with this, that I'm not even sure if my questions make sense: What is the `opportunity' (for wrong speech, action, livelihood), that has to be present before an abstention (virati) can arise? E.g., is it a dhamma or a concept? Is it an object of consciousness? Does the virati arise in the same citta viti as the opportunity? (Perhaps these and other questions, should wait until I know more about what the `opportunity' is.) I cannot follow the quote you have given from "Sammohavinodani1 (PTS transl by Nanamoli,p.142): > ". . . And also because there is abstaining from transgression in the body door by one consciousness and from transgression in the speech door by another, therefore this arises multiple moments in the prior stage. But at the moment of the path, profitable abstention called Right Livelihood arises singly, fulfilling the path factor by accomplishing non-arising because of cutting-away the foundation of the volition connected with the bad conduct of wrong livelihood which has arisen through the seven courses of action in the two doors. This is Right Livelihood" > What is the meaning of `speech door' and `body door' in this context? To what do `the multiple moments' and `the prior stage' refer? What are the `seven courses of action?' Perhaps it would be simpler if you could just set some homework for me(?); thanks in advance, Ken H PS Ken O (KC), thank you for the compliments and for the good will; the same to you and to all other dsg members who are not averse to a little Xmas cheer :-) 18062 From: Date: Fri Dec 20, 2002 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Anatta of a Baseball Hi, James - Good job, I think! I'd say that all your "theories" apply. Moreover, there is the impersonality of the baseball, perhaps the aspect most strongly stressed in Theravada, where, by the impersonality of something, I think is meant the fact of it and all of its aspects and components being unrelated to any so-called "I" or personal self. (We impose personal associations on all sorts of things - my baseball, my wife, my feelings, my thoughts, but they, and every aspect of them, are neither me nor mine.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/20/02 11:59:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hey All, > > Okay, I have been honing down onto this concept of `anatta' and I > feel I need some input at this point. Historical analysis points to > so many interpretations of this concept that I am beside myself in > trying to pin down the correct one…or perhaps more than one is > correct. It seems to me that many people proclaim that they > understand anatta, and they don't understand anything of the sort. > Some actually proclaim that such understanding is easy to reach…then > I really know that they have no clue of the concept. Anatta is more > difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and > Hawkings combined. Those who say it comes easy are not even up to > bat. They are just sitting in the stands bragging about how easy > they could hit a homerun or strike out a batter, as they swig down > their third beer. I would like some input from those who don't > overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth > of the Lord Buddha's teachings. > > Rather than dealing with the anatta of people, too complicated a > subject to begin with, let me address the anatta of a baseball. > Okay, there are different theories, even among those directly taught > by the Lord Buddha, about anatta. Using a baseball as the subject, > let's go through some of the major theories, as I perceive them: > > Theory One: A baseball is anatta because it is composed of many > things that aren't `baseball'. It is composed of a hard, rubber core > wrapped tightly in many strands of rubber. This is covered with two > pieces of leather, pieced together similar to a ying-yang symbol, and > stitched together with reinforced thread. So `baseball' is not > really `baseball' at all; it is a collection of rubber, leather, and > thread. This is the anatta of a baseball. > > Theory Two: A baseball is anatta because the materials that compose > it, the rubber, leather, and thread, when examined at the most > microscopic level, are unstable and constantly phasing in and out. > All of the substances of the baseball, when examined closely, don't > exist at all. Some call this the `emptiness' or `void' of the > baseball. What appears to be a solid object is not really solid for > any one moment…and doesn't really exist for any one moment. This is > the anatta of a baseball. > > Theory Three: A baseball is anatta because the materials that hold > it together as `baseball' do not last. Even if the baseball was put > into a time capsule and untouched for several millenniums, it would > still break apart into other elements. While this may seem related > to `impermanence', it is different because it applies to the concept > and object of `baseball' rather than elements. Impermanence relates > to elements and anatta relates to conceptual objects, but the two go > hand-in-hand. This is the anatta of a baseball. > > Theory Four: A baseball is anatta because even though several people > may look at the same baseball, and even think of it as `baseball', > they will not all see it the same way. If asked to draw it, they > would each draw it differently. If asked what they thought of it, > they would each think of it differently. While some things would be > similar, the majority of the `viewings' of the baseball would be > different. This shows that there is no concept of `baseball' that > can be universally pinned down. Therefore, a `baseball' has no self > which all can agree to. This is the anatta of a baseball. > > Okay, which of these is the correct interpretation for anatta? Or is > there one that I haven't listed which is correct? Is anatta all of > the above interpretations because they are somehow linked? Or are > they entirely different? This is where I am stuck. If anyone can > nudge me in the correct direction with a good reason as to why that > is the correct direction, I would be most appreciative. > > Metta, James > > /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) 18063 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 3:01am Subject: [dsg] Re: Samvega and Pasada Dear Sarah, and All, Thanks for your post, Sarah - there were many things I liked and learned, but I have a few queries and comments, if you or anyone else would like to give some further input. They mainly seem to revolve around 'emotions'. Point 1 - I am uncertain about your comment that seems to mean emotional states don't condition samvega. My personal experience is that intense mental/emotional suffering can trigger samvega. I don't see a difference between feeling driven by suffering to understand the Dhamma and so find a way to escape from the greater Suffering, and "having a sense of urgency to escape the round of meaningless existence"(samvega). Point 5 - Wouldn't 'experiencing' samvega be entirely different to 'understanding' it initially? Wouldn't the experience, the feeling of urgency, be a condition for seeking to understand what caused it and what was the resolution that would bring calm? Comments on Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article: I don't think 'anxiety, weariness, pointlessness or intense desire for things to be different' are seen as "justified'. They just seem to me to be the motive power that sometimes produces samvega. I think I don't seem to be understanding your point on emotions. So, therefore, I find myself disagreeing with " I'd suggest the `sense of urgency' is a prompting of uplifting, wholesome states, not an "oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that comes with realizing the futility and meaningless of life as it's normally lived" as Thanissaro suggests." I agree with Thanissaro - the jolt of strong, oppressive emotions can be just what impels one to look at life, throw away stale, dogmatic 'answers' and find answers that work and point to the way out. Thank goodness KenH has asked about 'Right Livelihood' - I didn't understand your comment in the same paragraph where it is mentioned. It seems that the meaning I understood for Samvega 'an urgent need to escape the meaningless round of existence', has changed to being 'an urgent need to keep the sense faculties restrained which cannot be considered apart from this moment of seeing or hearing.' I'm treading water here .... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine, > > Thank you for all the helpful references you provided and I also like > B.Bodhi's translation of the verse from the Bhadekeratta sutta and find it > very inspiring. I also enjoyed looking at the `urgent' and `rousing' > Suttas and I always find the reminders from `Future Dangers'. Now we're > comfortable, healthy and able to listen, discuss and consider. We don't > know what the future will bring. > > I knew little about the meaning of sa"mvega (sense of urgency) which > you've helpfully reminded me about a few times, but nothing about pasaada > (clearness, purity -here as in composure, serenity) which is not common at > all, as far as I know. I've been doing a little research, so please bear > with me. > > Let me start by adding a few quotes from texts using the terms with some > of my own comments (bound to be controversial to some;-)). > ==================================================== <<>> > I'll be glad to hear any of yours or others' comments. I'm aware that I > may have taken some of Thanissaro's comments too literally or out of > context. I apologise if this is so and don't wish to suggest any > disrespect for his interesting article which many may find helpful. > > Sarah > ======= 18064 From: James Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 3:48am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > Good job, I think! I'd say that all your "theories" apply. Moreover, > there is the impersonality of the baseball, perhaps the aspect most strongly > stressed in Theravada, where, by the impersonality of something, I think is > meant the fact of it and all of its aspects and components being unrelated to > any so-called "I" or personal self. (We impose personal associations on all > sorts of things - my baseball, my wife, my feelings, my thoughts, but they, > and every aspect of them, are neither me nor mine.) > > With metta, > Howard Hi Howard, Wow! Thanks. That is hard to swallow that anatta is ?ll of those things. But at least now I know I am on the right track. Metta, James 18065 From: James Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:56am Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > One wonders why though, In the suttas below, the benefits of metta > are indicated as belonging to the person practicing it - there is no > indication that another benefits, or can be helped by it. > > Anguttara Nikaya XI.16 Metta Sutta 'Discourse on Advantages of Loving- > kindness' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-016.html > Sutta Nipata I.8 Karaniya Metta Sutta 'Good Will' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1- 08.html > > metta, > Christine > Hi Christine, Actually, the second sutta you cite does stress metta for others; but I think in the first sutta the Buddha was describing the process for the general listener. He is giving both a description of the benefits that one will receive by practicing metta, and also a checklist that one can use to see if it is being practiced completely. For example, the Buddha states these benefits: "One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One's mind gains concentration quickly. One's complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and -- if penetrating no higher -- is headed for the Brahma worlds" So if a monk wasn't sleeping easily, was dreaming evil dreams, getting hurt, disliked by fellow monks…he could reach the conclusion that he needed to work on metta. I don't think the Buddha was encouraging a person to be selfish because just look at these benefits. A truly selfish person couldn't care less about being liked, sleeping well, or dying unconfused. A selfish person wants power, power now, and power at all costs. These benefits described by Lord Buddha would only be benefits to the wise and selfless. Metta, James Ps. Since there is no self, generating metta toward oneself would be the same as generating metta toward another. True?? 18066 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 5:27am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html the Buddha taught that each and every aggregate is not self. He instructed that each and every aggregate 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 teaching and instruction itself is simple, yet profound and liberating in the sense that: "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is depleted, the holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this world.'" When mind is busy theorizing and complicating, it has not much room seeing thus. Seeing thus is not the same as theorizing. All four theories are interesting. All four are to be abandoned. That is what's difficult. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > Hey All, > > Okay, I have been honing down onto this concept of `anatta' and I > feel I need some input at this point. Historical analysis points to > so many interpretations of this concept that I am beside myself in > trying to pin down the correct one…or perhaps more than one is > correct. It seems to me that many people proclaim that they > understand anatta, and they don't understand anything of the sort. > Some actually proclaim that such understanding is easy to reach… then > I really know that they have no clue of the concept. Anatta is more > difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and > Hawkings combined. Those who say it comes easy are not even up to > bat. They are just sitting in the stands bragging about how easy > they could hit a homerun or strike out a batter, as they swig down > their third beer. I would like some input from those who don't > overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth > of the Lord Buddha's teachings. > > Rather than dealing with the anatta of people, too complicated a > subject to begin with, let me address the anatta of a baseball. > Okay, there are different theories, even among those directly taught > by the Lord Buddha, about anatta. Using a baseball as the subject, > let's go through some of the major theories, as I perceive them: 18067 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 5:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism Hi Christine, Thanks very much for pointing out these verses. I checked them in the book and have been pondering over them.... Metta, Victor > Hi Victor and all, > > I'm just on my way out but thought this may be of interest. > > In the Samyutta Nikaya, p. 130 (B. Bodhi) Book with Verses > (Sagathavagga) VII. Weighed Down. 61 (1) 'Name' > > 203 "What has weighed down everything? > What is most extensive? > What is the one thing that has > All under its control?" > > 204 "Name has weighed down everything; > Nothing is more extensive than name. > Name is the one thing that has > All under its control." > > Note 121 says, in part, There is no living being or entity that is > free from a name, whether the name be natural or fabricated. Even a > tree or stone with no known name is still called "the nameless one". > > metta, > Christine 18068 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:00am Subject: Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Christine, I find your answers to the first two question reasonable, that they agree with the definition found in dictionary: "a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a person or thing" (www.webster.com) About question #3, this is what I feel/think: I feel that the meaning of the term "name" is further abstracted. What is retained is the meaning designation. And what is common in feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention such that they are called name? Designation. The world is known/felt/perceived through designation. Thus: 203 "What has weighed down everything? What is most extensive? What is the one thing that has All under its control?" 204 "Name has weighed down everything; Nothing is more extensive than name. Name is the one thing that has All under its control." Form is what is being designated. The term "name-&-form" represented the relation of designation and designated. This relation comes to be only when there is consciousness. Metta, Victor > Hi Victor, > Here is my best guess at answers to your questions plus a little help > from Bhikkhu Bodhi. > > Victor: 1. How is the word "name" used in everyday life? > C: "Name" is used to to facilitate communication by using a commonly > agreed sound (in speech), or group of letters which point to that > sound, indicating a particular object. > ---------------------------- > Victor: 2. What does it mean by the word "name" in the context of "my > name > is Victor" or "my name is Christine"? > C: In this context, it allows identification of a particular object > (an individual human) out of very many similar ones. > -------------------------- > Victor: In Samyutta Nikaya XII.2, Paticca-samuppada-vibhanga Sutta, > Analysis > of Dependent Co-arising, feeling, perception, intention, contact, and > attention is called name. > 3. What do feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention > have in common such that they are called name? > > C: I don't think they are called 'name'. I think they are part of > the combination 'name-and-form', often rendered by translators as the > combination 'mentality-materiality'. The full verse is "And what, > bhikkhus, is name-and-form? Feeling, perception, volition, contact, > attention: this is called name. The four great elements and the form > derived from the four great elements: this is called form. Thus this > name and this form are together called name-and-form." (6) > > In the general introduction to the Samyutta Nikaya p, 47 - 49 > Bhikkhu Bodhi says (in part): > "Though I render nama as name, this should not be taken too > literally. Nama is the assemblage of mental factors involved in > cognitiion: feeling, perception, volition, contact and attention > (vedana, sanna, cetana, phassa, manasikara; II 3, v.34-35). > These are called name because they contribute to the process of > cognition by which objects are subsumed under conceptual > designations." > > The note (6) to the verse quoted above on p. 727 Samyutta Nikaya > (Bodhi) states: "nama denotes the three aggregates - of feeling, > perception, and volitional formations - which are called thus because > of their "bending" (namana) on to an object (in the act of cognizing > it). Volition, contact, and attention belong to the aggregate of > volitional formations and, according to Spk, have been selected to > represent that aggregate here because they are operative even in the > weakest classes of consciousness." > > metta, > Christine 18069 From: Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi, Victor - Something's very wrong, here, Victor! Something's making me very uneasy! Mmm, yeah, I think I know what it is - I agree with this entire post of yours!! ;-)) (Uh, well, one disclaimer - among the things that can be designated are namas as well. But that is a secondary issue. You are exactly right with regard to the meaning and importance of nama - it is designation.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/21/02 10:02:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Christine, > > I find your answers to the first two question reasonable, that they > agree with the definition found in dictionary: > > "a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a > person or thing" (www.webster.com) > > About question #3, this is what I feel/think: > I feel that the meaning of the term "name" is further abstracted. > What is retained is the meaning designation. And what is common in > feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention such that they > are called name? Designation. > > The world is known/felt/perceived through designation. Thus: > > 203 "What has weighed down everything? > What is most extensive? > What is the one thing that has > All under its control?" > > 204 "Name has weighed down everything; > Nothing is more extensive than name. > Name is the one thing that has > All under its control." > > Form is what is being designated. The term "name-&-form" represented > the relation of designation and designated. This relation comes to > be only when there is consciousness. > > Metta, > Victor > > /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) 18070 From: Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Victor (Christine & Howard), Victor, I agree with your findings, but there is more to it. I did some research (and speculation) and found out that namarupa is a very old word, having its roots in the Vedas. "Rupa" originally meant "appearance" and "nama" meant "name", but "name" meant a lot more then than it does now. "Name" was the invocation of a being's spirit. People, animals, gods, demons, spirits, rocks, trees, waters and everything else that had a name was a being with a spirit. Speech was a powerful magic that a skilled person could use to control, or at least influence other beings. We still have a little of this today. A boat or ship has a name and that name is an invocation of the boat's personalty. The name is not just a pointer, it is nama, personality, spirit. By the time of the abhidhamma people didn't see spirit in things so much. Instead they saw the elusive wholeness of a compound, as with "city" or "carriage". Today we call that wholeness a concept. So in the abhidhamma we say "nama" has two meanings: concept and personality. One way of understanding "namarupa" is as "who/what". Larry 18071 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:48am Subject: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Howard, Glad that we agree on something. Indeed, designation can also be designated. Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > Something's very wrong, here, Victor! Something's making me very > uneasy! Mmm, yeah, I think I know what it is - I agree with this entire post > of yours!! ;-)) > (Uh, well, one disclaimer - among the things that can be designated > are namas as well. But that is a secondary issue. You are exactly right with > regard to the meaning and importance of nama - it is designation.) > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 12/21/02 10:02:06 AM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Christine, > > > > I find your answers to the first two question reasonable, that they > > agree with the definition found in dictionary: > > > > "a word or phrase that constitutes the distinctive designation of a > > person or thing" (www.webster.com) > > > > About question #3, this is what I feel/think: > > I feel that the meaning of the term "name" is further abstracted. > > What is retained is the meaning designation. And what is common in > > feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention such that they > > are called name? Designation. > > > > The world is known/felt/perceived through designation. Thus: > > > > 203 "What has weighed down everything? > > What is most extensive? > > What is the one thing that has > > All under its control?" > > > > 204 "Name has weighed down everything; > > Nothing is more extensive than name. > > Name is the one thing that has > > All under its control." > > > > Form is what is being designated. The term "name-&-form" represented > > the relation of designation and designated. This relation comes to > > be only when there is consciousness. > > > > Metta, > > Victor 18072 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:01am Subject: [dsg] Name was (Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism) Hi Larry, Thank you for the findings. I think it is very helpful to understand the root meaning of the term "name". Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor (Christine & Howard), > > Victor, I agree with your findings, but there is more to it. I did some > research (and speculation) and found out that namarupa is a very old > word, having its roots in the Vedas. "Rupa" originally meant > "appearance" and "nama" meant "name", but "name" meant a lot more then > than it does now. "Name" was the invocation of a being's spirit. People, > animals, gods, demons, spirits, rocks, trees, waters and everything else > that had a name was a being with a spirit. Speech was a powerful magic > that a skilled person could use to control, or at least influence other > beings. We still have a little of this today. A boat or ship has a name > and that name is an invocation of the boat's personalty. The name is not > just a pointer, it is nama, personality, spirit. By the time of the > abhidhamma people didn't see spirit in things so much. Instead they saw > the elusive wholeness of a compound, as with "city" or "carriage". Today > we call that wholeness a concept. So in the abhidhamma we say "nama" has > two meanings: concept and personality. One way of understanding > "namarupa" is as "who/what". > > Larry 18073 From: James Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:22am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi James, > > In Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html > the Buddha taught that each and every aggregate is not self. He > instructed that each and every aggregate 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 teaching and instruction itself is simple, yet profound and > liberating in the sense that: > > "Seeing thus, the well-instructed disciple of the noble ones grows > disenchanted with the body, disenchanted with feeling, disenchanted > with perception, disenchanted with fabrications, disenchanted with > consciousness. Disenchanted, he becomes dispassionate. Through > dispassion, he is fully released. With full release, there is the > knowledge, 'Fully released.' He discerns that 'Birth is depleted, the > holy life fulfilled, the task done. There is nothing further for this > world.'" > > When mind is busy theorizing and complicating, it has not much room > seeing thus. Seeing thus is not the same as theorizing. > > All four theories are interesting. All four are to be abandoned. > That is what's difficult. > > Metta, > Victor > Hi Victor, Well, of course you are correct that a theory isn't the end of insight. A theory only prepares the mind for true understanding. That is why it is called a theory and not a reality or fact. A theory is like tilling the soil to prepare it for summer harvest. It is not the soil or the abundance of the crop. But I am afraid your platitudes do you even less. They lead you to believe they are the soil, the tilling, and the crops; but they exist only in the thin air of imagination. They fill your imagination full, but your belly will grow hungry. Which is better? A starving man who knows he is starving or a starving man who thinks he is full? The Lord Buddha wanted us all to realize how much we are starving; but I can understand why it is more comfortable to believe oneself to be full. Metta, James 18074 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samvega and Pasada Dear Sarah, Thank your for your kind words of sympathy which Lodewijk also appreciated very much. I like your post on samvega, always good to be reminded of the moment, the moment again. Especially: op 20-12-2002 10:02 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > Comment: restraint of the sense faculties and development of understanding > again. This is satipatthana and the real understanding of samvega. We can > read other examples in which monks and lay people were impelled by the > urgency’ to develop insight and attain arahatship. Of course these > examples always need to be understood in the light of no beings, no > selves, but confidence and understanding in the value of insight and the 4 > right efforts. And: < < Just as right livelihood’ cannot be defined apart from this very moment > of abstention from that which is wrong, neither can the urgent need to > keep the sense faculties restrained’quoted above from Sammohavinodani be > considered apart from this moment of seeing or hearing, regardless of > whether we are Xmas shopping and listening to carols or sitting quietly in > a temple. > Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. 18075 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] DSG: to Dion, books, chanting, etc. Hi Dion, I just answer that part of your letter referring to me, O.K.? op 20-12-2002 18:47 schreef Dion op dionpeoples@y...: > To Nina: I meant no offense, I'm sure the new sect of righteously > practicing Shortcut Buddhists and their Sangha find it valuable, as do > newcomers to Buddha's Dhamma, but I prefer the Tripitika, and I > meditate on the difficult points and find other pieces of advice within > potentially relating Sutta's. THE POINT I WANT TO TEACH HERE IS NOT > TO BE AFRAID OF THE TRIPITIKA. Do you have other publications > available, I would be interested in knowing other topics away from the > Abhidhamma that you might have written on Buddhism. Nina: On Zolag web, http://www.zolag.co.uk/ and also on Rob K's web, http://www.abhidhamma.org/ you could find some of my other writings. Never mind about Abhidhamma. You could try: Buddhism in Daily Life. You can see that I am not afraid of the suttas :-) I translated from Acharn Sujin: Taking Refuge in Buddhism. By the way, do you know Thai? Do you still live in Thailand? I appreciate it that you are so interested in the Commentaries. I have some in Pali and many in Thai, because my Pali reading is o so slow. Could you tell me more about the monk's chanting, I know so little about it and I am interested which texts they usually chant. A monk in Cambodia told me that they chant the satipatthana sutta every day. You meditate on difficult points of suttas, would you share your meditations with us? Best wishes, Nina. 18076 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hello Dear Beth, Welcome to DSG, and thanks for the introduction. There are some useful links associated with the group including: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_ Posts http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossar y_of_pali_terms kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Beth [mailto:An_Morrigna@B...] > Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 4:03 AM > To: dhamma study group > Subject: [dsg] Hello 18077 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Peter Da Costa Messages Hi Peter, No worries ... you added some excitement to a dull day. Being a non- tech type, I vaguely understand your explanation of the anatta, conditions, no-control, and kamma-vipaka of compter systems. The undeclared war with my computer only results in skirmishes, attacks and dastardly deeds occurring within this Study (since Norton came to stay). Through the practice of equanimity I have managed to ignore all the abuse it hurls, usually beginning with messages stating " This program has performed an illegal operation and will be shut down". I sail on regardless, and think of verses such as: "Yesterday it worked. Today it is not working. Windows is like that." -------------------- "Chaos reigns within. Reflect, repent, and reboot. Order shall return." -------------------- Dr. Seuss Explains Why Computers Sometimes Crash, and do other incomprehensible things. (I think this is fun to read out loud.) "If a packet hits a pocket on a socket on a port, and the bus is interrupted at a very last resort, and the access of the memory makes your floppy disk abort, then the socket packet pocket has an error to report. If your cursor finds a menu item followed by a dash, and the double-clicking icon puts your window in the trash, and your data is corrupted cause the index doesn't hash, then your situation's hopeless and your system's gonna crash! If the label on the cable on the table at your house says the network is connected to the button on your mouse, but your packets want to tunnel to another protocol, that's repeatedly rejected by the printer down the hall, and your screen is all distorted by the side effects of gauss, so your icons in the window are as wavy as a souse; then you may as well reboot and go out with a bang, 'cuz sure as I'm a poet, the sucker's gonna hang! When the copy of your floppy's getting sloppy in the disk, and the macro code instructions cause unnecessary risk, then you'll have to flash the memory and you'll want to RAM your ROM then quickly turn off the computer and be sure to tell your Mom!" WELL! That certainly clears things up for ME! Cheers, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa wrote: 18078 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 8:56pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? Hi James and all, James wrote: "Since there is no self, generating metta toward oneself would be the same as generating metta toward another. True??" C: This is an interesting thought. Actually, there have been long running, intermittent discussions on dsg, under different thread names, about 'pervading metta to oneself'. Some discussions (42 posts) on this point, are archived on escribe. Meththa Meditation, beginning on escribe at: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5350.html (Click on 'View this Thread' at the top of the message.) Other threads on the same point, Understanding metta, Some more about metta, Four Sublime states A few random quotes: In dsg 9342 Mike Nease had said: "As I understand it, the brahma viharas aren't 'directed' towards 'oneself' or 'others'. The pre-eminent characteristic of all of them is that they are directed to absolutely all beings without exception in every direction and to the entire cosmos, rather than being directed at someone in particular." In dsg 9461 Sarah said to RobK: "And so, I think the first line you quote that metta should first of all `..be developed only to oneself' is explained by the following ones that `it does not conflict' with the other texts which clearly show metta is never towards oneself because here it `refers to (making oneself) an example." In dsg 10520 I concluded that "In the end, the vast majority of sitting meditators were on one side of a line drawn in the sand, directing metta to oneself (as well as others)...and the minority who stated that metta can only be directed outwards to others, and that it was difficult to be certain it was really Metta anyway, were on the other side of the line." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " 18079 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello Hi, Beth, and welcome to the list from me. --- Beth wrote: > Hello all, > I'm very new to Buddhism. I began taking an interest in > Buddhism when > a local TV forum had various guest in which the topic was related > to or > about Buddhism. I've since attended some online chats in buddhist > rooms > (mostly yahoo) and have downloaded the Dhammapada from Access To > Insight. > I've been meditating in some form for most my life and have been > working on > awareness for the past few years. > I look forward to reading your post. > > ~peace, > Beth Please feel free to share with us your understanding or experience about awareness, which is such an important aspect of Buddhism. We could all benefit from more discussion about this. Jon 18080 From: Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi Victor, You wrote, "He instructed that each and every aggregate 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." You are right this doesn't take any philosophy and applying it to a moment of experience is satipatthana. It is simple, direct, and obvious. Ideas and understanding are not me. I used to think this implied there _was_ a me doing the practice but I looked and there was no one there. Larry 18081 From: antony272b2 Date: Sat Dec 21, 2002 10:58pm Subject: Re: What exactly IS metta? > James wrote: "Since there is no self, generating metta toward oneself > would be > the same as generating metta toward another. True??" Bhikkhu Bodhi wrote: Note 19. This might appear to contradict what we said earlier, that metta is free from self-reference. The contradiction is only apparent, however, for in developing metta towards oneself one regards oneself objectively, as a third person. Further, the kind of love developed is not self-cherishing but a detached altruistic wish for one's own well-being. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html 18082 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 0:26am Subject: Last chance for 2002 Dear Group, Anyone who is wondering what gift they can give their dear Dhamma friends this holiday season - you all do remember that Giving is one of the Perfections leading to Enlightenment, don't you? - I ask you to consider giving us the gift of your countenance i.e. your photo.:) With all the holiday photos being taken - surely one of them will catch your best side. :-) New or Updated versions, all are welcome. We have 58 photos currently in the album, many are group photos, so there are literally scores of us (and some of our beautiful children) hanging out in there. A huge variety of multi-cultural humanity... Any new members, or long time members who have been meaning to grace our Album, please feel free to put a photo in now. (Not wishing to put too much pressure on anyone, but just suppose someone wanted to make up for their computers' over-enthusiastic accidental postings, well, a photo might just about square the ledger. :-)) Victor, great to see you've put an Update in. Thank you, it's very nice. :-) Hopefully, others may follow suit. We can all be viewed at: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst (click on 'show all') Anyone with technical problems regarding uploading photos, please contact Kom (or myself) off-list. metta, Christine 18083 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 1:56am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > > > I would like some input from those who don't > overestimate their understanding and don't take for granted the depth > of the Lord Buddha's teachings. > I'm probably guilty of the first part, who isn't, but not of the second; the depth of the Buddha's teaching is certainly, inestimable. We can all teach about conventional reality but only a Buddha teaches conditioned reality and the escape therefrom. Theory one. This is like the simile of the chariot is it not? The point of that simile, however, was not that chariots and baseballs are anatta, but rather that the five khandhas are anatta. Just as the parts of a baseball, when properly assembled, are conventionally designated, "baseball," so too, the five khandhas, arising together, are conventionally designated, "living being" (or self). Theory two I think scientists say that matter is ultimately, energy arising in discrete packages (quanta), and disappearing again with incredibly high frequency. But even these quanta are not what the Buddha described as ultimate realities. They are concepts. When certain absolute realities (visible object, tangible object, etc.), present themselves at the sense doors, memories and thoughts work at relating to them. Concepts such as baseball are formed. By the time a concept has been formed, the realities that prompted it have been and gone. It was those realities that the Buddha realised as anicca, dukkha and anatta, not the concepts. Theory three What if scientists could produce a diamond baseball so hard and indestructible that it was guaranteed to last forever? It is my guess that this type of hypothesis is the reason for it being said [somewhere in the Tipitaka], that even concepts should be regarded as anatta. There is no reason to regard them as anicca and dukkha but IMHO, it is to forestall any desperate attempts at seeing self in things that don't exist, that we say, "even concepts are anatta." Theory four Yes, baseball is a concept. It is the conventional designation given to certain rupas that appear fleetingly, one at a time, at the six doorways. The anatta of `baseball' is that it is an illusion. The anatta of things that are real is something different again. It is a characteristic that can be directly known but only at very highly developed levels of satipatthana. Until these [inestimably deep] levels are reached, we can but listen and learn. Kind regards Ken H 18084 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:03am Subject: Re: Commentaries are papanca-like? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > > > > While I agree that samsara is the rise and fall of the khandas, I do > not agree that samsara has ended upon the parinibbana of any arahat; > samsara may have ended for the arahat, but samsara 'at large' is > still not ended yet. > > > Hi Swee Boon, Perhaps it can be both. Perhaps samsara `at large' can be ended for the arahat and at the same time, not ended for the rest of us. I like to think that everything is contained in the present moment. If we were the Tathagatha, we would be able to see how the present namas and rupas were conditioned by certain previous namas and rupas. We could go back a step further and see what conditioned the conditions and so on and so on, right back to the beginning of samsara. Likewise, we could see how the present namas and rupas, both our own and of others, can condition future namas and rupas and how they can condition others right up to the end of samsara. In this way, it might be said that the five khandhas of the present moment contain the beginning of samsara, the end of samsara and every dhamma that has existed [or will exist], in between. So the parinibbana of all arahats, past and future, [including ourselves], and the total end of samsara, is contained in this present moment, if only we could see it. This may be pure speculation; corrections welcome. Ken H 18085 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Last chance for 2002 Hi Christine & All, Thanks for the prompts for pix and so nicely packaged;-) --- "christine_forsyth " > Any new members, or long time members who have been meaning to grace > our Album, please feel free to put a photo in now. ..... A few Star Kids pix are wandering around in cyberspace as we speak but hopefully will be in the album very soon (just those who have posted)....Apologies in advance for the combination of my poor photography skills combined with a few kids determined to make the task as difficult as possible;-) ..... >(Not wishing to > put too much pressure on anyone, but just suppose someone wanted to > make up for their computers' over-enthusiastic accidental postings, > well, a photo might just about square the ledger. :-)) ..... Here, here.... I also enjoyed the poetry and explanation of the little panic attack I had yesterday;-): “.... the anatta, conditions, no-control, and kamma-vipaka of compter systems.” .... The reminders on patience are also a much-appreciated gift at any time: ***** “Patience should be further fortified by reflection: "Those who lack patience are afflicted in this world and apply themselves to actions which will lead to their affliction in the life to come." And: "Although this suffering arises through the wrong deeds of others, this body of mine is the field for that suffering, and the action which is its seed was sown by me alone." And: "This suffering will release me from the debt of that kamma." And: "If there were no wrong-doers, how could I accomplish the perfection of patience?" “ (Thanks, Nina for sharing the translations with us - no limit to patience either). ***** Many thanks to all who have either helped test our patience (and allowed us to see our own shortcomings in this regard) or who have shown great examples of patience when tested ;-) Sarah ====== 18086 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:13am Subject: Letter from Kimmy Dear James, Your reply was really long and thank you very much. It makes me think of many things and always remember what you told me. You are right, Humans shouldn't try to guess and don't know what God thinks. Also, it is real that I would feel worse if someone says I'm going to get trouble with my teacher or parents. The story about Patty and Dominique is really interesting. I am glad that my view towards myself is not the same as neither Patty or Dominique. I think we should look at ourself in a way of always encouraging ourself to do better, right? Really thanks for your reply. Kimmy 18087 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:18am Subject: letter to Kiana Hey Kiana!!! =) Im really glad to write letters to you! Exactly,thats why in life, nothing is peaceful. You only grow when you experience sad stuff and happy stuff.Pretend, there was an earth quake or a volcano eruption and you never experienced it then you would never know what to do right? Unless you learned a bit about safety during the earth quake of the eruption. But you usually get really scared and you wont do anything because you never experienced it. Or if you never try going out by your self, you would never grow. You would always want to go out with someone you know and you trust forever and ever. Sure of course I learned a lot about Buddhism! It sure is really interesting!! Well, in Buddhism, if somebody dies, will they be put in a coffin and the coffin gets put in the graveyard like Christians do? Love, Joanne ===== 18088 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:23am Subject: Letter to James Hi James, This is Joanne again~ Thanks for your letter number 17118. Im sorry, Im sure Philip has good points as well. Everybody is different. True, when we walk right, he walks left. Its just a different direction everybody is going. Thanks for telling me all these stuff about other people. Im sure It is really different from all the other religions. Well, I dont have much to say. So talk to you later! *~!!MERRY CHRISTMAS!!~* Love, Joanne P.S. How long do you spend on writing all these letters when you receive them?? 18089 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:26am Subject: About Christmas Dear Robert, Are you getting excited about Christmas. Will you spend Christmas with your family and do you have a Christmas tree. Have you decorated it yet? Yes I do think you should get Alex game cubes. Plus I'm getting a game cube too. Please tell me more about kamma. I read and understood everything you said it seemed very senseble and what present have you recived (please say after Christmas) From Charles 18090 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Ken H, Always good to see you posting;-) --- "kenhowardau " wrote: > Sarah, > > Thanks for this additional information on right > livelihood; I'm so far out of my depth with this, that > I'm not even sure if my questions make sense: .... Let me tell you I’m also often out of my depth and one never knows when 'a Ken H' may come along and test it all out;-) Seriously, this is the best gift of all for me.....knowing someone is reading, considering and questioning (even disagreeing with, is very fine) . .... > What is the `opportunity' (for wrong speech, action, > livelihood), that has to be present before an abstention > (virati) can arise? E.g., is it a dhamma or a concept? > Is it an object of consciousness? ..... I’d say the moments of consciousness preceding the virati (abstention). Eg in a business setting, someone asks if one leaked the information to the client. There is the hearing, reflecting and then the abstention from wrong speech. ..... > Does the virati arise in the same citta viti as the > opportunity? (Perhaps these and other questions, should > wait until I know more about what the `opportunity' is.) .... I think as Rob M was discussing, there are so many citta-vithi (processes) rapidly following each other. There are bound to be the hearing of sounds in the ear door processes, the reflections, considerations in subsequent mind door processes and then the moments of abstention following these. It’s also common to refrain from wrong speech one moment and then blurt out with it the next. I'm not sure we need to (is helpful to) try to 'work out' the processes. .... > I cannot follow the quote you have given from > "Sammohavinodani1 (PTS transl by Nanamoli,p.142): > > > ". . . And also because there is abstaining from > transgression in the body door by one consciousness and > from transgression in the speech door by another, > therefore this arises multiple moments in the prior > stage. But at the moment of the path, profitable > abstention called Right Livelihood arises singly, > fulfilling the path factor by accomplishing non-arising > because of cutting-away the foundation of the volition > connected with the bad conduct of wrong livelihood which > has arisen through the seven courses of action in the two > doors. This is Right Livelihood" > > > > What is the meaning of `speech door' and `body door' in > this context? To what do `the multiple moments' and `the > prior stage' refer? What are the `seven courses of > action?' .... Just my ideas - no guarantees;-) Speech door - through using speech -abstaining from lying, slandering, harsh speech and idle talk. Body door - through an action - abstaining from killing, stealing and sexual misconduct Both whilst carried out for one’s livelihood. These are the ‘seven courses’ of action (akusala kamma patha) as I understand - the 4 wrong speech and 3 wrong action whilst carried out in the livelihood context. Prior to the sotapatti magga citta of the sotapanna, there have to be ‘multiple’ mind door processes with abstention, accompanied by right understanding. There cannot be abstention from wrong speech and wrong action at the same time - different processes. However at the Path moment, all the 3 viratis arise together with the other 5 eightfold path Factors. By this stage, there are no longer any conditions for some of these kinds of speech and action (lying, killing, stealing, sexual misconduct) to arise, so this is the final eradication and the end of these kinds of virati. There continue to be opportunities for the virati with regard to the other kinds of wrong speech not yet eradicated. .... > Perhaps it would be simpler if you could just set some > homework for me(?); thanks in advance, ... These are very good questions and not easy to answer. OK homework (I’m a little busy and distracted right now) - do some digging and checking and let me know what you think or how it sounds (or if I'm leading you astray) and also the other comments on livelihood, lawyers and trees;-) Also, pls continue helping with other questions raised on list as you're doing....;-);-). Others may have ideas (or corrections) too on anything I've written. .... > PS Ken O (KC), thank you for the compliments and for the > good will; the same to you and to all other dsg members > who are not averse to a little Xmas cheer :-) ... Kids and Starkids now on holiday, so I’ll be enjoying a little Xmas cheer this week for sure....KC , great to see you around and in such good form. Sarah ====== 18091 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: about death Dear Azita, Thank you for your words and the quote. I am also impressed by Rob K.'s explanation: it is not so happy to be reborn, this is another way of looking at things, but hard if it is a loved one. I quote Rob K: I had not looked at it that way. It is hard to swallow because we cling to the idea of the dear person who has died, cannot accept it. But it is as you quoted from Questions of Milinda, unavoidable. Azita, how can we console others? Thus, not by telling them about rebirth. I really have to ponder on this. Lodewijk said, all her good accumulations of kindness, hospitality, compassion are never lost. She took care of their mother in an eminent way. These accumulations condition the next life, which is different. Nina. op 21-12-2002 06:28 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: > I also am sorry to hear of your loss. The above > comment is so very true, while we mourn and weep that > being is already born again somewhere else. 18092 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Hi Larry, and Victor op 20-12-2002 21:34 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: One thought that came to mind by the phrase > "pleasure is the stuff of suffering as suffering" is that pleasure is > not only impermanent and ungraspable, it is also the ultimate object and > cause of all grasping: "dependent on feeling craving arises". But this > was just my own thought. N: I like this thought. L:As for the three characteristics, I think we > could say due to their interconnected logic, the correct recognition of > any one of the characteristics will include the other two. "Anatta" is > confusing for many people, but I think the correct perception of > impermanence will carry one to path insight. Any object of satipatthana > could be contemplated as anicca, or dukkha, or anatta, or all three. N: again, the first stage of insight comes first: knowing the hardness as rupa, different from seeing which is nama. Already very difficult. The fourth stage realizes the impermanence of nama and rupa, and it brings more detachment, letting go. I was reminded in Thailand again and again that panna leads to detachment. Thus, it is not helpful to think: I should know this quickly, how can I try very hard to know the three characteristics? Then there is clinging. Victor brings up an important point, how to realize the three characteristics. We read about them in the scriptures time and again. We may wonder about non-self: did the Buddha teach this or not, what is meant by this? We may reason about this but then we get stuck with theoretical knowledge, there is no development of panna which can directly realize the truth. In the scriptures, there is no extensive description of all the stages of insight knowledge. We find them in the Path of Discrimination and the Visuddhimagga, but they are only described shortly. When panna develops to the stage of insight knowledge, no words are needed, it is the direct realization of the truth. We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, Comprehension: Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable of extinguishing Ill... In Pali: sabbam (the all) bhikkhave anabhijaana.m(not fully knowing) aparijaana.m (not comprehending) aviraajaya.m (not detaching) appajaha.m (not abandoning) abhabbo (unable) dukkhakkhayaaya (khaaya, extinguishing). It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing the all dukkha can be extinguished. Now the Commentary: end quote. Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. The Visuddhimagga explains (Ch XX, 3) about the three kinds of full understanding: ~naata-pari~n~naa (full understanding of the known), begins at the first stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and rupa) up to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). The specific characteristics of nama and rupa are penetrated. The second pari~n~naa, full understanding as investigation : begins at the third stage (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) until the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight (mahaa-vipassana ~naa.na): realizing the arising and falling away of realities. Here the general characteristics are penetrated. The third pari~n~naa, pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning, begins at the contemplation of dissolution, bhanga ~naa.na, the second stage of principal insight. Thus we see that in the sutta very few words are used, describing all stages of insight. We also see that as panna develops it leads to detachment, to abandoning. But panna develops stage by stage. If the specific characteristics of nama and rupa are not fully penetrated (the all: seeing, etc), the three characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of panna evolves according to a specific order. Nina. 18093 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:57am Subject: RE: [dsg] Music produces mental feelings. Why? Dear Swee Boon, > -----Original Message----- > From: nidive [mailto:nidive@y...] > > Dear Everybody, > > Why does music produce mental feelings? The dependent origination explains this: name & form -> the 6 sense base -> contact -> feeling -> tanha [attachment] -> grasping... What about visible objects, smell, taste, hot & cold, hardness and softness? Don't these produce mental feelings also? When pleasant objects appear to us, we often (or invariably) have pleasant feeling associated with attachment (tanha). > Even though what I hear is a sound at a time, yet > when many sounds > at a time conjoin together in some musical > fashion, there arises > pleasant mental feelings; there arises imagination... The tika explains that after paramatha objects appear to the sense door and the mind door, we are bound to conjoin what appeared together and conceptualize on them. After we hear a sound, we conceptualize its pattern (like phrases of music, or speech), its origination (like being music, or a person's voice), and its meaning, each involving more elaborate conceptualization / mind-constructs about the sound that we just heard. A person yet untrained in the conceptualization, or differently trained in the conceptualization may conceptualize on the sound very differently. A baby hears a sound, but might not have associated the sound with music, may not be able to associate the sound with a person or its meaning. A person of a different culture may interpret the sound differently. A person hit by a hard object may say "ouch" in English, but certainly wouldn't say that in Thai. I think how we conceptualize the sound is mostly based on our accumulations / training that has been going on in the past and in the present. When you hear about Tchikvosky's Chinese dance the first time, it may take you a while to think of it as being a comedy. But after repeated association, this thinking becomes automatic. The on-going mental states that are going on right now influence the mental states (reaction to similar situations) that would arise in the future. I hope this isn't more confusing, and I hope others say something more on this topics. kom 18094 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 4:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Music produces mental feelings. Why? Hi, Kom (and Swee Boon) - All that I would like to add is my opinion that the conceptual operation performed on a sequence of notes creating a "melody" is not completely arbitrary nor is it conditioned only by our accumulations. Rather, it is based on the existence of an actual pattern of relations holding among the notes that comprise the sequence we call "melody". That is, the pa~n~natti that is determined by our sankharic construction is well-grounded and not constructed from whole cloth, and its creation does truly provide useful information to the mind. Concepts should not be seen for more than the are ... but also not for less than what they are. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/22/02 11:58:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Swee Boon, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: nidive [mailto:nidive@y...] > > > >Dear Everybody, > > > >Why does music produce mental feelings? > > The dependent origination explains this: > name &form -> the 6 sense base -> contact -> feeling -> > tanha [attachment] -> grasping... > > What about visible objects, smell, taste, hot &cold, > hardness and softness? Don't these produce mental feelings > also? When pleasant objects appear to us, we often (or > invariably) have pleasant feeling associated with attachment > (tanha). > > >Even though what I hear is a sound at a time, yet > >when many sounds > >at a time conjoin together in some musical > >fashion, there arises > >pleasant mental feelings; there arises imagination... > > The tika explains that after paramatha objects appear to the > sense door and the mind door, we are bound to conjoin what > appeared together and conceptualize on them. After we hear > a sound, we conceptualize its pattern (like phrases of > music, or speech), its origination (like being music, or a > person's voice), and its meaning, each involving more > elaborate conceptualization / mind-constructs about the > sound that we just heard. > > A person yet untrained in the conceptualization, or > differently trained in the conceptualization may > conceptualize on the sound very differently. A baby hears a > sound, but might not have associated the sound with music, > may not be able to associate the sound with a person or its > meaning. A person of a different culture may interpret the > sound differently. A person hit by a hard object may say > "ouch" in English, but certainly wouldn't say that in Thai. > > I think how we conceptualize the sound is mostly based on > our accumulations / training that has been going on in the > past and in the present. When you hear about Tchikvosky's > Chinese dance the first time, it may take you a while to > think of it as being a comedy. But after repeated > association, this thinking becomes automatic. The on-going > mental states that are going on right now influence the > mental states (reaction to similar situations) that would > arise in the future. > > I hope this isn't more confusing, and I hope others say > something more on this topics. > > kom > /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) 18095 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 9:52am Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Dear James and all, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: < snip > Anatta is more difficult to comprehend than all of the theories of Einstein and Hawkings combined. KKT: Just drop in and read this thread and like to add some thoughts: Anatta is difficult to comprehend because it is not a theory but a reality to realize, to live with ! The difficulty is because people live with << an atta in full functioning >> and with this atta like to speculate about anatta. One is either anatta or atta, there is no << in-between >> (i.e. more or less atta or anatta :-)) Peace, KKT 18096 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Dear Nina, A slight quibble, or difference of opinion: Is this email who you are? If you say no, then, congratulations, that is the satipatthana of anatta. Of course, it might be more useful to focus on what actually seems to be oneself: thinking, or any one of the root cittas (passion, aggression, bewilderment), for example. The principle is the same. Is this thought who you are? Is it who I am? No. It is just a thought. I would go so far as to say the mere correct naming or clear identification of an object is the automatic recognition of anatta. Anger is not self because anger is anger. We mustn't forget satipatthana is a mundane path. There is no great realization but there could be lots of recognition (sati). Best wishes, Larry 18097 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Hi, Larry - I like this. In a message dated 12/22/02 2:21:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Dear Nina, > > A slight quibble, or difference of opinion: Is this email who you are? > If you say no, then, congratulations, that is the satipatthana of > anatta. Of course, it might be more useful to focus on what actually > seems to be oneself: thinking, or any one of the root cittas (passion, > aggression, bewilderment), for example. The principle is the same. Is > this thought who you are? Is it who I am? No. It is just a thought. I > would go so far as to say the mere correct naming or clear > identification of an object is the automatic recognition of anatta. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Excellent. At the least, this clear identification is the recognition of the impersonality aspect of anatta (though not necessarily also the insubstantiality/conditionality aspect). ----------------------------------------------- > Anger is not self because anger is anger. We mustn't forget satipatthana > is a mundane path. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: As I see it, the "path of satipatthana" is a graduated one, moving from mundane to supermundane. ------------------------------------------------- There is no great realization but there could be lots> > of recognition (sati). > > Best wishes, 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) 18098 From: James Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 0:18pm Subject: Re: Letter to James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > P.S. How long do you spend on writing all these > letters when you receive them?? Hi Star Kid Joanne, Hehehe…I don't spend that long writing these letters at all. If it is a really long one, I will spend 20 to 30 minutes. If it is short letter, I will spend 5 to 10 minutes. I write very fast because I compose the words in my head and can type very fast. It just comes with practice. I had a friend tell me that when she gets an e-mail from me she knows that she can't read it until she has the time. She said that she waits until night time, gets in a comfortable chair, has something to drink, and soaks her feet in hot water. And by the time she is finished reading my letter, the hot water has turned to ice! :-) I write something every single day. I hope my letters aren't too long for you, but if the subject is complicated I like to explain in different ways so that you can understand. Merry Christmas to you too! Love, James ps. I wrote this letter in six minutes. 18099 From: James Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 0:47pm Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Ken H., KKT, Victor, All, Okay, I am not sure how you are thinking about the word `theory', but I think you have a different idea than I do. www.dictionary.com defines theory as: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know anatta first-hand. I am still walking around in `James' most of the time and seeing my thoughts, my car, my house, etc. as mine. I also see them as permanent. On a few rare moments, I have seen otherwise. But those moments were fleeting and probably only a small taste of the real thing. I don't see anything wrong with calling speculations about the nature of anatta `theories'. If you have a problem with that, don't do it for yourself. We all don't have to think the same way. Unless I am significantly off the dhamma trail, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't explain with too many different positions or details. His senior monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is highly unlikely given that). So, if you know more about Anatta than I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, throw me some kinda bone please! :-) Metta, James 18100 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:04pm Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: Ken H., KKT, Victor, All, Okay, I am not sure how you are thinking about the word `theory', but I think you have a different idea than I do. www.dictionary.com defines theory as: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture. Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know anatta first-hand. I am still walking around in `James' most of the time and seeing my thoughts, my car, my house, etc. as mine. KKT: Same thing here :-)) ----------- I also see them as permanent. KKT: Same thing here :-)) ----------- On a few rare moments, I have seen otherwise. But those moments were fleeting and probably only a small taste of the real thing. KKT: The << I, Me, Mine, Myself >> is the background. Always there and very solid or just palpable sometimes :-)) ------------ I don't see anything wrong with calling speculations about the nature of anatta `theories'. KKT: Agree. Nothing wrong with theories. ------------ If you have a problem with that, don't do it for yourself. We all don't have to think the same way. Unless I am significantly off the dhamma trail, I don't see what all the fuss is about. I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't explain with too many different positions or details. His senior monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is highly unlikely given that). So, if you know more about Anatta than I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, throw me some kinda bone please! :-) Metta, James KKT: According to my many readings about this question of Anatta (a very fascinating question indeed, it is my << main >> obsession :-)) in Buddhism as well as in other traditions, Anatta is a reality. Often, << it >> happens suddenly and the person finds that he/she has no more ego, no more this center which is central to all activities, no more this << feeling of I, Me, Mine, Myself >> And the experience should be irreversible. Otherwise, it is merely << fake >> :-)) One could easily delude oneself with an experience of enlightenment. This is the case of many spiritual Masters. Peace, KKT 18101 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 9:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi, KKT - In a message dated 12/22/02 5:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Often, <>happens suddenly > and the person finds that > he/she has no more ego, > no more this center which is > central to all activities, > no more this <> > > And the experience should be irreversible. > Otherwise, it is merely <>:-)) > > One could easily delude oneself > with an experience of enlightenment. > This is the case of many spiritual Masters. > > > =========================== The experience need not be irreversible. First of all, the person may not be properly prepared for the experience and recoil in fear. Secondly, if this is an initial such experience, say even of full stream entry, the atta *sense* is not normally irradicated (though *belief* in self is irradicated). 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) 18102 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 2:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Hi, KKT - In a message dated 12/22/02 5:06:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > Often, <>happens suddenly > and the person finds that > he/she has no more ego, > no more this center which is > central to all activities, > no more this <> > > And the experience should be irreversible. > Otherwise, it is merely <>:-)) > > One could easily delude oneself > with an experience of enlightenment. > This is the case of many spiritual Masters. > > > =========================== The experience need not be irreversible. First of all, the person may not be properly prepared for the experience and recoil in fear. Secondly, if this is an initial such experience, say even of full stream entry, the atta *sense* is not normally irradicated (though *belief* in self is irradicated). With metta, Howard KKT: Agree with you, Howard. The sense of self is only completely irradicated once one becomes Arahat. Metta, KKT 18103 From: chase8383 Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:07am Subject: Are these two teachings the same? Hi All From the Pali: "(Contact) "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance-contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" "No, lord." "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form. " From Dzogchen: "In the heart of winter, the chill freezes lakes and rivers; water becomes so solid it can bear men, beasts, nd carts. As spring approaches, earth and water warm up and thaw. What then remains of the hardess of the ice? Wateris soft and fluid, ice hard and sharp, so we cannot say they are identical; but neither can we say they are different, because ice is only solidified water, and water is only melted ice. The same applys to our perception of the world around us. To be attached to the reality of phenomena, to be tourmented by attraction and repulsion, by pleasure an pain, gain and loss, fame and obscurity, praise and blame, creates a solidity in the mind. What we hav to do, therefore, is to melt the ice of concepts into the living water of the freedom within." Thank you, David 18104 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Larry > If, with insight, we see the conventionally beautiful as ugly (foul in the satipatthana sense) that is not sanna vipallasa but sati, a higher form of understanding than sanna. If we perceive the conventionally beautiful as not self, that is panna (sampajanna), a still higher understanding. KC- With sati, there is no distinction something conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is just seeing as it is, there is no discrimination or changing a sanna to another sanna. This is not a correct application of sati. kind regards KC 18105 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:55pm Subject: The Jataka Tales Dear Kiana, I'm Kimmy and I have read through your letter. In fact I wanted to borrow "The Jakata Tales" last week, however, that time I had already borrowed another book. I have never seen this book and so I would like to ask you some questions about this book. First, since you have said that the tales are full of meaning, so is the meaning easy to understand? Second, since you have said "The Noble Horse" is about a horse which died for protecting the country, then I would like to ask, why a horse's death can save a country? Can you tell me more about this tale? At last, hope your exam result would be good. Kimmy 18106 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 7:58pm Subject: About your sister's death Subject: About your sister's death To: starkidsclub@y... Dear James, Im fine thanks, your asking am I excited in Christmas? Yes I am, how about you? It is very sad about your sister's death. Hope you have a nice holidays. By the way, thanks for telling me about Eightfold Path and what makes your mind "sharp" in the right way? Please write to me. Love Janet 18107 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:01pm Subject: Revolving Doors Dear James, Thankyou for your long letter, it really helped me to understand rebirth. I really liked the part where you explained about the revolving doors, I think you're a really good writer! Thank you for explaining my questions, it really helped me to understand how life goes. Do you believe that there is heaven and hell? Do you know the difference between Buddhism and Christianity? Merry Christmas Thankyou for replying to my letter Sandy 18108 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:06pm Subject: A lot of Q. ! Dear James : Hello! I am Kiana. Sandy and i are good friends. We met in Mrs.Abbott's class. You really wrote a long letter to us, thanks a lot. I want to ask that how can you get those informations? Are those true ? Is there any evidence? From my point view, i don't believe people could reborn(or maybe they could), because the people who were dead and they reborn, means they didn't die, so why do we have "Life & Death"? But each person have their own opinion and really thank you for your answering! I look forward to hearing from you soon. Love, Kiana. 18109 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 8:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi KC, you wrote: L: "If, with insight, we see the conventionally beautiful as ugly (foul in the satipatthana sense) that is not sanna vipallasa but sati, a higher form of understanding than sanna. If we perceive the conventionally beautiful as not self, that is panna (sampajanna), a still higher understanding." KC- "With sati, there is no distinction something conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is just seeing as it is, there is no discrimination or changing a sanna to another sanna. This is not a correct application of sati." L: According to sati there are no beautiful bodies (see below), according to ordinary, conventional perception (sanna) there are beautiful bodies. The result of kamma is conventionally desirable or undesirable. The cause of kamma is consciousness which is wholesome or unwholesome in the ultimate sense. Perceiving the beautiful as ugly is sanna vipalassa, a perversion of sanna. Sati definitely sees the conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is definitely not a perversion of sanna. There are three levels of understanding: sanna, citta, and panna. It makes a neat package to think of this as anupassana, sati, sampajanna. Maybe this is a little simplistic. I will conceed we could say sati is panna. Be that as it may, sati is a higher level of understanding than sanna. So when we look at a conventionally beautiful kamma result we could see beauty with sanna or ugliness with sanna or the foul (ugliness) with sati. I agree sati sees things as they are, but sanna often sees things according to convention. If it makes you uncomfortable to say sati sees the body as ugly, we could say sati sees the body as dukkha. What do you think? Larry ------------------- Way 17: Or it may be said that these Four Arousings of Mindfulness are taught for casting out the illusions [vipallasa] concerning beauty, pleasure, permanence, and an ego. The body is ugly. There are people led astray by the illusion that it is a thing of beauty. In order to show such people the ugliness of the body and to make them give up their wrong idea, the First Arousing of Mindfulness is taught. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html "The Way of Mindfulness" The Section of the Synopsis 18110 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 9:50pm Subject: Way 29, Synopsis "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section of the Synopsis http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Further, just all feelings should be contemplated with the thought: "These are suffering, indeed." [Tika] Suffering is what it is because of the ill natural to the constituents of life [sankhara dukkhataya dukkha]. For this has been said by the Blessed One: "All that is felt is in suffering, I declare [yam kiñci vedayitam tam sabbam dukkhasminti vadami." [T] "All that is in suffering" = Everything experienced is plunged, included, in suffering [sabbantam vedayitam dukkhasmim antogadham pariyapannam], because the ill natural to the formations, the constituents in life, cannot be conquered [sankhara dukkhata nativattanato]. And pleasure should also be contemplated upon as suffering. All should be explained according as the Arahant-nun Dhammadinna spoke (to her former husband Visakha, in the Cula-vedalla Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya): Pleasant feeling, friend Visakha, is agreeable while it lasts and is disagreeable when it changes; painful feeling is disagreeable while it lasts and agreeable when it changes; the neither pleasant nor painful feeling is agreeable when there is a knowledge of its existence and disagreeable when that knowledge is wanting. [T] The three feelings should be contemplated upon as pleasant and painful. When the first occurs, the second changes and the third is known, then, feeling is pleasant. When the first changes, the second occurs and the third is not known, then feeling is painful. The feelings should also be seen according to the seven contemplations beginning with that of impermanence, mentioned above (p. 37). The remaining division beginning with the worldly and spiritual feelings in the classification of pleasurable feeling and so forth, in feeling-contemplation, will become clear in the analytical exposition [niddesavara]. 18111 From: Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 29, Synopsis Way 29: The feelings should also be seen according to the seven contemplations beginning with that of impermanence, mentioned above (p. 37). L: Hi all, this is a typo. It should read (p.34), at least for my edition. The seven contemplations are: (1) as something impermanent; (2) as something subject to suffering; (3) as something that is soulless; (4) by way of turning away from it and not by way of delighting in it; (5) by freeing himself of passion for it; (6) with thoughts making for cessation and not making for origination; (7) and not by way of laying hold of it, but by way of giving it up. 18112 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Larry Sati does not perceive, it is sanna that perceives. Sati don't even see things as dukkha. If preception will to receive an object as ugly it is sanna that function and we "thought" it is sati. The practise of sati is to be objective, it does not discriminate, it does not have any bias or prejudice or like or dislike. Then why do the satipathana sutta state to notice see pleaseant and unpleasant feelings. Bc if we are not in sati, when sanna perceive feelings, it will condition lobha, moha and dosa to arise. By practising with feelings we are learning to be objective. We learn they are just feelings, nothing more and nothing less, no right or wrong, less buggage to carry in our conditional mind. When we are able to see things objectively, then the strength of lobha and dosa will not accumulate further in strength. But it does not eliminates the three roots. The role to see things as dukkha or anatta or anicca is the job of panna. Sati guards the mind, where panna develops it further to cure the three roots. Only through the sati and understanding of anicca, then panna will growth and eliminates the three roots. Hence this is the practise of satipathana in my own interpretation. Thus sati is not the higher level of sanna neither does panna is the higher level of sati. They perform different roles. kind regards KC --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi KC, you wrote: > > L: According to sati there are no beautiful bodies (see below), > according to ordinary, conventional perception (sanna) there are > beautiful bodies. The result of kamma is conventionally desirable > or > undesirable. The cause of kamma is consciousness which is wholesome > or > unwholesome in the ultimate sense. Perceiving the beautiful as ugly > is > sanna vipalassa, a perversion of sanna. Sati definitely sees the > conventionally beautiful as ugly. Sati is definitely not a > perversion of > sanna. There are three levels of understanding: sanna, citta, and > panna. > It makes a neat package to think of this as anupassana, sati, > sampajanna. Maybe this is a little simplistic. I will conceed we > could > say sati is panna. Be that as it may, sati is a higher level of > understanding than sanna. So when we look at a conventionally > beautiful > kamma result we could see beauty with sanna or ugliness with sanna > or > the foul (ugliness) with sati. I agree sati sees things as they > are, > but sanna often sees things according to convention. If it makes > you > uncomfortable to say sati sees the body as ugly, we could say sati > sees > the body as dukkha. What do you think? > > Larry > ------------------- > Way 17: Or it may be said that these Four Arousings of Mindfulness > are > taught for casting out the illusions [vipallasa] concerning beauty, > pleasure, permanence, and an ego. > The body is ugly. There are people led astray by the illusion that > it is > a thing of beauty. In order to show such people the ugliness of the > body > and to make them give up their wrong idea, the First Arousing of > Mindfulness is taught. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html "The Way of > Mindfulness" The Section of the Synopsis 18113 From: James Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 10:54pm Subject: Re: About your sister's death --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Subject: About your sister's death > To: starkidsclub@y... > Dear James, > > Im fine thanks, your asking am I excited in Christmas? > Yes I am, how about you? It is very sad about your > sister's death. Hope you have a nice holidays. > > By the way, thanks for telling me about Eightfold Path > and what makes your mind "sharp" in the right way? > Please write to me. > > Love Janet > Hi Star Kid Janet! Yes, I am excited about Christmas. I like to give a gift to each member of my family and hope that they will like it. It is a good time. But I would have to say that I enjoyed it more when I was a little boy. Christmas is more for kids than adults; but it always reminds us adults of what it is like to be a kid again. You ask, `what makes a mind sharp in the right way'? Well, believe it or not, you have to train your mind to make it sharp. Have you ever seen a puppy? They are really cute aren't they? Well, a puppy will just wander around all over the place with no direction at all. Does a puppy ever sit still? No usually. It will poke its nose into one thing and then poke its nose into something else. It is easily distracted with any sound or new toy; but it will lose interest quickly and move on to something else. If you let a puppy out of your sight, he/she can get into a lot of trouble because a puppy pays not attention to what is going on and can hurt itself. An untrained, un-sharp mind is very much like a puppy. It will focus on one thing and then focus on another thing quite quickly. It is always moving and won't sit still for any length of time. Have you ever walked into a room and forgot why you went into that room? Ah, your puppy mind wandered off didn't it? Have you ever went up to your teacher to ask a question and forgot what question you were going to ask? Again, your puppy mind was to blame. Some people call this ignorance of the mind, but I think that is too harsh. A puppy and a puppy mind are just untrained, they aren't ignorant. They are actually quite loving and innocent. They just need to be trained how to behave. How do you train a puppy? With love, patience, and repetition, repetition, repetition! Puppies have to be shown over and over and over again how to act because they forget. Well, a person's mind is the same way. If you are reading a book, and your puppy mind starts to wander off, you just bring it back to the book again. You do this as many times as it takes. And do it with a smile on your face. If your teacher is teaching, and your puppy mind wanders off, you bring it back again. It is cruel to punish a puppy for being a puppy, and it is cruel to punish yourself for having a puppy mind. We all have puppy minds; just some people have trained their puppy minds with patience and love. When your mind is finally sharp, finally trained, it is like a diamond. It is clear, and brilliant, and sparkly and it will be the hardest thing in the world. You will be able to focus your mind on difficult problems until they are solved. You are able to tell your mind what to focus on and how long to focus. You will know what is going on around you at all times and people will come to you to solve problems and answer questions. You will have control of your mind…it isn't a puppy wandering all over the place anymore. I hope this answers your question. Maybe Santa will bring you a puppy for Christmas?? :-) Love, James 18114 From: Sarah Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Dear Ken H & All, I have some more quotes which I hope are useful on the theme of the 3 virati cetasikas (3 abstentions from wrong action, speech and livelihood) and Right Livelihood in particular. My comments are interspersed: ***** 1. CMA (B.Bodhi transl of Abhidamatthasangaha Guide to #6 p.890 “The three viratis have the respective characteristics of non-transgression by bodily misconduct, by wrong speech, and by wrong livelihood. Their function is to shrink back from evil deeds. They are manifested as the abstinence from such deeds. Their proximate causes are the special qualities of faith, shame, fear of wrongdoing, fewness of wishes, etc. They should be regarded as the mind’s aversion to wrongdoing.” ***** Comment: this gives detail of the proximate causes, i.e the preceding consciousness which ‘prompts’ the wholesome mental factors to arise. ***** 2. CMA Guide to #15 p.97f “The three abstinences: In the supramundane path and fruition cittas the abstinences are always present together as the right speech, right action, and right livelihood of the Noble Eightfold Path. But in mundane cittas they are only present, as explained earlier, on occasions when one deliberately refrains from wrongdoing. Since one deliberately refrains from an evil deed with a consciousness that is aware of the opportunity for transgression, the mundane abstinences can occur only in the sense-sphere wholesome cittas; they cannot occur in sublime cittas, which take the counterpart of the jhana as their object, nor do they occur in resultant sense-sphere cittas , which do not exercise the function of restraint. They also do not occur in the great functional cittas of an Arahant, since an Arahant has altogether overcome the disposition towards transgression and thus has no need for abstinence. In the supramundane cittas the three abstinences are necessarily present (niyata). In the path cittas they are present as the three moral factors of the eightfold path, performing the functions of eradicating the inclinations to wrong speech, wrong action, and wrong livelihood respectively. In the fruition cittas they reappear representing the moral purity of speech, action, and livelihood accomplished by the work of the path. Since transgressions in speech, action, and livelihood each have a different sphere, in mundane consciousness the three abstinences are mutually exclusive: if one is present, the other two must be absent. Moreover, any abstinence that arises can arise only in part, as determined by the type of transgression one refrains from: if one meets the opportunity to take life, then right action arises as abstinence only from taking life; if one meets the opportunity to steal, then it arises as abstinence only from stealing. However, when the abstinences arise in the supramundane cittas they always occur together (ekato), all three being present simultaneously. And as present, each one functions in its entirely (sabbathaa); that is, right speech eliminates the dispositions to all forms of wrong speech, right action to all forms of wrong action, and right livelihood to all forms of wrong livelihood.” ***** Comment: no opportunities for these mental factors to arise in the arahant. For one engaged in a way of life or profession where there are many opportunities for wrong speech and action as discussed, there are also the most opportunities for right speech, action and livelihood;-) ***** 3. CMA Guide to #22 Unwholesome Kamma “Generally occurring through the door of the body (kaayadvaara): In relation to action, the doors (dvaara) are the medium through which kamma is performed. The door of the body is bodily intimation (kaayavi~n~natti), a type of mind-produced material phenomenon by which a person expresses, through the medium of the body, a volition arisen in the mind. The expression “generally occurring” (baahullavuttito) is used because such actions as killing and stealing can also be done by speech, i.e by command, yet even in such cases these actions are still consdiered bodily kamma. The door of speech (vaciidvaara), similarly, denotes vocal intimation(vacivi~n~natti), the mind-originated material phenomenon by means of which volition is expressed verbally. Though such actions as false speech, etc, may also be done bodily, i.e. by writing or by hand signals, because their main medium of execution is the door of speech, they are still considered verbal kamma. ***** Comment: I hope this clarifies your question on doors. This is interesting - wrong speech by email and restraint from this would thus be classified as speech door action. ***** 4. CMA Guide to #24 Wholesome Kamma “According to the doors of action: By way of door of action, ten courses of wholesome kamma are enumerated. The three of body are abstinence from the three unwholesome bodily deeds; the four of speech are abstinence from the four unwholesome verbal deeds; the three of mind are non-covetousness, non-ill will, and right view. In terms of ultimate realities, the first seven are identified as two of the abstinences, i.e. the cetasikas of right action and right speech, and also the volitions arisen along with those abstinences. The last three are modes of the three wholesome roots, non-greed, non-hatred, and non-delusion.” ***** Comment: these are the 10 kusala kamma patha often occurring in the suttas too. ***** 5. Atthasalini, transl as The Expositor (PTS) Path Consciousness <219ff>, p.296ff “..So he who commits the fourfold misconduct of speech by any volition is said to trespass over the boundary. When the abstinence belonging to this supramundane Path has arisen, it does not allow (this volition) to trespass over the boundary - hence ‘not to trespass over the boundary’....Finally. ‘to destroy the causeway.’ that is ‘he breaks down the causeway.’ the meaning is that it destroys the base, the cause of the fourfold misconduct of speech; for that condition is here intended by causeway.......” ***** Comment: Having been brought up in an old castle town, the examples of ‘boundary’ and ‘causeway’ are good reminders for me. ***** 6. Atthasalini p.298ff on Right Livelihood “..And there is no such separate thing as ‘livelihood’. It is understood, together with speech and action, from being part and parcel of them. But by way of a constant dependence on the four requisites , it has been taken out from them and so taught. This being so, right livelihood has no (separate) function of its own, and does not complete the eight path-factors (by any new increment).....for livelihood, in failing, fails at the door of body and speech; it cannot fail at the mind-door. In succeeding, it succeeds at these two doors; it cannot succeed at the mind-door. And transgression at the body-door is, or is not conditioned by livelihood. Likewise at the vocal door............... This right livelihood is obtainable in the various conscious experiences previous to the Path. For by one conscious experience one abstains from the transgression in the door of body; by another, from that in the door of speech. but it is obtained in one moment of consciousness at the moment of the transcendental path; for then there arises only one abstinence, cutting off the base of the volition of wickedness called wrong livelihood, produced by way of the seven courses of action in the doors of body and of speech, and fulfilling the path factor.” ***** Comment: there is a lot more interesting detail which I had to snip. I think the Atthasalini references conform with those in CMA and the Sammohavinodani ones quoted before. (I pulled out the texts today to double-check as my comments yesterday were a bit rushed;-) ***** Nina’s book “Cetasikas’ has a helpful chapter on the 3 virati cetasikas as well. She adds further helpful quotes. She reminds us “that there are many kinds and degrees of the three abstinences. There is abstinence without right understanding and with right understanding.”. She also writes “...when lokuttara cittas arise, all three abstinences accompany the lokuttara cittas, and then nibbana is the object. Thus the object of the abstinences which are lokutara is differnt from the object of the abstinences which are of the sense-sphere. The abstinences which are lokuttara are the right speech, right action and right livelihood of the supramundane eightfold path.” ***** In the course of a day, there are so many opportunities for the 3 viratis to arise and abstain from wrong action, speech or livelihood. I don’t think we have to be concerned about whether a moment of abstaining from rude speech would fall under right speech or livelihood. It’s more important to develop the understanding which knows the distinctions between different kinds of kusala and akusala citta and to see the value of developing the former. Likewise, I don’t think we need to try and analyse what the lokuttara cittas with nibbana as object are like. Slowly, slowly as Nina says;-) Sarah ====== 18115 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Bhikkhunis Hi David, So far I have not experience censure by the moderators unless our statements are aiming at somebody or seem "insulting" (i.e. personal attacks) with our remarks when talking about Buddhism in this group. Your views could be very different is always welcome by me even it is critical about Buddhism. Even those who are critical or who doubt about Abhidhamma is not even censure in this group. We are spacious here though the focus of this group is about Thervada Buddhism. Are you sure you are saying about this group Kind regards KC --- "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi KC > > Well I'd like to respond to your post. However, after continually > being threatened about having my liberty to post removed if I don't > conform, I can't. It seems that there are certain members I'm not > allowed to speak to. It seems there are certain Buddhist thoughts > I'm not allowed to express. It seems there is a fear I won't be > respectful of the monks in here. It seems that I'm some kind of > lose cannon on the deck of the good ship Theravada. > > Being an American, I have a lot trouble with this kind of > restriction. Being a Buddhist, I weep. > > Be spacious, David > > 18116 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Sun Dec 22, 2002 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 27, Comm Hi Larry > but only the contemplating of feeling." > > the phrase "only a doer of feeling-contemplation" not only limits > the range of one's focus but also limits one's intentions and > ambitions, it seems to me. One thought that frequently arises in me is "okay, I've done that, what else should I do?" The"what else" is just the next moment of body, feeling, citta, or dhamma anupassana (look-see). KC - What else or what do u expect then? Nothing, just look and reflect again, Any disturbance thoughts or what else thoughts are longing for something to do or to happen? Isn't it back to square one? There is nothing to attain or obtain at all in the practise of Satipathanna. If there is a slight desire, we are still in samasara and not rooted it out yet. Honestly speaking I can't be in sati for long bc my mind is too restless and I am too restless like a wandering monkey. But what the heck, a small practise for a minute when I am aware is better than none in day to day living :) Sometimes, I totally even forgetten about it. rgds KC 18117 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 0:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Samvega and Pasada Hi Christine, Many thanks for your further comments and continuing this interesting thread. --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Sarah, and All, > > Thanks for your post, Sarah - there were many things I liked and > learned, but I have a few queries and comments, if you or anyone else > would like to give some further input. They mainly seem to revolve > around 'emotions'. > Point 1 - I am uncertain about your comment that seems to mean > emotional states don't condition samvega. My personal experience is > that intense mental/emotional suffering can trigger samvega. I don't > see a difference between feeling driven by suffering to understand > the Dhamma and so find a way to escape from the greater Suffering, > and "having a sense of urgency to escape the round of meaningless > existence"(samvega). ..... Emotional states and misfortune certainly can be a condition for useful reflection or understanding. As we know, unwholesome states can condition wholesome states and vice versa by natural decisive support condition. However, in most the references I’ve followed to samvega, it is referring to a wise consideration and level of panna whether in the development of samatha or vipassana. Hence, in these references it cannot be equated with emotional states such as panic or anxiety or weariness, even though they may act as a condition or prompt. For example, if I shout abuse and this is followed by wise reflection, and a realization and sense of urgency of the need to develop Right Speech, we cannot say the abuse is either the cause or the same as the realization, even if it acts as a prompt in this case. What do you think? ..... > Point 5 - Wouldn't 'experiencing' samvega be entirely different > to 'understanding' it initially? Wouldn't the experience, the > feeling of urgency, be a condition for seeking to understand what > caused it and what was the resolution that would bring calm? ..... In the examples I gave and further ones I followed in SNV(130), BBodhi trans vol2 p1618, (134), vol2 p1621, DN (214), Walshe trans p482, the sense of urgency (samvega) seems to be conditioned purely by wholesome reflections and a level of understanding, rather than triggered by misfortune, aversion or other emotional states. There is one example I read which is interesting and raises questions for me in SN111 Khandhavagga, 78 The Lion, vol1, p913 in which the long living devas who thought life was permanent until they heard the Buddha, are overcome by fear, terror and panic and unwholesome samvega. There is no apparent suggestion that these states led to any immediate insight and samvega in this context doesn’t seem to be linked with moments of wholesome states. It does show that samvega can be used in a wholesome or unwholesome sense, however. We also know that devas who live for more than a hundred thousand years (or something like), cannot appreciate the teachings because they cannot comprehend anything about birth, aging and death. I’m sure there must be other similar references. In the Rhys Davids/Stede dictionary, sa”mvega is on p658. You may like to check the other references given here. Back to the wholesome sense of urgency/understanding for a moment - I don’t see what the use of trying to understand what caused it would be. It’s like trying to work out what brought us to hear the dhamma at this moment. We may say conventionally it was this event in life, reading this book, hearing this person or so on. In truth, conditions are so very complex and we know the accumulations for wise consideration and other wholesome and unwholesome states have been ‘building up’ over so many lifetimes. One person suffers a misfortune and takes to alcohol. Another picks up dhamma books. One person opens the dhamma book and quickly tosses it away, whilst another really considers the words. In reality, there are just moments of vipaka - seeing and hearing pleasant and unpleasant visible objects and sounds, for example, followed by the ‘responses’ according to the accumulated tendencies. ..... > Comments on Thanissaro Bhikkhu's article: I don't think 'anxiety, > weariness, pointlessness or intense desire for things to be > different' are seen as "justified'. They just seem to me to be the > motive power that sometimes produces samvega. .... I’ll agree that these states may be a condition for wholesome samvega. Perhaps I misunderstood a suggestion that these states might equate with it. ..... I think I don't seem > to be understanding your point on emotions. So, therefore, I find > myself disagreeing with " I'd suggest the `sense of > urgency' is a > prompting of uplifting, wholesome states, not an > "oppressive sense of shock, dismay, and alienation that comes > with > realizing the futility and meaningless of life as it's normally > lived" as Thanissaro suggests." I agree with Thanissaro - the > jolt > of strong, oppressive emotions can be just what impels one to look at > life, throw away stale, dogmatic 'answers' and find answers that work > and point to the way out. ..... Perhaps I should pass here. With the possible exception of the last reference from SN I checked, the ones from the other day or the others I quoted here seem to refer to samvega in the ‘uplifting, wholesome states’ rather than the ‘shock, dismay’ ones. I’m not sure that it is the ‘strong, oppressive emotions’ that do the impelling so much as the wise reflections in between and on account of these that ‘impel one to look’ etc. It’s rather like the wrong view practices we may have followed. It could seem that any undertstanding now is as a result of those practices. In truth, it is in spite of the wrong views, that there were enough wise reflections to encourage us to listen to what is useful. I appreciate that many will have different takes on this somewhat sensitive point. ..... > Thank goodness KenH has asked about 'Right Livelihood' - I didn't > understand your comment in the same paragraph where it is mentioned. > It seems that the meaning I understood for Samvega 'an urgent need > to escape the meaningless round of existence', has changed to > being 'an urgent need to keep the sense faculties restrained which > cannot be considered apart from this moment of seeing or hearing.' > I'm treading water here .... ..... Me too...keep treading. I hope the further references and posts helped. None of these points are easy and I’m learning as I write and consider too. I think in this example, samvega refers to the urgency to develop understanding at the present moment. It’s not just thinking about life and death, but by understanding realities now, a step is taken to ‘escape the meaningless round of existence’. No need to look back....all the past sorrow, grief, attachment and other emotional states have all gone. “For the past has been left behind And the future has not been reached. Instead with insight let him see Each presently arisen state;” It can be our new mantra;-) I’ll be very happy to hear any further comments/disagreements or sutta quotes....I know you’ve been considering this topic for quite a while, so there’s no hurry to reach any conclusions. It’s all pretty new for me. Sarah ====== 18118 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 2:14am Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hi David and All, I think the first quote is from the Mahanidana Sutta DN15 and is the section describing "Contact", the sixth link in the principle of Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada). D.O. is a description of the process of the arising and cessation of suffering. It is the doctrine of the conditionality of all physical and psychical phenomena. It explains that samsara, the process of repeated suffering and existences, is perpetuated by a chain of interconnected links of cause and effect. The links are: 1. Ignorance (avijja) 2. Volitional Activities (sankhara) 3. Consciousness (vinnana) 4. Mind & Matter (nama-rupa) 5. Six Sense Doors (salayatana) 6. Contact (phassa) 7. Sensation (vedana) 8. Craving (tanha) 9. Clinging (upadana) 10. Becoming (bhava) 11. Birth (jati) 12. Decay And Death (jara-marana) I think the second quote (skillful means, David? :-)) has elements of impermanence (anicca) when it speaks of the ephemerality of nature, in that it arises and ceases. It also touches on clinging to Concepts. But I'm not so certain it is speaking specifically of Dependent Origination. Happy to be corrected. What do others think? Is "the freedom within" speaking about voidness of the mind? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chase8383 " wrote: > Hi All > > From the Pali: "(Contact) > "'From name-and-form as a requisite condition comes contact.' Thus it has been said. And this is the way to understand how, from name- and-form as a requisite condition comes contact. If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation- contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" > "No, lord." > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance- contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" > "No, lord." > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" > "No, lord." > "Thus this is a cause, this is a reason, this is an origination, this is a requisite condition for contact, i.e., name-and-form. " > > From Dzogchen: "In the heart of winter, the chill freezes lakes and rivers; water becomes so solid it can bear men, beasts, nd carts. As spring approaches, earth and water warm up and thaw. What then remains of the hardess of the ice? Wateris soft and fluid, ice hard and sharp, so we cannot say they are identical; but neither can we say they are different, because ice is only solidified water, and water is only melted ice. > > The same applys to our perception of the world around us. To be attached to the reality of phenomena, to be tourmented by attraction and repulsion, by pleasure an pain, gain and loss, fame and obscurity, praise and blame, creates a solidity in the mind. What we hav to do, therefore, is to melt the ice of concepts into the living water of the freedom within." > > Thank you, David 18119 From: Beth Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 3:49am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello all, Thank you Kom and Jon for your welcomes :-) Jon writes: "Please feel free to share with us your understanding or experience about awareness, which is such an important aspect of Buddhism. We could all benefit from more discussion about this." My experience with awarensss from what I've learned in the past few years has most to do with codependency recovery literature as well as my practice in everyday life. From what I've discerned with the readings I've done presently in the Dhammapada there are some correlations. For exapmple in Dhp 1, verses follow: 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows him like his never-departing shadow 3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. 4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. Awareness to me is being aware of what brings suffering and how to end suffering. In my understanding suffering begins in the mind. ~peace, Beth Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. Dhammapada 4:50 18120 From: chase8383 Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:51am Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hello Christine and All Happy holidays BTW I should have identified the Pali, but your right it's dependent origination and the rise and cessation of suffering. I was wondering if this passage from the Lord Buddha: "If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance- contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" "No, lord." "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" could be understood and applied to the dependent origination of our thoughts? In other words the rising of a "name-group" by mental activity, which is then either accepted or rejected by us, thus leading to suffering? Thank you, David 18121 From: chase8383 Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Bhikkhunis Hi KC I'm sure you are right. Metta, David 18122 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 12/23/02 1:47:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, ashkenn2k@y... writes: > Sati does not perceive, it is sanna that perceives. Sati don't even > see things as dukkha. If preception will to receive an object as ugly > it is sanna that function and we "thought" it is sati. > The practise of sati is to be objective, it does not discriminate, it > does not have any bias or prejudice or like or dislike. ======================== I think of sati as the function of non-distractedness, of not getting lost - kind of a non-forgetting. As I view matters, concentration is the operation of restricting the range of items to be attended to, and mindfulness is the operation of holding firmly on that range (not wandering off). I see both concentration and mindfulness as control operations, and I see vi~n~nana, sa~n~na, and pa~n~na as the operations that are cognitive, per se. (Vi~n~nana discerns an object [such as an image], sa~n~na carves out aspects of it for identification purposes, and pa~n~na sees through cognitive errors, serving a clarifying and corrective function.) Now, this is not according to what I may have seen in Abhidhamma or in Buddhaghosa's comments, but is just my sense of these matters. With metta, Howard P.S. I was going to write more on this, but we just got a call from the hospital - my mother-in-law is in critical condition. Must leave. /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) 18123 From: Tep Sastri Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 8:45am Subject: New Member Hello everyone! I just recently joined DhammastudyGroup and would like to introduce myself a little bit. My cyber friend at Vipassana Group, MSN.com, had done a research on Buddhism meditation study groups in the world and related topics (e.g. waht are the wesites that focus on practices of the meditation techniques taught by the Buddha, or on sharing vipassana experiences) and your study group website was found among very many others. I am interested in this group mainly because of the Tripitaka focus. I was born in Thailand (now living in College Station, Texas). Buddhism is "my religion" by family tradition and, more importantly, by my own choice. Breathing meditation is my main meditation technique. Progress has been slow, however. I hope to learn from more experienced members of this group and am looking forward to participate in several future discussions whenever my schedule allows me. Thank you. Best wishes to all of us and Happy Holidays! Ted (my cyber name) 18124 From: James Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 9:03am Subject: Re: Revolving Doors --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thankyou for your long letter, it really helped me to > understand rebirth. > > I really liked the part where you explained about the > revolving doors, I think you're a really good writer! > Thank you for explaining my questions, it really > helped me to understand how life goes. Do you believe > that there is heaven and hell? Do you know the > difference between Buddhism and Christianity? > > Merry Christmas > Thankyou for replying to my letter > > Sandy Hi Star Kid Sandy, Thank you for the compliment. I am glad that you enjoy my letters. Well, let's jump into your two BIG questions: Do you believe that there is heaven and hell? Do you know the difference between Buddhism and Christianity? Well, Sandy, I am not sure what you have in your mind when you think `Heaven' and `Hell', but, from what I have in my mind, yes I believe they exist. Actually, I believe they exist right here on Earth and in other places. Heaven and Hell can be found in the mind, which is a reflection of places that exist. I don't think that Heaven is floating around on clouds and that Hell is being on fire; those are make-believe ideas. This is what I believe: Hell is fear and Heaven is the absence of fear. Were you ever with your parents in a public place and you suddenly couldn't see them? Remember that feeling of panic and fear? That is Hell. Do you remember a time when you were in your mother or father's arms and you felt so safe and secure? That is Heaven. There are places, the Buddha said, where existence is extreme fear; and there are places where existence is extreme comfort and safety. But, unlike in Christianity, a person isn't stuck in those places for all eternity. They are just one turn of that revolving door. It is quite possible that you and I have experienced a life in Heaven and Hell many times. Perhaps that is why we all seem to naturally have some belief that they exist… somewhere. You also ask, "Do you know the difference between Buddhism and Christianity?" Well, there are many differences but you ask about `the difference', so I guess you want to know the one main difference? The main difference between the two religions is the thinking about and living of `faith'. Christians believe (or are supposed to anyway) that faith in Jesus Christ as the savior and Son of God, who was crucified for the sins of the world, will result in salvation/eternal life. But Buddhists have faith in the Triple Gem (or are supposed to anyway) and believe that if one follows the teachings of Lord Buddha, respects Lord Buddha as a role model, and surrounds oneself with good friends, than salvation/nibbana will come about through individual effort. So, in essence, Buddhists and Christians both want to be `saved' from this human existence, which is quite confusing and painful because of the mind, but Christians look toward an outside force to save them while Buddhists look to their own efforts to save them. I know this is kind of complicated but your question is a very complicated one. Take care and do well in school…don't forget everything over the holiday vacation! :-) I hope you have a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!! Love, James 18125 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 9:15am Subject: RE: [dsg] New Member Dear Ted, Welcome to DSG. I hope you find your stay here a pleasant one. There are a few Thai-speaking people in this group as well. Here are some links that may be useful to you: http://tinyurl.com/2c0k (useful post of this group) http://www.buddhadhamma.com/ (discussions / materials in both Thai and English) http://www.geocities.com/tipitaka_online/ (Thai Tipitika) http://dharma.school.net.th/buddhism/tsearch.htm (Thai tipitaka word search) kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Tep Sastri > [mailto:tepsastri@y...] > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 8:45 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] New Member 18126 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:04am Subject: Perfections, Patience, Ch 7, no 5 Perfections, Patience, Ch 7, no 5 We read: ³With whom, then, should you now be angry, and by whom should anger be aroused? When all phenomena are non-self, who can do wrong to whom?" If someone has listened to the Dhamma he has more understanding than those who have not listened. He should realize that it is not proper to be angry because someone else who has no understanding does something wrong. Why should he be angry with someone who lacks understanding? If someone remembers this he accumulates the perfection of patience, he is not angry and he can forgive that person. We read: ³When the wrong-doer is endowed with noble qualities, I should not be angry with him. When he does not have any noble qualities, then I should regard him with compassion. Because of anger my fame and noble qualities diminish, and to the pleasure of my enemies I become ugly, sleep in discomfort, etc." Because of anger someone¹s good reputation and noble qualities disappear. When someone because of anger displays an improper conduct we can see the disadvantage of impatience and the benefit of the perfection of patience. We read in the Commentary to the "Basket of Conduct": "Anger is the only real enemy, for it is the agent of all harm and the destroyer of all good." And: "When one has patience one has no enemies." We still have akusala, we have defilements, and these condition the arising of displeasure. However, we should know whether the person we are angry with has good qualities. If he has, we should not be angry, because he is beneficient to us. If he has no good qualities we should have compassion with him all the more, since he lacks good qualities and he also behaves in an improper way. If kusala citta arises with sati-sampajañña, it causes patience to increase. We read in the ³Basket of Conduct² (Khuddaka Nikåya), II,5, ³Conduct of Buffalo-King² that the Bodhisatta was born as a Buffalo (1. A monkey urinated four times over his shoulder, forehead and eyebrows. A yakkha advised him to kill that monkey, but the Bodhisatta did not give in to anger. He wanted to keep his purity of síla and did not kill that monkey. He aspired for omniscience. He said: Someone of wisdom, forgiving disrespect among low, medium, high, thus obtains, intent of mind, according as he aspired. If someone has paññå, he will have patience and he can endure words of disdain, no matter whether these are spoken by a person who is higher in rank, who is lower in rank or by an evil person, because one should develop patience with regard to everybody. Footnote 1. I have added the contents of the story, as told in the Basket of Conduct. 18127 From: James Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 10:33am Subject: Re: A lot of Q. ! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James : > > Hello! I am Kiana. Sandy and i are good friends. We > met in Mrs.Abbott's class. > > You really wrote a long letter to us, thanks a lot. I > want to ask that how can you get those informations? > Are those true ? Is there any evidence? From my > point view, i don't believe people could reborn(or > maybe they could), because the people who were dead > and they reborn, means they didn't die, so why do we > have "Life & Death"? But each person have their own > opinion and really thank you for your answering! > > I look forward to hearing from you soon. > > Love, Kiana. > Hi Star Kid Kiana! Your letter really made me smile. When you ask if there is `evidence' of rebirth, it reminded me of me. I also like to have evidence and won't believe something just because someone says it or it is written somewhere and called `holy scripture'. The Buddha also told everyone that they should do that and not to believe anything until it is discovered for oneself. You are a deep thinker Kiana! You ask a lot of questions and they are all good. Let me go through them and try to answer. Question: I want to ask that how can you get those informations? Answer: Well, the analogy of the revolving door I made up out of my own head. I have never read that anywhere but thought of it when I was doing some reading about Buddhism and rebirth. I like how it captures being stuck and that they harder you push the faster you are carried along. But the idea of rebirth/reincarnation has been around for a very long time. Since early man, people discovered that their current life wasn't the only one; that they had lives in the past and they will have lives in the future. Actually, early Christian mystics, living in the desert, also believed in rebirth and wrote about it; but those writings were determined to be incorrect by `The Church' and not included in the Bible. Question: Are those true? Answer: I believe they are quite true. Kiana, I believe you have lived many other lives before your current life. We all have. Now this may seem like a weird idea to you, but it really isn't. When you think hard about it, just being alive is weird. What is it that makes us alive and rocks, water, air, etc., not alive? What does it mean to be alive? Does a rock die? No, it just changes into another form when it falls apart. So the thing that makes us alive why would that ever go away? It doesn't go away, it just changes from one live form to another. Buddhists believe that what makes us alive, and rocks not alive, is `mind'. `Mind' is a lot of things but it isn't just your brain. So Buddhists believe there are two types of things in the world: Mind and Matter, called Nama and Rupa in Pali. And just as matter never disappears, it just changes, mind also never disappears, and it just changes. Mind is different though and it can leave this existence and go into Nibbana…which I don't know what that is yet. Question: Is there any evidence? Answer: There have been examples of people who visited a place where they must have lived in another life and knew all the people in the town and where hidden items were. There are also examples of people who, under hypnosis, can speak a completely foreign language that they were never taught. This isn't scientific evidence though; it is only circumstantial evidence. There isn't scientific evidence for rebirth. Science is still too primitive. Science focuses too much on matter (rupa) and ignores `mind' (nama). But that is changing somewhat. If you don't understand this, don't worry; someday you will. Question: From my point view, i don't believe people could reborn(or maybe they could), because the people who were dead and they reborn, means they didn't die, so why do we have "Life & Death"? Answer: Right, they really didn't die in the way that we usually think `die'; they just change from one form to another. `Mind' is what continues on. But what we have to be concerned with is our `mind', that is all that we know. Matter does exist, but we only know it through `mind'. I hope this answers some of your questions. This is probably the most complicated letter I have written to you Star Kids, but you guys are now asking the deeper questions about life. I am glad about that. Never stop asking questions. Happy Holidays, Kiana!! Love, James 18128 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 4:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Ken and Howard, I looked it up and you guys are right. By itself, sati is just attentiveness. It doesn't understand anything. Generally speaking sati is always in the service of virtue (kusala) so it is always associated with other kusala cetasikas. In the practice of satipatthana it is associated with energy (right effort) and clear comprehension (sampajanna, same as panna, I think). Sati is rooted in memory and remembers what you are supposed to be doing and it remembers the goal. So if you guys have beautiful bodies, sati will attend to those bodies and bring in panna to see that they aren't that great. Larry 18129 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Again Ken, Also I forgot, sanna and sati are closely associated. So you could say sanna perceives and sati attends, or sanna remembers and sati remembers kusala. Larry 18130 From: Date: Mon Dec 23, 2002 5:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi again Ken, I think I still want to say sati remembers what panna discovered and that amounts to recognizing anicca, dukkha, anatta. Panna is more of an original insight but it isn't necessary to rediscover dukkha once it is understood. Recognition is a kind of understanding and because sati is applying a previous panna insight to present experience it is superior understanding to sanna, which is based on accumulations in general, and is also a kind of recognition. Larry 18131 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 0:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Actually I think this Sutta indirectly supports the position that an > Arahant does not have any defilements. You will notice in the Sutta that > the first sections that talk about giving up the defilements in part have > this paragraph before the next section ""He knows: 'I have given up, > renounced, let go, abandoned and relinquished [the defilements] in part'; > and he gains enthusiasm for the goal, gains enthusiasm for the Dhamma, gains > gladness connected with the Dhamma." Now in the notes of the MLD by Bhikkhu > Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi, it states that these sections apply to a once > returner, based on the defilements talked about. But you will notice that > towards the end of the Sutta after talking about developing the brahmavihara > there is this: > > "13. "He understands what exists, what is low, what is excellent, [13] and > what escape there is from this [whole] field of perception.[14] " > > Here we have the development of insight which leads to Arhantship and then > we get this as the result...notice the mention of "in part" is now gone... > > "14. "When he knows and sees[15] in this way, his mind becomes liberated > from the canker of sensual desire, liberated from the canker of becoming, > liberated from the canker of ignorance.[16] When liberated, there is > knowledge: 'It is liberated'; and he knows: 'Birth is exhausted, the life of > purity has been lived, the task is done, there is no more of this to come.' > Such a monk is called 'one bathed with the inner bathing."[17] " > > Thus there are no more defilements to be relinquished. Oh one note down > from the note you quoted shows which defilements are relinquished with each > path... > Ray, I got sidetracked and didn't respond to this argument. Okay, I want to go through the important part of this sutta with my comments interspersed: "And what, monks, are the defilements of the mind?[2] (1) Covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind; (2) ill will is a defilement of the mind; (3) anger is a defilement of the mind; (4) hostility...(5) denigration...(6) domineering...(7) envy...(8) jealousy...(9) hypocrisy...(10) fraud...(11) obstinacy... (12) presumption...(13) conceit...(14) arrogance...(15) vanity...(16) negligence is a defilement of the mind.[3] <>> 4. "Knowing, monks, covetousness and unrighteous greed to be a defilement of the mind, the monk abandons them.[4] Knowing ill will to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing anger to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing hostility to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing denigration to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing domineering to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing envy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing jealousy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing hypocrisy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing fraud to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing obstinacy to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing presumption to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing conceit to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing arrogance to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing vanity to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. Knowing negligence to be a defilement of the mind, he abandons it. <> 5. "When in the monk who thus knows that covetousness and unrighteous greed are a defilement of the mind, this covetousness and unrighteous greed have been abandoned; when in him who thus knows that ill will is a defilement of the mind, this ill will has been abandoned;... when in him who thus knows that negligence is a defilement of the mind, this negligence has been abandoned -- [5] <> 6. -- he thereupon gains unwavering confidence in the Buddha[6] thus: 'Thus indeed is the Blessed One: he is accomplished, fully enlightened, endowed with [clear] vision and [virtuous] conduct, sublime, knower of the worlds, the incomparable guide of men who are tractable, the teacher of gods and men, enlightened and blessed.' <> 7. -- he gains unwavering confidence in the Dhamma thus: 'Well proclaimed by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, realizable here and now, possessed of immediate result, bidding you come and see, accessible and knowable individually by the wise. <> 8. -- he gains unwavering confidence in the Sangha thus: 'The Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples has entered on the good way, has entered on the straight way, has entered on the true way, has entered on the proper way; that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight types of persons; this Sangha of the Blessed One's disciples is worthy of gifts, worthy of hospitality, worthy of offerings, worthy of reverential salutation, the incomparable field of merit for the world.' <> 9. "When he has given up, renounced, let go, abandoned and relinquished [the defilements] in part,[7] he knows: 'I am endowed with unwavering confidence in the Buddha... in the Dhamma... in the Sangha; and he gains enthusiasm for the goal, gains enthusiasm for the Dhamma,[8] gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened, joy is born in him; being joyous in mind, his body becomes tranquil; his body being tranquil, he feels happiness; and the mind of him who is happy becomes concentrated.[9] <> 10. "He knows: 'I have given up, renounced, let go, abandoned and relinquished [the defilements] in part'; and he gains enthusiasm for the goal, gains enthusiasm for the Dhamma, gains gladness connected with the Dhamma. When he is gladdened, joy is born in him; being joyous in mind, his body becomes tranquil; when his body is tranquil, he feels happiness; and the mind of him who is happy becomes concentrated. <> 11. "If, monks, a monk of such virtue, such concentration and such wisdom[10] eats almsfood consisting of choice hill-rice together with various sauces and curries, even that will be no obstacle for him.[11] <> "Just as cloth that is stained and dirty becomes clean and bright with the help of pure water, or just as gold becomes clean and bright with the help of a furnace, so too, if a monk of such virtue, such concentration and such wisdom eats almsfood consisting of choice hill- rice together with various sauces and curries, even that will be no obstacle for him. <> 12. "He abides, having suffused with a mind of loving-kindness[12] one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above, below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides suffusing the entire universe with loving-kindness, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and free from enmity and ill will. <> "He abides, having suffused with a mind of compassion... of sympathetic joy... of equanimity one direction of the world, likewise the second, likewise the third, likewise the fourth, and so above, below, around and everywhere, and to all as to himself; he abides suffusing the entire universe with equanimity, with a mind grown great, lofty, boundless and free from enmity and ill will. <> 13. "He understands what exists, what is low, what is excellent,[13] and what escape there is from this [whole] field of perception.[14] <> 14. "When he knows and sees[15] in this way, his mind becomes liberated from the canker of sensual desire, liberated from the canker of becoming, liberated from the canker of ignorance.[16] When liberated, there is knowledge: 'It is liberated'; and he knows: 'Birth is exhausted, the life of purity has been lived, the task is done, there is no more of this to come.' Such a monk is called 'one bathed with the inner bathing."[17] <> Ray, if everyone who reaches enlightenment, knows Nibbana, has every defilement eliminated, what is the difference between a Buddha, a Silent Buddha, and an arahant? If our whole existence is the result of ignorance, and defilements are a part of human nature, aren't they kind of hard-wired into us? Even when ignorance is removed, the mess is still there. I am not sure that all of the defilements can be completely eliminated. Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as far as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at the big picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow women to join the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain stipulations. Now, for people to say that the Buddha was concerned about the reputation of the Sangha, I say that is just further proof of him being sexist. He would withhold the dhamma from half of the human population just because it might look bad to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that he finally relented to Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted he was wrong. If he had good reasons to not allow women, he would have stuck to them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, but he was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a god, that would be against everything he taught. Metta, James 18132 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 1:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Phra Piyadhammo, I meant to respond with some extra quotes from the commentary to the Vibhanga, but as you had pointed out the meaning of the Vibhanga text very clearly imho, it was left in the ‘non-urgent basket’. They are also quite difficult points of detail, but I think they now may be of interest to others following the ‘right livelihood’ thread as well. ..... --- "phrapiyadhammo " > Thank you for your response and an essential reminder. I posted the > section from the Vibhangha that I did because I have heard people > debate the Five Constituent path before. People often question,"well > what about sila? Where did sila go?" This particular verse was > selected specificaly beacause it does show, as you have stated there > is no supramundane Five Constiuent Path in and of itself outside of > the Noble Eight Fold Path. ..... As we know, there is the mundane fivefold path as discussed in the Satipatthana sutta and indeed wherever we read about the development of satipatthana. As you suggest, at the moments the supramundane consciousness realize nibbana, there are always the eight fold path factors accompanying this consciousness (lokuttara magga citta) and the sila factors have been purified according to the 'stage' of enlightenment. From the commentary to the passage you quoted (Sammohavinodani, Maggavibhanga 1565f): ..... “ ‘but these three factors occur previously purified, and at the moment of the supramundane path they become more purified. Then by the fivefold path, what purpose is taken up? The purpose of showing functions more clearly. For at the time when he abandons wrong speech and perfects right speech, at that time there are not right action and right livelihood; it is only these five action-causing factors which abandon wrong speech. Also right speech does not perfect through abstention itself..........wrong action......wrong livelihood. this is taken as the “fivefold path” in order to show the extra function of these factors that cause action. But the supramundane path is eightfold only; there is no fivefold (path).’” ..... >That, indeed, because a Bhikkhu has > practiced mental development to the point of supramundane jhana > tending to release, dispersive of continuing rebirth; he for the > abandoning of wrong view, for entering of the first stage, aloof from > sense pleasure....at that time there is the Five Constituent Path. ..... It is pointed out that there are four kinds of "volition for right speech, three kinds of volition for right action and seven kinds of voition for right livelihood".The response however is: “We shall escape from plurality of volition; and we shall say that the supramundane path is eightfold only.” ..... The Commentary continues with a discussion of the Maha-cattalisaka (Last Fifty) sutta (Miii73) recently raised by Andrew and others on DSG in the Right Livelihood thread, with disussions on mundane and supramundane path factors. After quoting the sutta, we read; ..... “So here it is simply abstention from the four kinds of bad verbal conduct, from the three kinds of bad bodily conduct and from wrong livelihood that is called ‘noble, free from cankers, supramundane and a path factor’. Whence is there plurality of volition, whence a fivefold path here? The sutta shows you, who do not want it (so), that the supramundane path is eightfold.’ If he agrees with this much, it is good.” ..... >It > seems pretty clear that at this point of mental development described > in detail in this verse that dasa sila is already kept by the Bhikkhu > perfectly, happily, at this point ie., attainment of jhana factor > tending towards release, dispersive of continuing rebirth and death, > and having abandoned wrong view aloof from sense pleasures is stated > quite clearly. The comentary, though, would be much appreciated as a > side note. Thank you much if you would share some of it. ..... Ok. Let me just quote one more segment which follows on from the last quote: “If he does not agree, he must be made to perceive by quoting other reasons. For this is said by the Blessed One: ‘In that law and discipline, Subhada, in which the Noble Eightfold Path is not found, thre a recluse also is not found..In this law and discipline, Subhadda, the Noble Eightfold Path is found, only here, Subhadda, is a recluse found...Devoid of recluses are other dispensations’ (Dii 151-2). And in several hundred othr suttas also the path has been handed down as eightfold.” ..... I appreciate the reminders that it is only in the Buddha’s Teachings that it is possible to develop the path factors and understand what these are. If someone does not accept these words, what should we do? ..... “If, however, he does not accept the notion even with this muc, he should be dismissed, (saying:) ‘go, enter the monastery and drink gruel!’ But it is impossible that he will give any further reason.” ..... This seems like a very practical solution and reminder that it is impossible that everyone will understand all aspects (or any!) of the teachings as we do. I remember you told us at the outset that you would be travelling to Cambodia soon. I hope this reaches you before your departure and if so, may I wish you safe and worthwhile travels. I hope you are able to continue your studies and reflections on the Abhidhamma and its applicability to life wherever you find yourself. I'll look forward to further contributions when it is convenient for you. Sarah ====== 18133 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More Hi James In order to be a sexist, one has to be have perceptions as a sexist, which means he would have a certain bias towards woman. He would have the more superior image as a male or a certain mental construct as a man. If Buddha has a bias or a mental construct, he would be rooted in the three akusala cittas, this would mean he could not be a Buddha in the first instance. Worshipping him as a God will not bring us to Nibbana anyway so why make him as god in the first place. Not worshipping him will not condemn us to hell also so why bother. However, I have not seen anyone as perfect as him throughout the history of mankind. As hardworking and never may a mistake in preaching in his countless assemblies. Perhaps this could lead me to think him is God and worship him more than God. Perhaps those historical books about him that has been passed down since generations and generations and in addition we know that pple have bias hence maybe they will take out those that they think does not portray Buddha as perfect. They want to make him looks good. Who knows? :) Then we come a problem, how does one knows how to swim if he does not know it in the first place. How does one get rid of the three roots if he does not know how to do get rid in the first place. If one has got rid of three roots, will one go back again to do actions that arise from the three roots which is the cause of sufferings. Who knows? Only Buddha or perhaps his disciple knows. If he is a sexist, why would he relent to Ananda request? If he has good reasons he would stick to them. Yes he would stick to them but he do acknowledge that by admitting woman, the law of the dhamma will diminish earlier by 500 years and that is a cause of his great reluctance to admit woman. Maybe some pple may have add this so to make Buddha looks good, who knows? I don't know, but I do know if one has get rid of the three roots one will not be a sexist or make jokes or do actions that are condition from the three roots. He would not spending his 45 years of time convincing pple endlessly and without making a single mistake. Maybe it is a pretense, he is a damn great actor, maybe some pple add this again to make him look good, who knows? Gosh maybe next time I tell him not to be a human bc it creates too many doubts abt him. He should have been like God and come down to save us. That will save us a lot of trouble to dispute or to prove what makes him human, what makes him not human or a God. Cheers and merry christmas KC > Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as far > > as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at the > big > picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow women to > join > the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain stipulations. Now, > for > people to say that the Buddha was concerned about the reputation of > > the Sangha, I say that is just further proof of him being sexist. > He > would withhold the dhamma from half of the human population just > because it might look bad to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that > he > finally relented to Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted > he > was wrong. If he had good reasons to not allow women, he would > have > stuck to them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, > but > he was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a > god, > that would be against everything he taught. > > Metta, James 18134 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, I’ve really been enjoying your posts to the Star kids- they’re all on holiday now, so please expect very delayed replies. Your Baseball post was very interesting (and I learnt quite a bit about a baseball, always having lived in non-baseball countries;-)). --- "James " wrote: > I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to > compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively > or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't > explain with too many different positions or details. His senior > monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. > That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is > highly unlikely given that). ..... Not sure I follow the logic here, but I’ll try not to get side-tracked for now;-). At least there’s a glimmer of hope that you may have read my last post on the commentaries...;-) ..... >So, if you know more about Anatta than > I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or > use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it > is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, > throw me some kinda bone please! :-) ..... I really appreciated the replies from Howard, KKT and Victor to your post. However, I’d particularly like you to print out Ken H’s message back to you (18083), sit in your arm chair, soak your feet in hot water and read it again and again until the water turns to ice;-). It was very carefully written (definitely not a 6mins job) and contained a goldmine of detail in response to your very fine questions. I thought it was very neat. When we think we see or touch or hear a baseball, what is really seen, touched or heard? Surely the seeing just sees its visible object, whatever it is at that moment (and never the same as at any other moment), the touching just experiences hardness or coldness and while we think we hear the bouncing baseball , really all that is heard is sound.....no ‘baseball’ at all. Who is seeing, touching and hearing? Surely, at the moment of seeing, that’s all there is. Ideas of ‘what I see’ and so on are different from moments of just seeing and so it is for touching and hearing. If there is awareness just for a moment when the visible object, hardness, seeing or touching appears, then these realities can gradually be known for what they are - merely namas (which experience but are also sometimes experienced) or rupas (which are only ever experienced) and no self -- no baseball, no James -- to be found. Like you say to the kids, you ask difficult questions, however simple they may sound, and therefore the answers will inevitably be complicated as well. I think the Buddha talked about and explained realities (i.e namas and rupas) in an incredible amount of detail. It is by understanding these realities more and more precisely, starting with the distinction between namas and rupas, that the characteristic of anatta can be known. You explained beautifully to Sandy (I think it was) about the different kinds of faith in Buddhism and Christianity. Perhaps we can also say that the heart of the Buddhist teachings is anatta. That’s why I like your questions and the replies from Ken H and the others so much. I’ll be glad to hear further what the sticking points are as I think it’s helpful for us all. Sarah ===== 18135 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Larry Whether sati remembers what panna discovered, i really do not know. Bc Abhidhamma did not state a lot of things about memory. In fact there is no cetasikas about memory. I suspect the accumulations functions of cetasikas are the memory and recall function. Just a guess. If I happen to read.... (hmm this would mean a long time)...gosh honestly speaking I really do not know when I would read Abhidhamma again :) as I got eight exams to take, in a period of four months! This is suffering as I got to fulfill my desire, my dreams :) Cheers kind rgds KC --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi again Ken, > > I think I still want to say sati remembers what panna discovered > and > that amounts to recognizing anicca, dukkha, anatta. Panna is more > of an > original insight but it isn't necessary to rediscover dukkha once > it is > understood. Recognition is a kind of understanding and because sati > is > applying a previous panna insight to present experience it is > superior > understanding to sanna, which is based on accumulations in general, > and > is also a kind of recognition. > > Larry > 18136 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 6:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More Dear James, > Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as > far as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at > the big picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow > women to join the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain > stipulations. Now, for people to say that the Buddha was > concerned about the reputation of the Sangha, I say that is just > further proof of him being sexist. He would withhold the dhamma > from half of the human population just because it might look bad > to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that he finally relented to > Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted he was wrong. If > he had good reasons to not allow women, he would have stuck to > them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, but he > was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a god, > that would be against everything he taught. That was I. I have already explained why I do not think that the Buddha was being sexist. Opinions are hard to break, so I will not further my opinions on this issue with you. But I would like you, with reference to these three questions: (1) Is 'being sexist' born out of a desire with regard to a certain sex? (2) Is 'being sexist' born out of an aversion with regard to a certain sex? (3) Is 'being sexist' born out of a delusion with regard to sex? to ponder over this sutta (note principles 6 to 9): Anguttara Nikaya IX.7 Sutava Sutta To Sutavan Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-007.html ------------------------------------------------------------ I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Rajagaha, on Vulture Peak Mountain. Then Sutavan the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "One day recently when I was staying right here in Rajagaha, at Giribbaja, I heard it in the Blessed One's presence, learned it in the Blessed One's presence: 'Sutavan, an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.' Now, did I hear this rightly from the Blessed One? Did I learn it rightly, attend to it rightly, understand it rightly?" "Yes, Sutavan, you heard it rightly, learned it rightly, attended to it rightly, & understood it rightly. Both before & now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles. "[1] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. [2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. [3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. [4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. [5] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder. "[6] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on desire. [7] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion. [8] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on fear. [9] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on delusion. "Both before and now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles." > Ray, if everyone who reaches enlightenment, knows Nibbana, has > every defilement eliminated, what is the difference between a > Buddha, a Silent Buddha, and an arahant? If our whole existence > is the result of ignorance, and defilements are a part of human > nature, aren't they kind of hard-wired into us? Even when > ignorance is removed, the mess is still there. I am not sure that > all of the defilements can be completely eliminated. Please consider carefully (it affects your future happiness) this passage from the Lion's Roar Discourse: 22. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the four? 23. "Here, I see no ground on which any recluse or brahman or god or Mara or Brahma or anyone at all in the world could, in accordance with the Dhamma, accuse me thus: 'While you claim full enlightenment, you are not fully enlightened in regard to certain things.'[*p.72] And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 24. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'While you claim to have destroyed the taints, these taints are undestroyed by you.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 25. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'Those things called obstructions by you are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 26. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'When you teach the Dhamma to someone, it does not lead him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 27. "A Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[14] 28. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me... he will wind up in hell. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel390.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18137 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 6:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mara No More Dear James, > Side Note (Not to Ray, I forget who and lost the post): And, as > far as the Buddha being sexist, he most definitely was. Look at > the big picture here: Ven. Ananda had to convince him to allow > women to join the Sangha. He finally agreed, with certain > stipulations. Now, for people to say that the Buddha was > concerned about the reputation of the Sangha, I say that is just > further proof of him being sexist. He would withhold the dhamma > from half of the human population just because it might look bad > to his Sangha? Huh? And the fact that he finally relented to > Ananda's request demonstrates that he admitted he was wrong. If > he had good reasons to not allow women, he would have stuck to > them. Right? The Lord Buddha was a magnificent person, but he > was just a person. He wasn't a god. If we hold him up as a god, > that would be against everything he taught. That was I. I have already explained why I do not think that the Buddha was being sexist. Opinions are hard to break, so I will not further my opinions on this issue with you. But I would like you, with reference to these three questions: (1) Is 'being sexist' born out of a desire with regard to a certain sex? (2) Is 'being sexist' born out of an aversion with regard to a certain sex? (3) Is 'being sexist' born out of a delusion with regard to sex? to ponder over this sutta (note principles 6 to 9): Anguttara Nikaya IX.7 Sutava Sutta To Sutavan Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-007.html ------------------------------------------------------------ I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Rajagaha, on Vulture Peak Mountain. Then Sutavan the wanderer went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One: "One day recently when I was staying right here in Rajagaha, at Giribbaja, I heard it in the Blessed One's presence, learned it in the Blessed One's presence: 'Sutavan, an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these five principles. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder.' Now, did I hear this rightly from the Blessed One? Did I learn it rightly, attend to it rightly, understand it rightly?" "Yes, Sutavan, you heard it rightly, learned it rightly, attended to it rightly, & understood it rightly. Both before & now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles. "[1] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to intentionally deprive a living being of life. [2] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to take, in the manner of stealing, what is not given. [3] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to engage in sexual intercourse. [4] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to tell a conscious lie. [5] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to consume stored-up sensual things as he did before, when he was a householder. "[6] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on desire. [7] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on aversion. [8] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on fear. [9] It is impossible for a monk whose mental fermentations are ended to follow a bias based on delusion. "Both before and now I say to you that an arahant monk whose mental fermentations are ended, who has reached fulfillment, done the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, totally destroyed the fetter of becoming, and who is released through right gnosis, cannot possibly transgress these nine principles." > Ray, if everyone who reaches enlightenment, knows Nibbana, has > every defilement eliminated, what is the difference between a > Buddha, a Silent Buddha, and an arahant? If our whole existence > is the result of ignorance, and defilements are a part of human > nature, aren't they kind of hard-wired into us? Even when > ignorance is removed, the mess is still there. I am not sure that > all of the defilements can be completely eliminated. Please consider carefully (it affects your future happiness) this passage from the Lion's Roar Discourse: 22. "Sariputta, the Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma. What are the four? 23. "Here, I see no ground on which any recluse or brahman or god or Mara or Brahma or anyone at all in the world could, in accordance with the Dhamma, accuse me thus: 'While you claim full enlightenment, you are not fully enlightened in regard to certain things.'[*p.72] And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 24. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'While you claim to have destroyed the taints, these taints are undestroyed by you.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 25. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'Those things called obstructions by you are not able to obstruct one who engages in them.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 26. "I see no ground on which any recluse... or anyone at all could accuse me thus: 'When you teach the Dhamma to someone, it does not lead him when he practices it to the complete destruction of suffering.' And seeing no ground for that, I abide in safety, fearlessness and intrepidity. 27. "A Tathagata has these four kinds of intrepidity, possessing which he claims the herd-leader's place, roars his lion's roar in the assemblies, and sets rolling the Wheel of Brahma.[14] 28. "Sariputta, when I know and see thus, should anyone say of me... he will wind up in hell. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel390.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18138 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:36am Subject: Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > That was I. I have already explained why I do not think that the > Buddha was being sexist. Opinions are hard to break, so I will not > further my opinions on this issue with you. > > But I would like you, with reference to these three questions: > > (1) Is 'being sexist' born out of a desire with regard to a > certain sex? > (2) Is 'being sexist' born out of an aversion with regard to a > certain sex? > (3) Is 'being sexist' born out of a delusion with regard to sex? > Hi NEO, Yes, this is just opinion, and I am probably in the minority with my opinion about this matter; but I really don't see any other explanation for the Buddha's behavior. Being sexist isn't really any of those strong defilements; it is just a case of conditioning. www.dictionary.com defines sexism as: Attitudes, conditions, or behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on gender. As a prince, the Buddha predominately saw women as sex objects. His father gave him harems galore and tried to make sure his every whim was met. Women were there to please him. When he began his spiritual quest, there weren't any women role models for him to observe. Now, when he discovers that sensual desire must be abandoned, and he has always viewed women as sensual beings, he had some red flags go up. But he overcame that conditioning, a testament to his wisdom, and allowed women to join the sangha. The role and treatment of women are a dark spots on modern Buddhism. And the source should be identified and the trend reversed. But, this is just my opinion. Metta, James 18139 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 8:39am Subject: Re: Mara No More Dear James, > Yes, this is just opinion, and I am probably in the minority with my > opinion about this matter; but I really don't see any other > explanation for the Buddha's behavior. Being sexist isn't really > any of those strong defilements; it is just a case of conditioning. > www.dictionary.com defines sexism as: Attitudes, conditions, or > behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on > gender. How are defilements not being conditioned? Defilements are conditioned. A person who kills frequently becomes conditioned to kill without fear of evil. Being sexist is a defilement, whether it is strong or not. Now, I interpret you to be backtracking that 'being sexist' is not a defilement, but rather an effect of conditioning. If 'being sexist' is a defilement that you previously claimed the Buddha had not eradicated, please justify principles number 6 to 9 in the sutta that I quoted to you. If 'being sexist' is not a defilement, are you backtracking? Or, are there classes of defilements that are 'strong' (as being born of desire, aversion and delusion) and classes of defilements that are 'weak' (as NOT being born of desire, aversion and delusion)? Can you be sure that 'being sexist' does not involve any form of desire, aversion and delusion, however slight they may be? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18140 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 9:01am Subject: Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Dear James, > > > Yes, this is just opinion, and I am probably in the minority with my > > opinion about this matter; but I really don't see any other > > explanation for the Buddha's behavior. Being sexist isn't really > > any of those strong defilements; it is just a case of conditioning. > > www.dictionary.com defines sexism as: Attitudes, conditions, or > > behaviors that promote stereotyping of social roles based on > > gender. > > How are defilements not being conditioned? Defilements are conditioned. > > A person who kills frequently becomes conditioned to kill without fear > of evil. > > Being sexist is a defilement, whether it is strong or not. Now, I > interpret you to be backtracking that 'being sexist' is not a > defilement, but rather an effect of conditioning. > > If 'being sexist' is a defilement that you previously claimed the > Buddha had not eradicated, please justify principles number 6 to 9 in > the sutta that I quoted to you. > > If 'being sexist' is not a defilement, are you backtracking? > > Or, are there classes of defilements that are 'strong' (as being born > of desire, aversion and delusion) and classes of defilements that are > 'weak' (as NOT being born of desire, aversion and delusion)? > > Can you be sure that 'being sexist' does not involve any form of > desire, aversion and delusion, however slight they may be? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, No, I am not backtracking. Some defilement are conditioned, some are not. Usually the defilement is already present and it is just conditioned to grow stronger. It depends on ones accumulations I suppose as to which defilements are present at birth and which are not. You speak of `defilements' like they are some kind of exact science. Do defilements have an atomic weight? Are we now able to put them into some sort of Periodic Table? They are not that exact. Yes, sexism is a defilement. But is it the exact same in everyone? Aren't some people (including women) more sexist than others? When the Buddha says that a monk `abandons' a `defilement', what does that mean exactly? Does that mean it is eradicated? It doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like it is left behind, but it still exists. Until the three asavas have been eradicated, the monk can still go back to those defilements, which have only been abandoned. That is why the monk must be ever vigilant. But perhaps my thinking of defilements is incorrect. But if you are referencing the Abhidhamma for your perspective, we are never going to reach agreement. I don't take the Abhidhamma literally because I cannot test it for myself. Metta, James 18141 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 10:01am Subject: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Foundation Bulletin, translated from Thai. Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Fruition Attainment, Phala-samåpatti Issue of analysis: Can the ariyan who has not attained jhåna enter fruition attainment, phala-samåpatti? (1 The conclusion regarding the issue of analysis: The ariyan who has not attained jhåna is not able to enter fruition attainment. The sources which support the conclusion of this issue: 1. Gradual Sayings, Book of the Sixes, Ch 1, § 9, Mahånåma. 2. Middle Length Sayings I, 44, Lesser Discourse of the Miscellany (Cúlavedallasutta) 3. Paramatthadípaní, Commentary to the Udåna, Khuddaka Nikåya. Commentary to Ch 1, Enlightenment. 4. Saddhammappakåsiní, Commentary to the Patisambhidåmagga, Path of Discrimination, Khuddaka Nikåya. 5. Visuddhimagga, Ch XXIII, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding, and Ch XI, Description of Concentration, Conclusion, XI, 120: The Benefits of Developing Concentration. 6. Paramattha Mañjúsa, Commentary to the Visuddhimagga (Mahå-tíka), explanation about the benefit of concentration. 7. Såratthadípaní, subcommentary to the Vinaya, about Vijjå, Knowledge. The sources which explain the reasons for this conclusion: 1. We read in the Gradual Sayings, Book of the Sixes, Ch 1, § 9, Mahånåma, about six kinds of ³everminding² (anussati). The Sutta states that Mahånåma, the Sakya asked the Buddha: ³Lord, the Ariyan disciple who has won the fruit (ågato phalo), grasped the message (viññåta-såsano), what life lives he in abundance ?²(2 ³Mahånåma, the Ariyan disciple who has won the fruit, grasped the message, lives this life in abundance: The Ariyan disciple, Mahånåma, is ever minding the Tathågata: ŒHe is the Exalted One, arahant, fully enlightened, perfected in knowledge and way of life, one well-gone, a knower of the worlds, none higher, a tamer of tamable men, a teacher, the awake among devas and men, the Exalted One!¹ Mahånåma, what time the Ariyan disiple minds the Tathågata, his heart is never overwhelmed by passion, never overwhelmed by hatred, never overwhelmed by infatuation; then, verily, is the way of his heart made straight because of the Tathågata. And with his heart¹s ways straightened, Mahånåma, the Ariyan disciple becomes zealous of the goal, zealous of Dhamma, wins the joy that is linked to Dhamma (3 ; and of his joy zest (píti) is born; when his mind is rapt in zest, his whole being becomes calm; calm in being, he experiences ease; and of him that dwells at ease the heart is composed. Mahånåma, of this Ariyan disciple it is said: Among uneven folk he lives evenly; among troubled folk he lives untroubled; with the ear for Dhamma won, he makes become the ever minding of the Buddha...²(4 Thus we see that the abiding (vihåra dhammas) of the ariyan disciple without jhåna-attainment are the six Recollections, not fruition attainment. Footnotes 1. When paññå has been developed to the degree that enlightenment can be attained, lokuttara cittas, supramundane cittas experiencing nibbåna arise. The magga-citta (path-consciousness), which is lokuttara kusala citta, directly experiences nibbåna. When the magga-citta has fallen away, it is immediately succeeded by its result, the phala-citta (fruition-consciousness), which is lokuttara vipåkacitta, also experiencing nibbåna. There are four stages of enlightenment and at each stage defilements are eradicated by the magga-citta until they are all eradicated at the fourth stage, the stage of the arahat. The magga-citta of a particular stage of enlightenment arises only once in the cycle of birth and death. However, the phala-citta can arise again later on during that life, if enlightenment has been attained with lokuttara jhånacittas (Visuddhimagga, Ch III-XII). Someone who has developed jhåna and acquired ³mastery² in jhåna (Visuddhimagga IV, 131) and also develops insight can attain enlightenment with lokuttara jhånacitta, lokuttara citta accompanied by jhåna-factors of one of the stages of jhåna. The phala-citta which is accompanied by jhåna-factors can arise many times again during that life, experiencing nibbåna. This attainment is called fruition-attainment, phala-samåpatti. Fruition attainment, phala-samåpatti, has been explained in the ³Visuddhimagga², Ch XXIII, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding (explaining who can enter fruition attainment and who cannot). The text (Vis. XXIII, 6,7) stating: ³All ariyans can enter fruition-attainment² can be misunderstood when we do not know the context. People may erroneously think that all ariyans can attain fruition-attainment. This is the subject of this Dhamma issue. 2. He lives in abundance, in Pali: bahulam viharåti. He abides with six vihåra dhammas, six recollections: recollection of the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha, síla, the devas and liberality. 3. Attha--vedaÿ, dhamma-vedaÿ. According to the Commentary, veda, which can mean knowledge, is here píti-påmojjaÿ (rapture and delight) arising with respect to aììha-kathå (explanation of the meaning) and påîi, which means text. Attha is here translated as goal, but it can also mean: the meaning. 4. The same is said with regard to the other five recollections. With these six Recollections as meditation subjects, the ariyan can attain access concentration but not attainment concentration (appanå-samådhi) or jhåna. His unshakable confidence in the Triple Gem conditions calm and happiness. It is said that he lives in happiness, but, as we shall see, this is an abiding different from the ³peaceful abiding², arana vihåra, which is fruition-attainment. 18142 From: phrapiyadhammo Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Eight Fold Path and The Five Fold Path Dear Sarah, Thank you for taking the time and posting the commentary. :) Quite an addition and worthwhile. Last week we had ten Samanera's for 7-days. It was up to me to try to impart some Dhamma of value in that short a time (yikes). It went well. Leaving tomorrow for Cambodia, so just a short note of Mudita for your time and effort to respond, and for your wishing well for the journey. I will keep up the studies, and when permitting share in learning with you all on list. In Dhamma Phra Piyadhammo 18143 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More > NEO Swee Boon > > Hi NEO, > > No, I am not backtracking. Some defilement are conditioned, some > are not. Usually the defilement is already present and it is just > conditioned to grow stronger. It depends on ones accumulations I > suppose as to which defilements are present at birth and which are > not. You speak of `defilements' like they are some kind of exact > science. Do defilements have an atomic weight? Are we now able to > put them into some sort of Periodic Table? They are not that > exact. Yes, sexism is a defilement. But is it the exact same in > everyone? Aren't some people (including women) more sexist than > others? > > When the Buddha says that a monk `abandons' a `defilement', what > does that mean exactly? Does that mean it is eradicated? It > doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like it is left behind, > but it still exists. Until the three asavas have been eradicated, > the monk can still go back to those defilements, which have only > been abandoned. That is why the monk must be ever vigilant. > > But perhaps my thinking of defilements is incorrect. But if you are > referencing the Abhidhamma for your perspective, we are never going > to reach agreement. I don't take the Abhidhamma literally because I > cannot test it for myself. > > Metta, James > > Hi James, Being dependent on ones accumulations of course means that even at birth defilements are conditioned. The Buddha teaches that all things that arise based on conditions, cease when the supporting conditions are removed. In the case of the defilements the underlying conditions are greed, hatred and delusion. The Buddha teaches us that when these roots are removed those conditions which are dependent on them are also removed. In an Arhant the asavas, the tendency towards greed, hatred and delusion have been left behind, thus all the unwholesome thoughts, speech and action based on them are also eradicated. They are abandoned not because the Arhant has become perfect or some god, but because the Arhant completely understands the suffering inherent in unwholesome actions, speech and thought. It is like a person walking down sidewalk and sees a tack on the sidewalk. The person does not have to be perfect to walk around the tack, as long as the person has left behind the mistaken view that stepping on the tack is pleasurable, the person will naturally not step on the tack. I see this as one of the differences between Buddhism and other religions. People are not inherently bad, there is no original sin that cannot be overcome. One does not have to be perfect to avoid greed, to avoid anger. In Buddhism it is a matter of completely understanding the nature of greed and anger that leads to their eradication. As the Buddha says in many places within the Suttas, when the roots are torn out the tree can no longer grow. When the taints are abandoned those thoughts, speech and actions which are dependent on the taints are also abandoned. This is from MN 9 ""When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." " Ray 18144 From: Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Nina - In a message dated 12/24/02 1:04:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > The conclusion regarding the issue of analysis: The ariyan who has not > attained jhåna is not able to enter fruition attainment. > > ======================= Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? Henepola Gunaratana has written the following, copied from ATI: "The supramundane paths and fruits always arise as states of jhanic consciousness. They occur as states of jhana because they contain within themselves the jhana factors elevated to an intensity corresponding to that of the jhana factors in the mundane jhanas. Since they possess the jhana factors these states are able to fix upon their object with the force of full absorption. Thence, taking the absorptive force of the jhana factors as the criterion, the paths and fruits may be reckoned as belonging to either the first, second, third or fourth jhana of the fourfold scheme, or to the first, second, third, fourth or fifth jhana of the fivefold scheme." Thus, an ariyan would have had to have attained at least the first jhana at least once, no? 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) 18145 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Hi Nina and all, From what you wrote, I don't see that you really explained how the understanding that hardness is not seeing relates to the understanding that each and every aggregate is impermanent, unsatisfactory, not self. Could you explain it in a more concise language? With appreciation. Metta and happy holidays, Victor > Victor brings up an important point, how to realize the three > characteristics. We read about them in the scriptures time and again. We may > wonder about non-self: did the Buddha teach this or not, what is meant by > this? We may reason about this but then we get stuck with theoretical > knowledge, there is no development of panna which can directly realize the > truth. > In the scriptures, there is no extensive description of all the stages of > insight knowledge. We find them in the Path of Discrimination and the > Visuddhimagga, but they are only described shortly. When panna develops to > the stage of insight knowledge, no words are needed, it is the direct > realization of the truth. > We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, > Comprehension: > > Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without > detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable of > extinguishing Ill... > > In Pali: sabbam (the all) bhikkhave anabhijaana.m(not fully knowing) > aparijaana.m (not comprehending) aviraajaya.m (not detaching) appajaha.m > (not abandoning) abhabbo (unable) dukkhakkhayaaya (khaaya, extinguishing). > > It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, > eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing the all dukkha > can be extinguished. > Now the Commentary: fully knowing (abhijaana.m), this word refers to ~naata-pari~n~naa (full > understanding of the known). Comprehending (parijaana.m), this word refers > to tiira.na-pari~n~naa (full understanding as investigation). Detaching > (viraajaya.m) and abandoning (pajaha.m) refer to the third pari~n~na, which > is pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning.> > end quote. > Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. The > Visuddhimagga explains (Ch XX, 3) about the three kinds of full > understanding: > ~naata-pari~n~naa (full understanding of the known), begins at the first > stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and rupa) up > to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). The specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are penetrated. > The second pari~n~naa, full understanding as investigation : begins at the > third stage (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) until > the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight > (mahaa-vipassana ~naa.na): realizing the arising and falling away of > realities. Here the general characteristics are penetrated. > The third pari~n~naa, pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning, > begins at the contemplation of dissolution, bhanga ~naa.na, the second stage > of principal insight. > Thus we see that in the sutta very few words are used, describing all stages > of insight. We also see that as panna develops it leads to detachment, to > abandoning. But panna develops stage by stage. If the specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are not fully penetrated (the all: seeing, > etc), the three characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of > panna evolves according to a specific order. > Nina. 18146 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 2:40pm Subject: Re: The Anatta of a Baseball Hi James, I feel that the most effective explanation regarding anatta is the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta, The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html I think Rahula-samyutta would also be a good one. Metta, Victor > Now, I don't know about the rest of you, but I don't know anatta > first-hand. I am still walking around in `James' most of the time > and seeing my thoughts, my car, my house, etc. as mine. I also see > them as permanent. On a few rare moments, I have seen otherwise. > But those moments were fleeting and probably only a small taste of > the real thing. I don't see anything wrong with calling speculations > about the nature of anatta `theories'. If you have a problem with > that, don't do it for yourself. We all don't have to think the same > way. Unless I am significantly off the dhamma trail, I don't see > what all the fuss is about. > > I think in more concrete terms. I also like to have something to > compare my experiences against. Anatta can be explained cognitively > or the Buddha wouldn't have done it. Unfortunately, he didn't > explain with too many different positions or details. His senior > monks often had to explain the details of something after he spoke. > That was his style (that he would have composed the Abhidhamma is > highly unlikely given that). So, if you know more about Anatta than > I do, explain to me in concrete terms so that I may understand. Or > use metaphors..or use examples. But use something other than it > is `an experience'…what the heck kind of experience? If you know, > throw me some kinda bone please! :-) > > Metta, James 18147 From: James Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 3:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi James, > > Being dependent on ones accumulations of course means that even at birth > defilements are conditioned. The Buddha teaches that all things that arise > based on conditions, cease when the supporting conditions are removed. In > the case of the defilements the underlying conditions are greed, hatred and > delusion. The Buddha teaches us that when these roots are removed those > conditions which are dependent on them are also removed. In an Arhant the > asavas, the tendency towards greed, hatred and delusion have been left > behind, thus all the unwholesome thoughts, speech and action based on them > are also eradicated. They are abandoned not because the Arhant has become > perfect or some god, but because the Arhant completely understands the > suffering inherent in unwholesome actions, speech and thought. It is like a > person walking down sidewalk and sees a tack on the sidewalk. The person > does not have to be perfect to walk around the tack, as long as the person > has left behind the mistaken view that stepping on the tack is pleasurable, > the person will naturally not step on the tack. I see this as one of the > differences between Buddhism and other religions. People are not inherently > bad, there is no original sin that cannot be overcome. One does not have to > be perfect to avoid greed, to avoid anger. In Buddhism it is a matter of > completely understanding the nature of greed and anger that leads to their > eradication. As the Buddha says in many places within the Suttas, when the > roots are torn out the tree can no longer grow. When the taints are > abandoned those thoughts, speech and actions which are dependent on the > taints are also abandoned. This is from MN 9 > > ""When a noble disciple has thus understood the unwholesome, the root of the > unwholesome, the wholesome, and the root of the wholesome, he entirely > abandons the underlying tendency to lust, he abolishes the underlying > tendency to aversion, he extirpates the underlying tendency to the view and > conceit 'I am,' and by abandoning ignorance and arousing true knowledge he > here and now makes an end of suffering. In that way too a noble disciple is > one of right view, whose view is straight, who has perfect confidence in the > Dhamma and has arrived at this true Dhamma." " > > Ray Ray, In the article "Is Theravada Buddhism for Arahatship Only" by Ven. U Silananda, it is explained that the quality of enlightenment is different depending on the amount of perfection one has gained: "According to Theravada teachings, there are three kinds of beings who have reached the fourth stage of enlightenment: Buddhas, Pacceka- Buddhas, and Arahants. Arahants are also called Savakas or Disciples; they are subdivided into Aggasavaka (the Best Disciples), Mahasavaka (the Great Disciples) and Pakatisavaka (the Ordinary Disciples). All of these beings are enlightened persons, but their quality of enlightenment differs from one another. The enlightenment of the Buddhas is the best, that of Pacceka-Buddhas is inferior to the enlightenment of the Buddhas, but is superior to the enlightenment of the Arahants, and the enlightenment of the Arahants is the lowest of them all. Buddhas can `save' many beings, or rather they can help many beings `save' themselves by giving them instructions, but Pacceka-Buddhas do not `save' beings because they are solitary Buddhas and do not teach as a rule. The Arahants can and do `save''beings, but not as many beings as Buddhas do. And the time required for the maturity of the qualities of these beings differ greatly. To become a Buddha, one has to fulfill the Paramis (necessary qualities for becoming a Buddha) for four, eight or sixteen Incalculables and 100,000 worlds cycles; but for a Pacceka- Buddha the time is only two Incalculables and 100,000 world cycles. Among the Disciples, for an Aggasavaka, the time required is one Incalculable and 100,000 world cycles, while for a Mahasavaka, it is only 100,000. But for the Pakatisavaka, it may be just one life, or a hundred lives, or a thousand lives, or more. It is important to note that once a person becomes an arahant, he will not become a Buddha in that life; and since there is no more rebirth for him, he will not become a Buddha in the future either. In Theravada Buddhism one is not forced to follow the path to Buddhahood only, but is given a choice from among the paths mentioned above. So a Theravada Buddhist can aspire for and eventually reach Buddhahood; indeed he must be determined to fulfill the Paramis for the long, long time required for the fulfillment of Buddhahood. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha064.htm The Paramis that one needs to practice over these many incalculables are: 1. Charity 2. Conduct 3. Renunciation 4. Wisdom and Knowledge 5. Indomitable spirit 6. Patience 7. Truth 8. Steadfastness 9. Loving kindness 10. Equanimity Now, you are saying that with anyone who achieves enlightenment, every single negative trait of that person has been eradicated; that all defilements have been removed. If that is the case, why is there this difference among the enlightened? It would seem to me that the practice of these Paramis would eliminate more and more defilements, until the person is ready to become a full-fledged Buddha. If all the defilements are removed, there wouldn't be this classification of the enlightened. Why continue to sharpen a knife that is already sharp? And yet, even if defilements are still present, a person can become an Arahant and not be reborn. The quality of the enlightenment won't be the same, but it will be enough to end the cycle of rebirth. If anyone can explain this to me, I will be quiet about this subject for now on and admit I am wrong. Metta, James 18148 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More > > Now, you are saying that with anyone who achieves enlightenment, > every single negative trait of that person has been eradicated; that > all defilements have been removed. If that is the case, why is > there this difference among the enlightened? It would seem to me > that the practice of these Paramis would eliminate more and more > defilements, until the person is ready to become a full-fledged > Buddha. If all the defilements are removed, there wouldn't be this > classification of the enlightened. Why continue to sharpen a knife > that is already sharp? > > And yet, even if defilements are still present, a person can become > an Arahant and not be reborn. The quality of the enlightenment > won't be the same, but it will be enough to end the cycle of rebirth. > > If anyone can explain this to me, I will be quiet about this subject > for now on and admit I am wrong. > > Metta, James > Hi James, From my understanding of the Suttas the differences between the enlightenment of the Buddha and the Pakatisavaka have to do with discovering the Dhamma without the teachings of a Buddha. Whereas the enlightenment of the Arahant comes about from following the path laid out by a Buddha. The Pakatisavaka is different from a Buddha in that they are not able to teach. Within the Arahants there are also distinctions made on the way enlightenment is achieved. For example released both ways, ie mastering all levels of concentration as well as insight and those who do so without mastering all the levels of concentration. Thus I think these classifications have nothing to do with the defilements, but rather more to do with how enlightenment was achieved and how well one can teach others about the Dhamma. For example a Buddha can better teach than an Arahant because he is able to know the inclinations of others thus can apply more skillful means in teaching....Ray 18149 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 5:00pm Subject: Re: Mara No More > When the Buddha says that a monk `abandons' a `defilement', what > does that mean exactly? Does that mean it is eradicated? It > doesn't sound like that to me. It sounds like it is left behind, > but it still exists. Until the three asavas have been eradicated, > the monk can still go back to those defilements, which have only > been abandoned. That is why the monk must be ever vigilant. (1) A person who has not attained any of the paths, any abandonment of any defilements is temporary. (2) A person who has attained any of the paths, any abandonment of any defilements is permanent (eradicated). The types of defilements abandoned depend on the path attained. > But perhaps my thinking of defilements is incorrect. But if you are > referencing the Abhidhamma for your perspective, we are never going > to reach agreement. I don't take the Abhidhamma literally because I > cannot test it for myself. All defilements are born out of attachment and/or aversion and/or delusion. The 16 defilements of covetousness, ill-will, anger, hostility, denigration, domineering, envy, jealousy, hypocrisy, fraud, obstinancy, presumption, conceit, arrogance, vanity and negligence have their cause in the three roots of attachment, aversion and delusion. Now when I say the 16 defilements have their cause in the three roots of attachment, aversion and delusion, am I speaking solely from the perspective of the Abhidhamma? 'Being sexist' is a defilement rooted in attachment, aversion and delusion. 'Being sexist' has its cause in conceit: being male is superior to being female, being male is inferior to being female, being male is equal to being female. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18150 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 7:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: Ray, In the article "Is Theravada Buddhism for Arahatship Only" by Ven. U Silananda, it is explained that the quality of enlightenment is different depending on the amount of perfection one has gained: "According to Theravada teachings, there are three kinds of beings who have reached the fourth stage of enlightenment: Buddhas, Pacceka- Buddhas, and Arahants. Arahants are also called Savakas or Disciples; they are subdivided into Aggasavaka (the Best Disciples), Mahasavaka (the Great Disciples) and Pakatisavaka (the Ordinary Disciples). All of these beings are enlightened persons, but their quality of enlightenment differs from one another. The enlightenment of the Buddhas is the best, that of Pacceka-Buddhas is inferior to the enlightenment of the Buddhas, but is superior to the enlightenment of the Arahants, and the enlightenment of the Arahants is the lowest of them all. Buddhas can `save' many beings, or rather they can help many beings `save' themselves by giving them instructions, but Pacceka-Buddhas do not `save' beings because they are solitary Buddhas and do not teach as a rule. The Arahants can and do `save''beings, but not as many beings as Buddhas do. And the time required for the maturity of the qualities of these beings differ greatly. To become a Buddha, one has to fulfill the Paramis (necessary qualities for becoming a Buddha) for four, eight or sixteen Incalculables and 100,000 worlds cycles; but for a Pacceka- Buddha the time is only two Incalculables and 100,000 world cycles. Among the Disciples, for an Aggasavaka, the time required is one Incalculable and 100,000 world cycles, while for a Mahasavaka, it is only 100,000. But for the Pakatisavaka, it may be just one life, or a hundred lives, or a thousand lives, or more. It is important to note that once a person becomes an arahant, he will not become a Buddha in that life; and since there is no more rebirth for him, he will not become a Buddha in the future either. In Theravada Buddhism one is not forced to follow the path to Buddhahood only, but is given a choice from among the paths mentioned above. So a Theravada Buddhist can aspire for and eventually reach Buddhahood; indeed he must be determined to fulfill the Paramis for the long, long time required for the fulfillment of Buddhahood. " http://www.budsas.org/ebud/ebdha064.htm KKT: What does the author mean by << quality of enlightenment >> ? Does it mean that they are more or less << omniscient >> than each other ? And if the goal is simply << liberation >> then why do not choose the easiest & quickest way that is the way of the Pakatisavaka ? (maybe just one lifetime required :-)) Metta, KKT 18151 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 24, 2002 11:10pm Subject: requesting assistance with sutta I.D. Dear Group, If someone has the Pali Text Society translations below, could they please tell me the Pali and English names of the suttas involved? Pali Text Society translations of: Majjima Nikaya, III, p.109 Angutara Nikaya, II, pp. 92-93 and 129 Angutara Nikaya, III, pp. 191-192 Angutara Nikaya, IV, pp. 134 and 184; (1977,1973 and 1965 respectively) These were citations in an article I am reading, but I only have Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation "The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha" Wisdom 1995. metta, Christine 18152 From: jonoabb Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:35am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Beth Thanks, for sharing these excellent reminders from the Dhammapada. I am not familiar with 'co-dependency recovery'. Would you care to explain a little about it (and your daily life practice)? Jon --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Beth" wrote: > Hello all, > Thank you Kom and Jon for your welcomes :-) > Jon writes: > "Please feel free to share with us your understanding or experience > about awareness, which is such an important aspect of Buddhism. We > could all benefit from more discussion about this." > > My experience with awarensss from what I've learned in the past few years > has most to do with codependency recovery literature as well as my practice > in everyday life. > From what I've discerned with the readings I've done presently in the > Dhammapada there are some correlations. For exapmple in Dhp 1, verses > follow: > > 1. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all > mind-wrought. If with an impure mind a person speaks or acts suffering > follows him like the wheel that follows the foot of the ox. > 2. Mind precedes all mental states. Mind is their chief; they are all > mind-wrought. If with a pure mind a person speaks or acts happiness follows > him like his never-departing shadow > 3. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who > harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred. > 4. "He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me." Those who > do not harbor such thoughts still their hatred. > > Awareness to me is being aware of what brings suffering and how to > end suffering. In my understanding suffering begins in the mind. > > ~peace, > Beth > > Let none find fault with others; > let none see the omissions and commissions of others. > But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. > Dhammapada 4:50 18153 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] requesting assistance with sutta I.D. Chris, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > If someone has the Pali Text Society translations below, could they > please tell me the Pali and English names of the suttas involved? > > Pali Text Society translations of: > Majjima Nikaya, III, p.109 ..... We no longer have PTS MN ..... > Angutara Nikaya, II, pp. 92-93 and 129 ..... Bk of 4s, x(80)Essence of the deed about womenfolk..... Bk of 4s, ii(122) Frears- the wave about womenfolk partly clothed...... ..... > Angutara Nikaya, III, pp. 191-192 ..... Bk of 5s,ix(229) the snake (a) 5 disadvantages in a woman.... ..... > Angutara Nikaya, IV, pp. 134 and 184; (1977,1973 and 1965 > respectively) ..... Bk of 8s, v (15)The stains stain of a woman..... ..... Bk of 8s, 11 (51) Mahapajapati 8 rules and so as in Cullavagga ..... > These were citations in an article I am reading, but I only have > Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation "The Middle Length > Discourses of the Buddha" Wisdom 1995. ..... sorry, no Pali names for the suttas. I haven't checked if they are in B.Bodhi's Anthology. If you need more clues let me know. Sarah ======= 18154 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Dear Nina, (Victor at end) and All, I found the following references interesting and helpful. I appreciated the Pali terms as well: ..... > In the scriptures, there is no extensive description of all the stages > of > insight knowledge. We find them in the Path of Discrimination and the > Visuddhimagga, but they are only described shortly. When panna develops > to > the stage of insight knowledge, no words are needed, it is the direct > realization of the truth. > We read in Kindred Sayings IV, Kindred Sayings on Sense, Ch 3, § 26, > Comprehension: > > Without fully knowing, without comprehending the all, brethren, without > detaching himself from, without abandoning the all, a man is incapable > of > extinguishing Ill... > > In Pali: sabbam (the all) bhikkhave anabhijaana.m(not fully knowing) > aparijaana.m (not comprehending) aviraajaya.m (not detaching) appajaha.m > (not abandoning) abhabbo (unable) dukkhakkhayaaya (khaaya, > extinguishing). > > It is explained that the all are: the eye, visible object, seeing, > eye-contact, etc. It is then explained that by fully knowing the all > dukkha > can be extinguished. ..... I checked B.Bodhi’s translation as well for these terms and it is similar: “And what, bhikkhus, is that all without directly knowing and fully understanding which, without developing dispassion towards which and abandoning which, one is incapable of destroying suffering?” He also adds a footnote to the commentary which refers to the 3 kinds of understanding (pari~n~naa) as you add. ..... > Now the Commentary: fully knowing (abhijaana.m), this word refers to ~naata-pari~n~naa (full > understanding of the known). Comprehending (parijaana.m), this word > refers > to tiira.na-pari~n~naa (full understanding as investigation). Detaching > (viraajaya.m) and abandoning (pajaha.m) refer to the third pari~n~na, > which > is pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as abandoning.> > end quote. > Actually, in these few words all stages of insight are included. ..... This reminded me of similar references and detail to the Mulapariyaya sutta: From the commentary to the Mulapariya Sutta: “...He who fully understands the earth understands it by the three types of full understanding: the full understanding of the known (~naata.pari~n~naa), the full understanding of scrutinization (tiira.napari~n~naa), and the full understanding of abandoning (pahaanapari~n~naa).” “Therein, what is the full understanding of the known? He fully understands the earth element thus: “This is the internal earth element, this the external. This is its characteristic, this its function, manifestation, and proximate cause.” This is full understanding of the known. What is the full understanding by scrutinization? Having known it in this way, he scrutinizes the earth element in forty-two modes as impermanent, suffering, a sickness, etc. this is full undestanding by scrutinization. What is the full understanding by abandoning/ Having scrutinized it in this way, he abandons desire and lust for the earth element through the supreme path (aggamagga). This is full understanding by abandoning. Or , alternatively, the defining of mentality-materiality (naamaruupavavatthaana) is the full understanding of the known; from insight-comprehension of the groups (kalaapasammasana) as far as conformity knowledge (anuloma) is the full understanding by scrutinization; and the knowledge of the ariyan path is the full understanding by abandoning.” ***** >The > Visuddhimagga explains (Ch XX, 3) about the three kinds of full > understanding: > ~naata-pari~n~naa (full understanding of the known), begins at the first > stage of insight knowledge (knowing the difference between nama and > rupa) up > to the second stage (knowing them as conditioned realities). The > specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are penetrated. > The second pari~n~naa, full understanding as investigation : begins at > the > third stage (comprehension by groups, beginning to see rise and fall) > until > the fourth stage which is the first stage of principle insight > (mahaa-vipassana ~naa.na): realizing the arising and falling away of > realities. Here the general characteristics are penetrated. > The third pari~n~naa, pahaana-pari~n~naa, full understanding as > abandoning, > begins at the contemplation of dissolution, bhanga ~naa.na, the second > stage > of principal insight. > Thus we see that in the sutta very few words are used, describing all > stages > of insight. We also see that as panna develops it leads to detachment, > to > abandoning. But panna develops stage by stage. If the specific > characteristics of nama and rupa are not fully penetrated (the all: > seeing, > etc), the three characteristics cannot be penetrated. The development of > panna evolves according to a specific order. ***** To emphasise these same important points (i.e. very few words in a sutta may refer to all stages of insight but can very easily be passed over or misunderstood without the assistance of the commentary notes), similar detail is given to these verses in SN1,ch1,20-46 “Beings who perceive what can be expressed Become established in what can be expressed. Not fully understanding what can be expressed, They come under the yoke of Death. “But having fully understood what can be expressed, One does not conceive ‘one who expresses.’ For that does not exist for him By which one could describe him." ..... How many of us can appreciate these verses without clarification from the commentaries? B.Bodhi adds quite a lot of commentary detail here. In brief, ‘what can be expressed (akkheyya) are the 5 aggregates. “Ordinary beings’ perceive the aggregates affected by the vipallasas (perversions) and ‘become established in what can be expressed’(akkeyyasmi.m pati.t.thitaa).’Beings who perceive what can be expressed’ are akkheyyasa~n~nino sattaa and are no longer ‘established’ in the 5 aggregates by way of lobha, dosa, moha etc. The commentary explains the second verse in a similar way to the one you quoted in terms of the 3 pari~n~nas. “One does not conceive “one who expresses” (akkhaatara.m na ma~n~nati) Comm: “The arahant does not conceive the speaker as an individual (puggala); that is, he no longer takes the five aggregates to be “mine”, “I”, and “my self”. Besides other detail, the commentary also says this verse is referring to the “ninefold supramundane Dhamma, i.e. the four paths, their fruits, and Nibbana.” ***** Many thanks, Nina for all the useful detail you provide and for encouraging me to consider these suttas further. I’m not sure that you have the B.Bodhi translations, so if you’d like me to type out any of the commentary notes anytime, pls let me know. I left out quite a lot. ==================================================================== In brief, Victor, I think the point Nina was making by including the detail to this sutta was that comprehending objects of satipatthana as anicca, dukkha and anatta has to begin by clearly understanding the difference between nama and rupa. In other words we can't put the icing on the Christmas cake before the basic ingredients have been identfied and put in the mixing bowl;-)Sometimes I think that understanding details in the Abhidhamma and commentaries is easier than understanding verses in the suttas. Often what seems the simplest is the most profound. Look forward to further comments from Nina, Victor, Ray (studying the SN suttas with others, I know) or anyone else. I apologise if this post sounds unnecessarily complicated. Sarah ======= 18155 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Perfections, Patience, Ch 7, no 5 Hi Nina & All, I’ve been appreciating all the reminders on patience from the series of K.Sujin’s “Perfections’ which you’ve been translating. Here are a few I found helpful when I was reading through yesterday: ..... Commentary: “If there were no wrong-doers, how could I accomplish the perfection of patience?” ...... K.Sujin: “Whoever may have done wrong to us or may have harmed us, his deeds have ceased at that moment, and therefore we should not continue to be angry”. ..... Commentary: “With whom, then, should you now be angry, and by whom should anger be aroused? When all phenomena are non-self, who can do wrong to whom?” ..... Commentary: “If we are able to be patient, anger cannot arise, there cannot be wrong speech, not even the slightest amount.” ..... K.Sujin: “There can be patience even with regard to uttering useless speech. Before we are going to speak we should consider whether what we want to say is beneficial or not.” ..... Commentary: “Patience is an ocean on account of its depth” ========================================================== I particularly like the last one - considering patience as an ocean - deep and deeper still. I'm considering patience not just with 'uttering useless speech', but also when listening to it - listening with patience and metta...hmmmm, often difficult for me. Also, not just patience to prevent anger, but also to prevent lots of lobha when there is good food and other treats at this time of year which seems like more of a problem for me, having just come back from a lovely hike and lunch on a very remote and beautiful beach.....;-) For those who are sick, have sick relatives or recent bereavements, may I also wish you patience and good cheer at this time. Sarah ======= 18156 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dualism/Non-Dualism Victor, Christine and all wrote: > Hi Christine and all, > > Here are some questions in my mind: ... > 3. What do feeling, perception, intention, contact, and attention > have in common such that they are called name? Here's my stab at an answer. They have in common that they are factors that accompany a moment of consciousness in experiencing an object, each having a particular function. Further, they have in common with all other things that are called name that they are dhammas (fundamental phenomena) that experience an object. In my view, the story behind the name chosen to designate each of the 2 basic classes of dhammas ('nama' and 'rupa') is less important than what the Buddha actually said about the 2 classes or about the individual dhammas themselves, and particularly how the direct understanding of them is to be developed. It is these dhammas that are to be seen as not-self. The realisation of this by direct experience is what is meant by insight into the characteristic of not-self. They are what is referred to in the Visuddhi-Magga as the 'soil' of understanding (panna) (Vis. XIV, 32, 33). Jon 18157 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:19am Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hello David and all, Thank you. Happy Holidays to you also. :-) Sorry for the delay in replying - it took me a while to find again the Bhikkhu Bodhi commentary to The Great Discourse on Causation - The Mahanidana Sutta and Its Commentaries on-line. (I have the paper copy, but can't scan it for you.) Because the link is a PDF file, I can't cut-and-paste any of it. The first one 'Read the PDF File 2.2 megs' is the Introduction to his Commentary. On p. 15 of this, he discusses the 'designation-contact' mentioned in your quote. http://www.bhavanasociety.org/Readings.htm p.15 Bhikkhu Bodhi says, 'The next section of the discourse (20) introduces another variation. In the standard exposition of dependent arising the sequence moves from contact to the six sense bases. In the Mahanidana Sutta, however, the Buddha bypasses the six sense bases entirely and goes back a step to bring in mentality- materiality as the condition for contact. To dispel the perplexity this unfamiliar move might provoke, he then introduces a striking pasage, not found elsehere in the Canon, giving a methodical demonstration of his statement.' If you have time, have a look at pp. 15-18 (or all of it) and see what you think. You said: "I was wondering if this passage from the Lord Buddha could be understood and applied to the dependent origination of our thoughts? In other words the rising of a "name-group" by mental activity, which is then either accepted or rejected by us, thus leading to suffering?" C: I'm also wondering if it might be worth considering a few more things as well here... or tell me if I am completely missing the thrust of your remarks. Is it possible to abstract just one link in the chain of dependent origination and discuss it as the cause of suffering? What is suffering? and, is there any 'us' who can choose to accept or reject? In his booklet on Dependent Origination, Ven P.A. Payutto also mentions the whole cycle of Dependent Origination occurring within one mind moment ... "The description of Dependent Origination given in the previous chapter is that most often found in the scriptures and commentaries. It seeks to explain Dependent Origination in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future. Those who do not agree with this interpretation, or who would prefer something more immediate, can find alternatives not only in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, where the principle of Dependent Origination is shown occurring in its entirety in one mind moment..." Hope this isn't too much Thera theory for one day. :-) http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/payutto.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "chase8383 " wrote: > Hello Christine and All > > Happy holidays BTW > > I should have identified the Pali, but your right it's dependent origination and the rise and cessation of suffering. > > I was wondering if this passage from the Lord Buddha: > > "If the qualities, traits, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group (mental activity) were all absent, would designation-contact with regard to the form-group (the physical body) be discerned?" > > "No, lord." > > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of form-group were all absent, would resistance- > contact with regard to the name-group be discerned?" > > "No, lord." > > "If the permutations, signs, themes, and indicators by which there is a description of name-group and form-group were all absent, would designation-contact or resistance-contact be discerned?" > > could be understood and applied to the dependent origination of our thoughts? In other words the rising of a "name-group" by mental activity, which is then either accepted or rejected by us, thus leading to suffering? > > Thank you, David 18158 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Wendy --- "uanchihliu " wrote: > Hi Rob M, ... > Here's an example of how I see Howard's view also has great > significance on ethics. Without seeing Howard's view, one > may indeed see today's weather simply as the environment and > has no relationship to one's current or past cittas or kamma > when perhaps the weather may be an ecological effect due to > little action of each one of us (condition resulted from > many seeds as a whole). Without seeing Howard's view, what > one considers kusala may be akusala, I feel. The problem in talking about the weather as vipaka, as I see it, is that different people may be experiencing quite different vipaka due to the same weather conditions at the very same moment. One person may find the temperature just right (kusala vipaka) while another person may be feeling too hot or too cold (akusala vipaka). It doesn't really seem possible to draw any conclusion about the weather as vipaka from that. I think it's important to remember that whether one sees the weather as simply the environment or as an ecological event due to one's past cittas or kamma, it is in either case a view of things that is based on purely intellectual considerations. To put it in its most basic form, it is an idea we have about the weather, a kind of thinking. The only thing that is 'real' about the weather is whatever happens to be experienced through one or more of the sense-doors that we attribute to the weather (and attributing is yet another kind of thinking). It probably sounds weird to hear someone say that the weather is not real, since in purely conventional terms nothing could be more real that the weather(!), but remember that in the Buddha's teaching it is the dhammas (fundamental phenomena) that comprise this life that are 'real' and that are to be understood. Getting back to thinking about the weather (or about anything, for that matter), the kusala or akusala nature of our thinking activity isn't determined by the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the thinking, but by the quality of the mental factors that accompany the thinking. This can be known only, I believe, by a level of understanding (panna) that directly experiences the thinking moments. Jon 18159 From: Beth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:30am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jon wrote: Beth Thanks, for sharing these excellent reminders from the Dhammapada. I am not familiar with 'co-dependency recovery'. Would you care to explain a little about it (and your daily life practice)? Jon **************************************** Hello all, Hello Jon, Co-dependent recovery is what one does in relation to understanding that one's life has become unmanagable and the understanding of the steps one needs to make to break free of certain self destructive cycles. A codependent person is one who has let another person's behavior affect him/her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person's behavior(definition from Codependent No More by Melody Beattie). My daily practice for at least the last two years continues to be analytical in regards to thoughts/feelings. To know where these arise, what if anything to do about them and letting go. When I first began I purposefully began my days with at least an hour of quiet, not letting myself get distracted by things outside myself. I then let any feelings come that I may have been surpressing, I might cry for a while or write about what's going on with me.After I finish, I let myself know that I am loved, and forgive myself as well as those who may have offended me( I also extend loving wishes their way). Throughout my days if any anxious/fearful/anger filled thoughts come my way, I let those go and focus on what is going on at the moment (doing dishes for example). ~peace, Beth Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. Dhammapada 4:50 18160 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 6:09am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 6 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 6 We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct², with regard to the ³Conduct of Dhamma the Devaputta²2 that the Bodhisatta was born as the Devaputta (son of a Deva) Dhamma and Devadatta as Adhamma. Dhamma would on Uposatha days (vigil days) appear among men and propagate what was right, the ten wholesome deeds, whereas Adhamma propagated the ten evil actions. One day their two chariots met in mid-air, and they each claimed the right of way. We read in the ³Dhamma Jåtaka²(no. 457) which gives the same story, that Adhamma said to Dhamma, while comparing himself with iron, and Dhamma Devaputta with gold: ³By iron gold is beaten, nor do we Gold used for beating iron ever see: If Wrong agains Right shall win the fight today, Iron as beautiful as gold will be.² We read in the Jataka that Dhamma answerd with the stanza: ³If you indeed are mighty in the fray, Though neither good nor wise is what you say, Swallow I will all these your evil words; And willy nilly will make your way.² Dhamma did not want to give in to anger, and, according to the Commentary, he aroused patience, loving-kindness and compassion. He gave Adhamma the right of way, but the earth formed a fissure and swallowed Adhamma. As we read, Adhamma could kill Dhamma, just as iron can beat gold, whereas gold cannot beat iron. People who are on the side of Adhamma, who are wrong, think that they are like iron, but that they can make iron appear as beautiful as gold, thus, they make it appear that akusala is better than kusala. When someone has done wrong, and he is blamed by society, what are we thinking about this? If we believe that we should help to join in blaming that person, we consider at such a moment adhamma to be better than dhamma. When we join in blaming another person again and again, we are on the side of adhamma, not of dhamma. If we are on the side of dhamma, sati-sampajañña can be aware, and there can be loving-kindness and patience, we can refrain from blaming, so that we do not condition the increase of akusala and anger. As we read, Dhamma answered that he would have patience and endure the coarse speech of Adhamma. Footnote 2. See Jataka no. 457, Dhamma Jataka. I have added the contents of the story as told in this Jataka and also the stanzas. In the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² the word silver is used instead of gold. It is said: ³By iron silver is beaten²... 18161 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 6:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Dear Howard, > Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path > consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? > Henepola Gunaratana has written the following, copied from > ATI: This is my understanding ... > "The supramundane paths and fruits always arise as states of > jhanic consciousness. They occur as states of jhana because they > contain within themselves the jhana factors elevated to an > intensity corresponding to that of the jhana factors in the > mundane jhanas. Jhana factors is different from jhana itself. Jhana factors is cetasikas, while jhana itself is a citta. The supramundane paths and fruits are lokuttara-cittas and not jhana- cittas, although jhana factors (cetasikas) are present within the supramundane paths and fruits. "Arising as states of jhanic consciousness" must be interpreted in the sense that cetasikas present in jhana are also present in the supramundane paths and fruits. So an ariyan may have mastered lokuttara-cittas, but may not have mastered jhana-cittas at all. > Thus, an ariyan would have had to have attained at least the first > jhana at least once, no? The answer is a categorical NO. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18162 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/25/02 9:59:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Dear Howard, > > >Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path > >consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? > >Henepola Gunaratana has written the following, copied from > >ATI: > > This is my understanding ... > > >"The supramundane paths and fruits always arise as states of > >jhanic consciousness. They occur as states of jhana because they > >contain within themselves the jhana factors elevated to an > >intensity corresponding to that of the jhana factors in the > >mundane jhanas. > > Jhana factors is different from jhana itself. Jhana factors is > cetasikas, while jhana itself is a citta. > > The supramundane paths and fruits are lokuttara-cittas and not jhana- > cittas, although jhana factors (cetasikas) are present within the > supramundane paths and fruits. > > "Arising as states of jhanic consciousness" must be interpreted in > the sense that cetasikas present in jhana are also present in the > supramundane paths and fruits. > > So an ariyan may have mastered lokuttara-cittas, but may not have > mastered jhana-cittas at all. > > >Thus, an ariyan would have had to have attained at least the first > >jhana at least once, no? > > The answer is a categorical NO. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > > ================================= I understand your point, and I find it well made. However, I am not clear how to distinguish attaining all the jhana factors - attaining all the characteristics/functions of a jhana, from attaining the jhana itself. What is an absorptive state other than its functions and characteristics? In fact, what is any event other than its characteristics? For me, distinguishing an alleged essence/substance of something separate from or underlying the lakkhana of that "thing" is an instance of "painting legs on a snake". To make myself as specific as possible: What distinguishes, say, the first jhana from the characteristics of that jhana? When all the factors are present, the jhana is present. What is that jhana *other* than consciousness/discernment conditioned by those factors? 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) 18163 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 > What is an absorptive state other than its functions and > characteristics? In fact, what is any event other than its > characteristics? For me, distinguishing an alleged > essence/substance of something separate from or underlying the > lakkhana of that "thing" is an instance of "painting legs on a > snake". Let me give you an analogy... We have the four ultimate realities of rupa, citta, cetasika and nibbana in Abhidhamma. A characteristic of rupa is that it is anatta (not-self). A characteristic of citta is that it is anatta (not-self). A characteristic of cetasika is that it is anatta (not-self). A characteristic of nibbana is that it is anatta (not-self). Then ... Is rupa equivalent to citta? Is rupa equivalent to cetasika? Is rupa equivalent to nibbana? Is citta equivalent to rupa? Is citta equivalent to cetasika? Is citta equivalent to nibbana? Is cetasika equivalent to rupa? Is cetasika equivalent to citta? Is cetasika equivalent to nibbana? Is nibbana equivalent to rupa? Is nibbana equivalent to citta? Is nibbana equivalent to cetasika? > To make myself as specific as possible: What distinguishes, say, > the first jhana from the characteristics of that jhana? When all > the factors are present, the jhana is present. What is that jhana > *other* than consciousness/discernment conditioned by those > factors? When you say this, I put the cause of it as not distinguishing what is citta and what is cetasika (through insight meditation). There must be ultimate understanding of what is consciousness (citta) and what is mental factors (cetasikas). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18164 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/25/02 11:29:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > >What is an absorptive state other than its functions and > >characteristics? In fact, what is any event other than its > >characteristics? For me, distinguishing an alleged > >essence/substance of something separate from or underlying the > >lakkhana of that "thing" is an instance of "painting legs on a > >snake". > > Let me give you an analogy... > > We have the four ultimate realities of rupa, citta, cetasika and > nibbana in Abhidhamma. > > A characteristic of rupa is that it is anatta (not-self). > A characteristic of citta is that it is anatta (not-self). > A characteristic of cetasika is that it is anatta (not-self). > A characteristic of nibbana is that it is anatta (not-self). > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: You have picked one characteristic, just one. Obviously there is no distinguishing to be done on the basis of a common characteristic, and you have chosen the universally common one. The question still remains of what there is to a "thing" or event other than its characteristics. (Also, as a side issue, with regard the anatta lakkhana, is it actually a characteristic or the absence of one?) ---------------------------------------------------- > > Then ... > > Is rupa equivalent to citta? Is rupa equivalent to cetasika? Is rupa > equivalent to nibbana? > > Is citta equivalent to rupa? Is citta equivalent to cetasika? Is > citta equivalent to nibbana? > > Is cetasika equivalent to rupa? Is cetasika equivalent to citta? Is > cetasika equivalent to nibbana? > > Is nibbana equivalent to rupa? Is nibbana equivalent to citta? Is > nibbana equivalent to cetasika? > ------------------------------------------ Howard: No. So? I still do not see an attmpted answer to my question. (Not that it is encumbant upon you to try to formulate one.) ------------------------------------------ > > > >To make myself as specific as possible: What distinguishes, say, > >the first jhana from the characteristics of that jhana? When all > >the factors are present, the jhana is present. What is that jhana > >*other* than consciousness/discernment conditioned by those > >factors? > > When you say this, I put the cause of it as not distinguishing what > is citta and what is cetasika (through insight meditation). > > > There must be ultimate understanding of what is consciousness > (citta) and what is mental factors (cetasikas). > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: I do not get your point. There is no debate on my part that a jhanic state is a mental state consisting of the operations of discernment (vi~n~nana) together with various other (non-identical) concomitant operations and characteristics. I am *certainly* not excluding vi~n~nana from jhana. ;-) Vi~n~nana is the #1 aspect, not only of jhanic states but of all cognitive states. Perhaps I have mislead you in my use of the term 'characteristics'. To try avoid being misleading in that way, I also included in what I wrote at several points the terms 'functions' and 'operations'. My intent was to include all aspects, functional and descriptive, of an event/condition under the heading of 'charateristics'. When all these are "removed", there should be nothing left, and any alleged remainder would be an underlying secret essence/substance that is not evident and which I understand the Dhamma to teach as being nonexistent. ------------------------------------------------ > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ========================== 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) 18165 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > Hi James, > > From my understanding of the Suttas the differences between the > enlightenment of the Buddha and the Pakatisavaka have to do with discovering > the Dhamma without the teachings of a Buddha. Whereas the enlightenment of > the Arahant comes about from following the path laid out by a Buddha. The > Pakatisavaka is different from a Buddha in that they are not able to teach. > Within the Arahants there are also distinctions made on the way > enlightenment is achieved. For example released both ways, ie mastering all > levels of concentration as well as insight and those who do so without > mastering all the levels of concentration. Thus I think these > classifications have nothing to do with the defilements, but rather more to > do with how enlightenment was achieved and how well one can teach others > about the Dhamma. For example a Buddha can better teach than an Arahant > because he is able to know the inclinations of others thus can apply more > skillful means in teaching....Ray Ray, KKT, NEO, All, This is a plausible explanation, but it doesn't pan out. The Four Jhanas are the Four Jhanas, for everyone. The level of concentration that one has doesn't determine if one becomes enlightened. The Buddha had wonderful concentration before enlightenment but didn't become enlightened until he added discernment to the concentration and ended all mental fermentations (which aren't defilements I believe, but wrong views…am I correct? I don't know what fermentations are exactly and can't find a definition. Can someone help me here?). And the Buddha's classification of `released both ways' doesn't always apply to an arahant (but it can) as Ananda explained in the Ubhatobhaga Sutta: [Ananda:] "There is the case, my friend, where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released both ways. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-045.html So released both ways has to do with being `withdrawn' from sensuality and unskillful qualities (notice that withdrawn doesn't mean eliminated) and to enter at least the first Jhana of concentration (insight isn't necessarily included). And yes, the main difference between the Buddhas lies in the ability to teach, but I want to go deeper than that. Why can one teach and one cannot? Why is one able to know what is best for other people and one is not? Why is the quality of enlightenment greater for one than the other? The only thing that keeps coming to my mind is defilements. And this authors states that there is a difference in the quality of their enlightenment, according to the suttas. And this author is a huge authority on the Tipitaka. I will end with his credentials. I still would like to know what it is that makes this difference between the enlightened. It can't be concentration; and while it may be teaching, that isn't going deep enough to the underlying reason. Metta, James Ps. Happy Holidays!! Biography of S. U Silananda Education He received his early years' education at Kelly High School, an American Baptist Mission School for boys, in Mandalay. He had his religious education in Tipitaka (Buddhist Scriptures) under the guidance of his preceptor and many other renowned Sayadaws both in Sagaing Hills and in Mandalay. He took the religious examinations held by the Government of Burma (now Myanmar) and passed the Phatamange (1st Grade) in 1946, Phatamalat (2nd Grade) in 1947, and Phatamagyi (3rd Grade) in 1948. He attained the 1st position in the 2nd Grade in the whole of Burma and 2nd position in the 3rd Grade. He got the degree of Dhammacariya, Master of Dhamma, in 1950 and was awarded the title Sasanadhaja Siripavara Dhammacariya. In 1954 he attained another degree when he passed the examination held by Pariyattisasanahita Association in Mandalay which was renowned to be the most difficult examination in Burma. He duely got to add to his name the word "abhivamsa", hence his full name and title: U Silanandabhivamsa, Sasanadhaja Siripavara Dhammacariya and Pariyattisasanahita Dhammacariya. He went to Ceylon (Sri Lanka) in 1954 and while there passed the GCE Advanced Level Examination (General Certificate of Education Examination held by the University of London in Ceylon) with distinctions in Pali and Sanskrit. While he was in Ceylon he made a brief return to Burma and during that trip he practiced Vipassana meditation in Mahasi Sayadaw's tradition. Positions He taught as a lecturer at Atothokdayone Pali Unviersity in Sagaing Hills, Buddhist Scriptures, Pali, Sanskrit and Prakit languages at Abhayarama Shwegu Taik monastery, Mandalay and was an External Examiner at the Department of Oriental Studies, Arts and Science University, Mandalay for Bachelor's and Master's degrees. Sayadaw U Silananda was the Chief Compiler of the Tipitaka Pali- Burmese Dictionary and was one of the distinguished editors of the Pali Canon and the associated Commentaries at the Sixth Buddhist Council held at the Kaba Aye Hlaing Gu (World Peace Cave) in Rangoon (Yangon) from 1954 to 1956. Sayadaw U Silananda had a golden opportunity to work for Venerable Mahasi Sayadaw and Venerable Mingun Tipitaka Sayadaw. In 1960 he inherited the Mahavijjodaya Chaung monastery after the passing away of his preceptor and became the Abbot of that monastery. He moved to Abhyarama Shwegu Taik monastery, Mandalay in 1968, and in 1969 was appointed the Vice Abbot of that monastery. He is currently the Chief Abbot of that monastery. He was also appointed a member of the Executive Committee of Shwegyin Sect, and in 1993 became a Senior Member of that Sect. He participated at the meeting of Cleaning-up of the Sasana held at Hmawbi (50 miles from Yangon). In 1993, he was appointed a Member of the Advisory Board of Meditation Teachers of Mahasi Sasana Yeiktha in Yangon. Sayadaw was requested to be Rector of the International Theravada Buddhist Missionary University of Yangon in Myanmar (which opened in December, 1999).s 18166 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:24pm Subject: Apologies for Wrong View Hello All, Okay, I apologize. I was mistaken about defilements. They are completely eliminated in the enlightened. My wrong view of this matter was because I had seen the defilements as self, when they are really non-self. If they are not committed, they don't exist. Period, the end. The Buddha explains this in the Sallekha Sutta when he explains effacement (the process of removing the defilements completely). The sutta states: "But herein, Cunda, effacement should be practiced by you:[16] (1) others will be harmful; we shall not be harmful here -- thus effacement can be done.[17] (2) Others will kill living beings; we shall abstain from killing living beings here -- thus effacement can be done. (3) Others will take what is not given; we shall abstain from taking what is not given here -- thus effacement can be done. (4) Others will be unchaste; we shall be chaste here -- thus effacement can be done. (5) Others will speak falsehood; we shall abstain from false speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (6) Others win speak maliciously; we shall abstain from malicious speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (7) Others will speak harshly; we shall abstain from harsh speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (8) Others will gossip; we shall abstain from gossip here -- thus effacement can be done. (9) Others will be covetous; we shall not be covetous here -- thus effacement can be done. (10) Others will have thoughts of ill will; we shall not have thoughts of ill will here -- thus effacement can be done. (11) Others will have wrong views; we shall have right view here -- thus effacement can be done. (12) Others will have wrong intention; we shall have right intention here -- thus effacement can be done. (13) Others will use wrong speech; we shall use right speech here -- thus effacement can be done. (14) Others will commit wrong actions; we shall do right actions here -- thus effacement can be done. (15) Others will have wrong livelihood; we shall have right livelihood here -- thus effacement can be done. (16) Others will make wrong effort; we shall make right effort here - - thus effacement can be done. (17) Others will have wrong mindfulness; we shall have right mindfulness here -- thus effacement can be done. (18) Others will have wrong concentration; we shall have right concentration here -- thus effacement can be done. (19) Others will have wrong knowledge; we shall have right knowledge here -- thus effacement can be done. (20) Others will have wrong deliverance; we shall have right deliverance here -- thus effacement can be done. (21) Others will be overcome by sloth and torpor; we shall be free from sloth and torpor here -- thus effacement can be done. (22) Others will be agitated; we shall be unagitated here -- thus effacement can be done. (23) Others will be doubting; we shall be free from doubt here -- thus effacement can be done. (24) Others will be angry; we shall not be angry here -- thus effacement can be done. (25) Others will be hostile; we shall not be hostile here -- thus effacement can be done. (26) Others will denigrate; we shall not denigrate here -- thus effacement can be done. (27) Others will be domineering; we shall not be domineering here -- thus effacement can be done. (28) Others will be envious; we shall not be envious here -- thus effacement can be done. (29) Others will be jealous; we shall not be jealous here -- thus effacement can be done. (30) Others will be fraudulent; we shall not be fraudulent here -- thus effacement can be done. (31) Others will be hypocrites; we shall not be hypocrites here -- thus effacement can be done. (32) Others will be obstinate; we shall not be obstinate here -- thus effacement can be done. (33) Others will be arrogant; we shall not be arrogant here -- thus effacement can be done. (34) Others will be difficult to admonish; we shall be easy to admonish here -- thus effacement can be done. (35) Others will have bad friends; we shall have noble friends here - - thus effacement can be done. (36) Others will be negligent; we shall be heedful here -- thus effacement can be done. (37) Others will be faithless; we shall be faithful here -- thus effacement can be done. (38) Others will be shameless; we shall be shameful here -- thus effacement can be done. (39) Others will be without conscience; we shall have conscience here -- thus effacement can be done. (40) Others will have no learning; we shall be learned here -- thus effacement can be done. (41) Others will be idle; we shall be energetic here -- thus effacement can be done. (42) Others will be lacking in mindfulness; we shall be established in mindfulness here -- thus effacement can be done. (43) Others will be without wisdom; we shall be endowed with wisdom - - thus effacement can be done. (44) Others will misapprehend according to their individual views, hold on to them tenaciously and not easily discard them;[18] we shall not misapprehend according to individual views nor hold on to them tenaciously, but shall discard them with ease -- thus effacement can be done. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel061.html This doesn't explain why the quality of enlightenment can be different for different people, but I will leave that alone until I need to worry about it ;-). Metta, James 18167 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More James wrote: And the Buddha's classification of `released both ways' doesn't always apply to an arahant (but it can) as Ananda explained in the Ubhatobhaga Sutta: [Ananda:] "There is the case, my friend, where a monk, withdrawn from sensuality, withdrawn from unskillful qualities, enters & remains in the first jhana: rapture & pleasure born from withdrawal, accompanied by directed thought & evaluation. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released both ways. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an09-045.html So released both ways has to do with being `withdrawn' from sensuality and unskillful qualities (notice that withdrawn doesn't mean eliminated) and to enter at least the first Jhana of concentration (insight isn't necessarily included). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ James I think you have misinterpreted this Sutta. The withthdrawn from unskillful qualities and sensuality are conditions that are necessary to enter into the first Jhana. The released both ways refers to obtaining the Jhana and "..remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment." which I think refers to the application of insight. You will notice that in the second paragraph it says.... ""Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. He remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as released both ways. " Here the stilling of directed thought and evaluation are mentioned because they are the condition for the arising of the second Jhana. For each of the other Jhanas the condition for arising is mentioned, and the last paragraph for the more subtle dimensions. You will notice that what they all have in common is the line about discernment.....Ray 18168 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:47pm Subject: Prophetic tradition within Buddhism Dear Group, In the Jataka Tales vol i (77) 'Mahasupina-Jataka' the sixteen dreams of King Pasenadi are clarified by the Buddha. Each time he makes a comment to the King along the lines of, "Sire, that dream shall have no issue in your days or in mine....." "This dream too shall have its fulfilment only in days to come ..." "Here again the dream shall not have its fulfilment until the future, in the days of unrighteous kins ..." Is there any support in the Suttas for the belief that these dreams were prophetic dreams about a future time, and that some of the dreams could relate to events in this time period? Is there a prophetic tradition within Buddhism? metta, Christine 18169 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > James I think you have misinterpreted this Sutta. The withthdrawn from > unskillful qualities and sensuality are conditions that are necessary to > enter into the first Jhana. The released both ways refers to obtaining the > Jhana and "..remains touching with his body in whatever way there is an > opening there, and he knows it through discernment." which I think refers to > the application of insight. You will notice that in the second paragraph it > says.... > > ""Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, he enters > & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth jhana... the > dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of > consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither > perception nor non-perception. He remains touching with his body in whatever > way there is an opening there, and he knows it through discernment. It is to > this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the Blessed One as > released both ways. " > > Here the stilling of directed thought and evaluation are mentioned because > they are the condition for the arising of the second Jhana. For each of the > other Jhanas the condition for arising is mentioned, and the last paragraph > for the more subtle dimensions. You will notice that what they all have in > common is the line about discernment.....Ray Ray, Thank you. Yes, you are quite correct; I did miss that line about discernment. So `released both ways' does include insight. My apologies (I wonder what it means by `openings' in the body? Hmmm… do you know?) However, the term `released both ways' doesn't apply exclusively to the arahant who has achieved the final and fourth stage of Supermundane Jhana. The Buddha used that phrase for each of the stages, as Ananda explains, so it doesn't apply exclusively to arahants. Again, I am left with no explanation as to the differences between the enlightened. Somebody help me if you know the explanation. Metta, James 18170 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 2:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi James, Ray and All, You may find it of interest to to read 'Qualities of Ariya Persons' at: http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm The links at the foot of the page are interesting as well...."From Puthujjana to the Buddha" and "Ariyas (Noble Persons)" metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > wrote: > > James I think you have misinterpreted this Sutta. The > withthdrawn from > > unskillful qualities and sensuality are conditions that are > necessary to > > enter into the first Jhana. The released both ways refers to > obtaining the > > Jhana and "..remains touching with his body in whatever way there > is an > > opening there, and he knows it through discernment." which I think > refers to > > the application of insight. You will notice that in the second > paragraph it > > says.... > > > > ""Furthermore, with the stilling of directed thought & evaluation, > he enters > > & remains in the second jhana... the third jhana... the fourth > jhana... the > > dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the > infinitude of > > consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of > neither > > perception nor non-perception. He remains touching with his body > in whatever > > way there is an opening there, and he knows it through > discernment. It is to > > this extent that one is described in a sequential way by the > Blessed One as > > released both ways. " > > > > Here the stilling of directed thought and evaluation are > mentioned because > > they are the condition for the arising of the second Jhana. For > each of the > > other Jhanas the condition for arising is mentioned, and the last > paragraph > > for the more subtle dimensions. You will notice that what they all > have in > > common is the line about discernment.....Ray > > Ray, > > Thank you. Yes, you are quite correct; I did miss that line about > discernment. So `released both ways' does include insight. My > apologies (I wonder what it means by `openings' in the body? Hmmm… > do you know?) However, the term `released both ways' doesn't apply > exclusively to the arahant who has achieved the final and fourth > stage of Supermundane Jhana. The Buddha used that phrase for each > of the stages, as Ananda explains, so it doesn't apply exclusively > to arahants. > > Again, I am left with no explanation as to the differences between > the enlightened. Somebody help me if you know the explanation. > > Metta, James 18171 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 3:58pm Subject: Back again. Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back in again. Cheers Peter 18172 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi James, Ray and All, > > You may find it of interest to to read 'Qualities of Ariya Persons' > at: > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm > > The links at the foot of the page are interesting as well...."From > Puthujjana to the Buddha" and > "Ariyas (Noble Persons)" > > > > metta, > Christine > Christine and All, Thanks!! This site is invaluable. I have book marked it. However, it has answered one question for me but raised another. This is a question I have held for a long time. Was the Buddha omniscient? Did he know absolutely everything there is to know? Which is related to your other post, Christine, about prophecy in Buddhism. This site that you refer to describes the difference between a Buddha and Silent Buddha and Arahant with this quality: "Sabbanuta Nana that will enable him to know all there is to know". So the Buddha was supposed to know all that there is to know. If that is the case, could someone explain this sutta to me where the Buddha doesn't know something and is pondering it: "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among the Kosalans in a wilderness hut in a Himalayan district. Then, as he was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "Is it possible to exercise rulership without killing or causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow -- righteously?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn04-020.html Now, I would not say that this kind of question is unanswerable. The Tao Te Ching goes into great detail of how to be a ruler without killing, confiscating, or causing sorrow. Why didn't the Buddha know this information? Isn't this something that an omniscient person would know? BTW, my goal is not to discredit the Buddha with this line of questioning I have been doing lately, I highly respect the Buddha more than anything else in the world (I got the book 'the buddha; writings on the enlightened one' edited by tom morgan and photographs by glen allison [BEAUTIFUL!!] and a wooden Buddha statue from Indonesia for Christmas...how ironic and telling :-). And I don't think there is anything wrong with asking uncomfortable questions about the Buddha. Metta, James Happy Holidays Christine!! :-)) 18173 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:06pm Subject: Re: Back again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back > in again. > > Cheers > Peter Hi Peter, Of course I remember you! Welcome back to the rest of us Yahoos :-)! Metta, James 18174 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 11:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi, James (and Christine) - With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was omniscient or not, I have a couple thoughts: 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all information about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the facts of anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How can we know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it important? 2) There is the following important sense in which the Buddha knew "everything": He knew directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature. The Buddha knew the difference between what is real and what is imagined, completely and without flaw. This is the highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really counts and has salvific value. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/25/02 7:05:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > >Hi James, Ray and All, > > > >You may find it of interest to to read 'Qualities of Ariya > Persons' > >at: > >http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/ariyas4.htm > > > >The links at the foot of the page are interesting as well...."From > >Puthujjana to the Buddha" and > >"Ariyas (Noble Persons)" > > > > > > > >metta, > >Christine > > > > Christine and All, > > Thanks!! This site is invaluable. I have book marked it. However, > it has answered one question for me but raised another. This is a > question I have held for a long time. Was the Buddha omniscient? > Did he know absolutely everything there is to know? Which is > related to your other post, Christine, about prophecy in Buddhism. > > This site that you refer to describes the difference between a > Buddha and Silent Buddha and Arahant with this quality: "Sabbanuta > Nana that will enable him to know all there is to know". So the > Buddha was supposed to know all that there is to know. If that is > the case, could someone explain this sutta to me where the Buddha > doesn't know something and is pondering it: > > "I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying among > the Kosalans in a wilderness hut in a Himalayan district. Then, as > he was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his > awareness: "Is it possible to exercise rulership without killing or > causing others to kill, without confiscating or causing others to > confiscate, without sorrowing or causing others sorrow -- > righteously?" > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn04-020.html > > Now, I would not say that this kind of question is unanswerable. > The Tao Te Ching goes into great detail of how to be a ruler without > killing, confiscating, or causing sorrow. Why didn't the Buddha > know this information? Isn't this something that an omniscient > person would know? > > BTW, my goal is not to discredit the Buddha with this line of > questioning I have been doing lately, I highly respect the Buddha > more than anything else in the world (I got the book 'the buddha; > writings on the enlightened one' edited by tom morgan and > photographs by glen allison [BEAUTIFUL!!] and a wooden Buddha statue > from Indonesia for Christmas...how ironic and telling :-). And I > don't think there is anything wrong with asking uncomfortable > questions about the Buddha. > > Metta, James > > Happy Holidays Christine!! :-)) /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) 18175 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:36pm Subject: Re: Back again. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back > in again. > > Cheers > Peter Also, Peter, I just looked in the Photos section and I don't see your photo. Why not? Everyone, if you have a photo of yourself but you don't have access to a scanner, you can mail the photo to me and I will scan it for you and post it to the Photos section with whatever caption you would like. Also, I can e-mail the photo to you first for your approval. Additionally, I am Certified in Photoshop and can make anyone look years younger or thinner! :-). You can mail photos to: James Mitchell 5337 N. Questa Tierra Dr. Phoenix, AZ 85021 USA (Not my residence, so mail bombs or anthrax would be a waste :-) I will pay the postage to mail the photo back to you. :-) Merry Christmas! Metta, James 18176 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James (and Christine) - > > With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was omniscient or > not, I have a couple thoughts: > 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all information > about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the facts of > anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How can we > know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it important? Hi Howard, I would agree with this first idea you have. Rather than 'omniscient', I think the Buddha should be described as 'Selective Omniscient'. He could know anything if he put his mind to it. And this is important to me because I am Buddhist. I have taken refuge for the rest of my life in The Triple Gem. I want to know the nature and every detail of my life's purpose. Don't you? Metta, James 18177 From: nidive Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 4:49pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi Howard, > You have picked one characteristic, just one. Obviously there is > no distinguishing to be done on the basis of a common > characteristic, and you have chosen the universally common one. > The question still remains of what there is to a "thing" or event > other than its characteristics. Whether it is one or five or ten or hundred common characteristics, would that make a difference? Unless we find characteristics that are different between two events or things, you will never be convinced that the two are different! According to Helepola Gunaratana, (1) The mental factors of compassion and sympathetic joy cannot be present in the supramundane path but can be present in mundane jhana. (2) The three abstinences of wrong speech, wrong action and wrong livelihood are present in the supramundane path TOGETHER but not so in mundane jhana. (3) In mundane jhana, immoral actions are merely inhibited. In the supramundane path, tendencies for immoral actions are totally destroyed. (4) Three new faculties of knowledge are present in the supramundane path: (a) I shall know the unknown. (b) Final knowledge. (c) Completion of final knowledge. Not so in mundane jhana. (5) Mundane jhana has a conceptual entity as object. The supramundane path has only nibbana as object. How does that convince you? I don't think it will convince you much. If I just quote one difference, would you be convinced? Is using characteristics as a way to understand things or events appropriate? > (Also, as a side issue, with regard the anatta lakkhana, is it > actually a characteristic or the absence of one?) It is a characteristic. > No. So? I still do not see an attmpted answer to my question. (Not > that it is encumbant upon you to try to formulate one.) Some questions need not be answered. If you think my advice is ill- formed, let it be. But I know consciousness as consciouness and mental factors as mental factors. They are different. I have no delusion about them. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18178 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 5:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi KC, Let's agree that nothing is settled and more understanding is needed. Good luck on your exams. Larry 18179 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 5:07pm Subject: Omniscience of Buddha[dsg] Re: Mara No More Dear James and all, Majjhima Nikaya 71 Tevijjavacchagotta Sutta 'To Vacchagotta on the Threefold True Knowledge' "Venerable sir, I have heard this: "The recluse Gotaka claims to be omniscient and all-seeing, to have complete knowledge and visiion thus: "Whether I am walking or standing or sleeping or awake, knowledge and vision are continuously and uninterruptedly present to me." Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said by the Blessed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? Do they explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way that nothing which provides a ground for censure can be legitimatelly deduced fromtheir assertion?" "Vaccha, those who say thus do not say what has been said by me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact." note 714 says: MA explains that even though part of the statement is valid, the Buddha rejects the entire statementbecause of the portion that is invalid. The part of the statement that is valid is the assertion that the Buddha is omniscient and all-seeing; the part that is excessive is the assertion that knowledge and vision are continuously present to him. According to the Theravada tradition the Buddha is omniscient in the sense that all knowable things are potentially accessible to him. He cannot, however, know everything simultaneously and must advert to whatever he wishes to know. At MN 90.8 the Buddha says that it is possible to know and see all, though not simultaneously, and at AN 4.24/ii.24 he claims to know all that can be seen, heard, sensed, and cognised, which is understood by the Theravada tradition as an assertion of omniscience in the qualified sense. See too in this connection Miln 102-7. -------------------------- Majjhima Nikaya 90 Kannakatthala Sutta 'At Kannakatthala' 5. "Then King Pasenadi of Kosala said to the Blessed One: 'Venerable sir, I have heard this: 'The recluse Gotama says "There is no recluse or brahmin who is omniscient and all-seeing, who can claim to have complete knowledge and vision; that is not possible." 'Venerable sir, do those who speak thus say what has been said by the Blessed One, and not misrepresent him with what is contrary to fact? Do they explain in accordance with the Dhamma in such a way that nothing that provides a ground for censure can be legitimately deduced from their assertions?" "Great King, those who speak thus do not say what has been said by me, but misrepresent me with what is untrue and contrary to fact." <<<<>>>>> "I recall having actually made the utterance in this way, great king. 'There is no recluse or brahmin who knows all, who sees all, simultaneously; that is not possible'. note 846 says: MA: There is no one who can know and see all - past, present and future - withone act of mental adverting, with one act of consciousness; thus this problem is discussed in terms of a single act of consciousness (ekacitta). On the question of the kind of omniscience the Theravada tradition attributes to the Buddha, see n. 714 above. Careful James!!! I think this is the Abhidhamma-in-disguise creeping up on us!! :-) :-) Happy holidays to you too! ------------------------------ metta, Christine p.s Peter - So glad you found your way home Peter!! :-) (Do you owe us any posts [or any other little thing?]) C. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, James (and Christine) - > > > > With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was > omniscient or > > not, I have a couple thoughts: > > 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all > information > > about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the > facts of > > anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How > can we > > know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it > important? > > Hi Howard, > > I would agree with this first idea you have. Rather > than 'omniscient', I think the Buddha should be described > as 'Selective Omniscient'. He could know anything if he put his > mind to it. > > And this is important to me because I am Buddhist. I have taken > refuge for the rest of my life in The Triple Gem. I want to know > the nature and every detail of my life's purpose. Don't you? > > Metta, James 18180 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 5:31pm Subject: Omniscience of Buddha[dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > Careful James!!! I think this is the Abhidhamma-in-disguise creeping > up on us!! :-) :-) Happy holidays to you too! > > ------------------------------ > > metta, > > Christine Uhhh Ohhh! Thanks for the reminder, Christine. I guess Howard it right, I am wanting to know inconsequential things. Stick to the basics and the rest will sort itself out!! :-) Metta, James 18181 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 0:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi, James - In a message dated 12/25/02 7:49:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, James (and Christine) - > > > > With regard to your question of whether the Buddha was > omniscient or > >not, I have a couple thoughts: > > 1) I have read somewhere that the Buddha did not have all > information > >about all things at all times, but that he could come to know the > facts of > >anything by turning his mind towards it. Maybe so. Maybe not. How > can we > >know? And if we come to know this one way or another, why is it > important? > > Hi Howard, > > I would agree with this first idea you have. Rather > than 'omniscient', I think the Buddha should be described > as 'Selective Omniscient'. He could know anything if he put his > mind to it. > > And this is important to me because I am Buddhist. I have taken > refuge for the rest of my life in The Triple Gem. I want to know > the nature and every detail of my life's purpose. Don't you? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, the 2nd part of my post showed what I think is of true importance. To paraphrase, what I said is that knowing directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature is the only "knowing" of ultimate importance - knowing the difference between what is real and what is imagined, and knowing it completely and without flaw. That is the highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really counts and has salvific value. Knowlege about many things may be useful for many purposes. But there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The first is useful, the 2nd is critical. The Buddha said that what he knew was like all the leaves of all the trees in the forest, but that what he taught, what was useful for the ultimate goal, was a mere handful of leaves. It is that handful that is important to me, because that leads to insight, lovingkindness, and freedom. To answer specifically - no, I don't feel the need to know every idiosyncratic detail of my life and its events. Also, I'm not at all sure that I attach much meaning to the notion of "purpose of life". What I *value* most highly in my life are love, compassion, and joy for my fellow sojourners and myself, and the possibility, a possibility I truly believe in, of full awakening and peace for myself and all other sentient beings. I require no other fundamental "purpose" to life. ---------------------------------------------------- > Metta, James > > > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18182 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 1:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - Okay. My point was that jhana or anything else is nothing beyond its aspects/characteristics. You seem to be accepting that in this post. You are close to showing in this post, by analysis of characteristics, that what is normally called "jhana" is subsumed and superceded by supermundane path consciousness. To me, this makes supermundane path consciousness "jhana plus". However, there is one point that you make that I think is very important. Mundane jhana takes a conventional object - usually a concept, whereas path consciousness has nibbana as object. That, it seems to me, is the critical difference. But this still leaves path consciousness as jhanic - a "higher" jhana. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/25/02 7:50:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >You have picked one characteristic, just one. Obviously there is > >no distinguishing to be done on the basis of a common > >characteristic, and you have chosen the universally common one. > >The question still remains of what there is to a "thing" or event > >other than its characteristics. > > Whether it is one or five or ten or hundred common characteristics, > would that make a difference? > > Unless we find characteristics that are different between two events > or things, you will never be convinced that the two are different! > > According to Helepola Gunaratana, > > (1) The mental factors of compassion and sympathetic joy cannot be > present in the supramundane path but can be present in mundane jhana. > > (2) The three abstinences of wrong speech, wrong action and wrong > livelihood are present in the supramundane path TOGETHER but not so > in mundane jhana. > > (3) In mundane jhana, immoral actions are merely inhibited. In the > supramundane path, tendencies for immoral actions are totally > destroyed. > > (4) Three new faculties of knowledge are present in the supramundane > path: (a) I shall know the unknown. (b) Final knowledge. (c) > Completion of final knowledge. Not so in mundane jhana. > > (5) Mundane jhana has a conceptual entity as object. The > supramundane path has only nibbana as object. > > > How does that convince you? I don't think it will convince you much. > If I just quote one difference, would you be convinced? Is using > characteristics as a way to understand things or events appropriate? > > > >(Also, as a side issue, with regard the anatta lakkhana, is it > >actually a characteristic or the absence of one?) > > It is a characteristic. > > > >No. So? I still do not see an attmpted answer to my question. (Not > >that it is encumbant upon you to try to formulate one.) > > Some questions need not be answered. If you think my advice is ill- > formed, let it be. But I know consciousness as consciouness and > mental factors as mental factors. They are different. I have no > delusion about them. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > /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) 18183 From: chase8383 Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 6:53pm Subject: Re: Are these two teachings the same? Hi Christine From your post: "In his booklet on Dependent Origination, Ven P.A. Payutto also mentions the whole cycle of Dependent Origination occurring within one mind moment ... "The description of Dependent Origination given in the previous chapter is that most often found in the scriptures and commentaries. It seeks to explain Dependent Origination in terms of the samsaravatta, the round of rebirth, showing the connections between three lifetimes -- the past, the present and the future. Those who do not agree with this interpretation, or who would prefer something more immediate, can find alternatives not only in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, where the principle of Dependent Origination is shown occurring in its entirety in one mind moment..." Well , "in one mind moment" is exactly how I see it. However, I have a problem, I can't explain myself without going too far into Dzogchen. Which is off limits But I'll figure a way. The whole reason I'm in this club is to improve my discipline. BTW, thanks for the links. Be spacious, David 18184 From: Sarah Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Back again. Hi Peter, --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi anyone who can still remember me. Yahoo have finally let me back > in again. ..... I think I hadn't appreciated that yahoo have their own penalty system for dealing with those who think they can out-smart them and have the last word (I noticed with all 'those' messages that you somehow managed to have your last line at the bottom of the page below their last line.....a warning to others from yahoo perhaps;-)). Anyway, we took it all in our stride on DSG with hardly a hiccup and will be very glad to see you back in full action. Christine sounds like she's preparing a post on 'those womenfolk' and I'm sure you'll be able to add some well-considered and balanced comments too. James, many thanks for your great offer and contribution to the Album team. I'm sure Chris will be co-opting you and giving you an impressive title in no time. Now all anyone has to do is to got to a photo-booth, pop the pic in an envelope and post it to James. Gets easier and easier..... Sarah ======= 18185 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:36pm Subject: Fwd: Re: Welcome to dhammastudygroup [Here is a hello message received from one of our new members. Ram, welcome to the list, and apologies for omitting to inform you of the email address for posts to the list -- Jon] Hi Every body, I'm a Sri Lankan born Buddhist following the path of Theravada. I have done some meditation & am in the process of learning the Thripitaka through a Dhamma discussion group. Just here to get an idea about the Buddhists of cyberspace who come from many countries, cultures & Buddhist traditions. At the moment, I Believe strongly in the Thripitaka but am open (to some extent) to the other traditions & am exploring/practicing concepts such as 'seela samadhi panna' & 'dana seela bavana'. I was introduced to this group, by a friend in Dhamma, whom I’ve met in another Dhamma group. May you all be well & happy Ram --- dhammastudygroup Moderator wrote: > > Dear Dhamma Friend, > > Welcome to the group. > > We hope you will take part in and benefit from the exchange of views here. > > All new members are invited to consider posting a short ‘Hello’. Other members would be > interested to know something about you, your interest in Buddhism and how you found your way > here! > > Wishing you progress in the dhamma > > Sarah and Jonothan Abbott > (Moderators) 18186 From: rahula_80 Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 8:55pm Subject: Christmas Hi, Do Buddhist celebrate Christmas? I have seen some who do? isn't this wrong for those who took refuge in the Triple Gem? Secondly, I have seen Buddhist ?? (they did prostration to the Buddha image) who wear a neklace with the Cross. Isn't this wrong? [If you need evidence, please see "Eastern Horizon" Sept - Dec 2002 Issue No. 9 (this is a Buddhist magazine publish in Malaysia) page 14- 20. It was an interview with a Buddhist, Ivana M. Gruberova. The pictures of her show her wearing a neklace with the Cross.] Thanks, Rahula 18187 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 9:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Mara No More --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > Hi Howard, I replied to your post in-text: Well, the 2nd part of my post showed what I think is of true importance. (James: I believe they are both equally important. They both go hand- in-hand. To know the difference between reality and delusion is to know everything--right? Once that key is turned, the door is opened. One has no choice but to go forward. Quite a responsibility to know everything isn't it? That deserves more respect than the Lord Buddha gets…and he, of course, didn't/doesn't care.) To paraphrase, what I said is that knowing directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature is the only "knowing" of ultimate importance - knowing the difference between what is real and what is imagined, and knowing it completely and without flaw. That is the highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really counts and has salvific value. (James: I believe the word `salvific' is inappropriate when applied to Lord Buddha or his inherent wisdom. That word means someone, especially a male someone, who has the power to `save' and `redeem' people; i.e. Jesus Christ. Specifically, we are our own saviors; the Lord Buddha isn't going to save anyone. Additionally, wisdom isn't really comparable to omniscience. They are two entirely different things in my eyes. Is it accurate to say that the Buddha's wisdom was his `highest omniscience'? I know I am splitting hairs with word usage, forgive me, but incorrect word usage can have a snowball effect.) Knowlege about many things may be useful for many purposes. But there is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The first is useful, the 2nd is critical. The Buddha said that what he knew was like all the leaves of all the trees in the forest, but that what he taught, what was useful for the ultimate goal, was a mere handful of leaves. It is that handful that is important to me, because that leads to insight, lovingkindness, and freedom. To answer specifically - no, I don't feel the need to know every idiosyncratic detail of my life and its events. Also, I'm not at all sure that I attach much meaning to the notion of "purpose of life". What I *value* most highly in my life are love, compassion, and joy for my fellow sojourners and myself, and the possibility, a possibility I truly believe in, of full awakening and peace for myself and all other sentient beings. I require no other fundamental "purpose" to life. (James: I defer to your obviously deeper wisdom in this matter. Admittedly, I am like a young pup, eager to know all that I can know. I haven't grown to your level of understanding yet. Please be patient with my silly barks, squeals, and whining for the interim. ;-) Metta, James 18188 From: James Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:08pm Subject: Re: Christmas --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80 " Hi Rahula, I replied to your post in-text: Hi, Do Buddhist celebrate Christmas? (James: I do, but I would rather not. And not because it is a celebration of Jesus Christ, if it was that I would celebrate it happily, since I am Buddhist and have no animosity toward other beliefs or religions, just like the Buddha didn't have any such feelings or positions against different religions in his time…[*hint* Rahula]…I am starting to dislike Christmas because it is becoming so commercial and materialistic. But Buddhist holidays celebrated at my temple are rather strange also. I guess a true Buddhist doesn't take stock in holidays or rituals. After all, they have no meaning really.) I have seen some who do? isn't this wrong for those who took refuge in the Triple Gem? (James: No, it isn't. Rituals have no meaning. What one believes in one's heart is the true symbol of faith.) Secondly, I have seen Buddhist ?? (they did prostration to the Buddha image) who wear a neklace with the Cross. Isn't this wrong? (James: No, this isn't wrong. I am happy that that Christian is open to Buddhism. The Buddha allowed followers of other faiths, even dog ascetics and ox ascetics, to join his sangha. He put them on a probationary period so that they could move from one set of beliefs to another. Who is to say that this person with the cross necklace bowing to the Buddha isn't doing the same? Maybe in her next life, or later in this life, she will abandon Christianity and fully embrace Buddhism. Buddhism meets people where they are, it doesn't try to drag them to where Buddhism thinks they should be.) [If you need evidence, please see "Eastern Horizon" Sept - Dec 2002 Issue No. 9 (this is a Buddhist magazine publish in Malaysia) page 14- 20. It was an interview with a Buddhist, Ivana M. Gruberova. The pictures of her show her wearing a neklace with the Cross.] (James: That necklace could have been a gift or was on sale. The cross means nothing anymore; even modern day vampires aren't scared of it!! ;-)) Thanks, Rahula Merry Christmas ;-), James 18189 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Howard and Swee Boon I have enjoyed very much following this exchange. I think Swee Boon was exactly right in highlighting the insight that distinguishes different kinds of dhammas. To my understanding, mundane jhana does not get subsumed or superceded by supramundane path consciousness. The best way I can express it is to say that the 2 are on different 'tracks'. Although they share a number of factors in common, the quality of the panna accompanying each is different. Supramundane path consciousness is the outcome of the development of the understanding of the true nature of dhammas (fundamental phenomena), namely, as anicca/dukkha/anatta. This development occurs by the gradual accrual of panna that has as its object the different individual dhammas (this is what is meant by insight/vipassana bhavana). Mundane jhana consciousness is the outcome of the development of the suppression of sense-door experiences (and consequently the suppression of the kilesas that are conditioned by these experiences) through concentration on a mental image (this is what is meant by tranquillity meditation/samatha bhavana). This also requires panna, since the concentration must be wholesome concentration, but it is panna of the level/kind that knows kusala moments from akusala moments, and sees the merit in excluding sense-door experiences that condition akusala (not the panna that sees dhammas as they truly are). So the development that leads to mundane jhana (i.e., samatha bhavana) is on a different track altogether from the development that leads to supramundane path consciousness (i.e., vipassana bhavana). Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there is no further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any crossover from jhana to insight. The development of insight (vipassana bhavana) has its own set of prerequisites, and these differ from the factors that are prerequisites for samatha bhavana. The development of insight, however, subsumes all other forms of kusala, so that the concentration that is necessary for the supramundane path moments is developed along with the other path factors (energy, wisdom etc) at each moment of insight into the true nature of dhammas. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon - > > Okay. My point was that jhana or anything else is nothing > beyond its > aspects/characteristics. You seem to be accepting that in this > post. > You are close to showing in this post, by analysis of > characteristics, > that what is normally called "jhana" is subsumed and superceded by > supermundane path consciousness. To me, this makes supermundane > path > consciousness "jhana plus". However, there is one point that you > make that I > think is very important. Mundane jhana takes a conventional object > - usually > a concept, whereas path consciousness has nibbana as object. That, > it seems > to me, is the critical difference. But this still leaves path > consciousness > as jhanic - a "higher" jhana. > > With metta, > Howard 18190 From: dotl Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 1:45am Subject: Hello from a new member Hello I am Dot from Queensland Australia and have been studying the Dhamma for quite some time now. I am fortunate to belong to a "sangha" where we meet once a month to share the Dhamma.We read a Sutta and discuss it using a copy of the Pali Canon as a reference. I am so happy to have been directed to this group..and I look forward to getting to know you all.. Love dotl 18191 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 2:07am Subject: Welcome Ram and Dot (Re: Hello from a new member) Hi Ram, and Dot, Ram - welcome to dsg List ... it is lovely to have another person from Sri Lanka here. Some other members also live there - Ranil, Sumane, and Nihal among them. In June, about ten of us from this List and a large number of Thai Dhamma friends visited Colombo and historical and holy places such as Anuradhapura, Dambulla, Polonnaruwa and Sigiriya and were fortunate to be able to meet up with our Sri Lankan Dhamma friends. I appreciated your telling (elsewhere) about those reciting the Dhamma before it was written down, even when physically weak during times of great drought, lying on the ground and continuing to recite and whisper the Dhamma to fellow monks so that it would be preserved for the benefit of many beings. We owe so very much to those who made such sacrifices and who were faithful unto death. Dot - great that you made it to dsg. Welcome. (The secret plans for the Aussie takeover of dsg are well underway. All we needed was an extra woman or two. :-)) A number of other members KenH, Andrew, and Steve, live north of Brisbane (Sunshine coast hinterland) - with Azita way up in Cairns. Looking forward to any posts you care to make, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dotl" wrote: > Hello > I am Dot from Queensland Australia and have been studying the Dhamma for quite some time now. > I am fortunate to belong to a "sangha" where we meet once a month to share the Dhamma.We read a Sutta and discuss it using a copy of the Pali Canon as a reference. > I am so happy to have been directed to this group..and I look forward to getting to know you all.. > Love > dotl 18192 From: dotl Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 2:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Welcome Ram and Dot (Re: Hello from a new member) Thankyou Christine..it is good to see you here too! Love dotl 18193 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Mara No More Hi, James - We each muddle along as best we can in our practice and in our life. You may have a better grasp on many things, me on some, and other folks on much else. I wouldn't attempt to put my status, progress, understanding, or views up against those of anyone else. I'm just expressing how I see matters at the moment. The truth is the truth, regardless of how we see it, even regardless of whether Buddhas arise or not in the world! ;-)) I'll address just one point of yours. You wrote: "I believe the word `salvific' is inappropriate when applied to Lord Buddha or his inherent wisdom. That word means someone, especially a male someone, who has the power to `save' and `redeem' people; i.e. Jesus Christ. Specifically, we are our own saviors; the Lord Buddha isn't going to save anyone. Additionally, wisdom isn't really comparable to omniscience. They are two entirely different things in my eyes. Is it accurate to say that the Buddha's wisdom was his `highest omniscience'? I know I am splitting hairs with word usage, forgive me, but incorrect word usage can have a snowball effect." The word 'salvific' bothers you, I'm sure, due to your Christian background. The word, itself, carries no onus. My background is different, and the word raises no red flags with me. The word merely means having the power to save, and pa~n~na does have this power. What I said was that knowing directly and completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and dependently arisen nature is the only "omniscience" that really counts and has salvific value. This is true. This wisdom is the diamond that cuts through the three poisons and opens the door to freedom. I rather like the word 'salvific'. I even like the word 'salvation'. I don't think that perfectly good words should be permitted to be co-opted by usages and traditions that we might feel some discomfort with. But I can well understand that these words could "go against you". Please know that no other-power, Buddha-is-my-savior sense was intended in what I wrote! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/26/02 12:46:09 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, James - > > > > Hi Howard, > > I replied to your post in-text: > > Well, the 2nd part of my post showed what I think is of true > importance. > > (James: I believe they are both equally important. They both go hand- > in-hand. To know the difference between reality and delusion is to > know everything--right? Once that key is turned, the door is > opened. One has no choice but to go forward. Quite a responsibility > to know everything isn't it? That deserves more respect than the > Lord Buddha gets…and he, of course, didn't/doesn't care.) > > To paraphrase, what I said is that knowing directly and > completely the ultimate nature of all things - their impermanence, > their unsatisfyingness, their insubstantiality and impersonality and > dependently arisen nature is the only "knowing" of ultimate > importance - knowing the difference between what is real and what is > imagined, and knowing it completely and without flaw. That is the > highest omniscience - actually, the only omniscience that really > counts and has salvific value. > > (James: I believe the word `salvific' is inappropriate when applied > to Lord Buddha or his inherent wisdom. That word means someone, > especially a male someone, who has the power to `save' and `redeem' > people; i.e. Jesus Christ. Specifically, we are our own saviors; the > Lord Buddha isn't going to save anyone. Additionally, wisdom isn't > really comparable to omniscience. They are two entirely different > things in my eyes. Is it accurate to say that the Buddha's wisdom > was his `highest omniscience'? I know I am splitting hairs with word > usage, forgive me, but incorrect word usage can have a snowball > effect.) > > > Knowlege about many things may be useful for many purposes. But there > is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. The first is useful, > the 2nd is critical. The Buddha said that what he knew was like all > the leaves of all the trees in the forest, but that what he taught, > what was useful for the ultimate goal, was a mere handful of leaves. > It is that handful that is important to me, because that leads to > insight, lovingkindness, and freedom. To answer specifically - no, I > don't feel the need to know every idiosyncratic detail of my life and > its events. Also, I'm not at all sure that I attach much meaning to > the notion of "purpose of life". What I *value* most highly in my > life are love, compassion, and joy for my fellow sojourners and > myself, and the possibility, a possibility I truly believe in, of > full awakening and peace for myself and all other sentient beings. I > require no other fundamental "purpose" to life. > > (James: I defer to your obviously deeper wisdom in this matter. > Admittedly, I am like a young pup, eager to know all that I can > know. I haven't grown to your level of understanding yet. Please be > patient with my silly barks, squeals, and whining for the interim. ;-) > > Metta, James > > /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) 18194 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:28am Subject: vancaka (cheating) dhammas revisited Dear All, Some time ago, Gayan (also from Sri Lanka - pic in album) translated an interesting series of the vancaka dhammas (cheating dhammas.They refer to a series of wholesome states or dhammas, followed by unwholesome ones which can ‘disguise’ and be easily taken for the former. These are in the Useful Posts and these are the direct links: Cheating (vancaka) Dhammas 3543, 3544, 3545, 10517 In Gayan’s introduction, he wrote: ***** “written in 1947 In the preface the venerable says.. " There are 38 vangcaka dhammas are mentioned in netthippakarana atthakatha. But they are mentioned only namely. There are two tikas for the atthakatha but vangcaka dhammas are not mentioned in any of them." " These arise in a mind that has developed a certain disliking towards akusalas. The akusala dhammas disguise themselves according to the mind's 'tendency' or mentality. ( as the mud gets the shape of the object that pressed onto it.)" ***** Of interest to the discussion Christine and I are having on the term ‘samvega’(sense of urgency) is the following from the series in which cittasantapa ‘cheats’ as samvega: ***** QUOTE 29. samvega patirupataya cittasantapo vangceti samvega - the (g)nana that sees the dukkha in the world as a 'bhaya' and a danger cittasantapa - the sadness in the mind, on dukkhas in the life/s of oneself and others ( relatives, friends, ppl who have interest..) samvega is not associated with dosa . It is what triggers the search for truth and renunciation. citta santapa is an akusala associated with dosa. The check is to observe the situation on seeing the dukkhas faced by neutral beings. ***** Rob K’s response when this was posted (over 2yrs ago) was: “YES - many think they have samvega when really they are simply tired of life. A big difference.” ..... Those who weren’t around at the time, may find it useful to read through the other vancaka dhammas and raise any on list that particularly ring a bell;-) There were many bells ringing for me when Gayan first posted them. Gayan, if you’re around, it would be very nice to hear from you again..... Sarah p.s Christine, if you look at message 8269, you'll see Mike and Erik were also discussing samvega at one time. =================================== 18195 From: Date: Wed Dec 25, 2002 10:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Jon - I do not question in the slightest that attaining, even mastering, the 8 jhanas is, by itself, inadequate for the final goal. I do think, however, that the following is somewhat overstated: "Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there is no further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any crossover from jhana to insight." There is cross-over, but more is required to achieve it - it is not an automatic development from the jhanas. Using the jhanas as a foundation for vipassana bhavana, as a basis, stepping-off point, support, and cross-over point is the most classical approach, expressed again and again, most especially in the Majhima Nikaya. But, for sure, if the jhanas are attained but nothing more is done - specifically no investigation of reality, no intensified application of mindfulness and clear comprehension to arising and ceasing conditions, then no liberation follows; that is not even remotely in dispute by me. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/26/02 1:53:45 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard and Swee Boon > > I have enjoyed very much following this exchange. I think Swee Boon > was exactly right in highlighting the insight that distinguishes > different kinds of dhammas. > > To my understanding, mundane jhana does not get subsumed or > superceded by supramundane path consciousness. The best way I can > express it is to say that the 2 are on different 'tracks'. Although > they share a number of factors in common, the quality of the panna > accompanying each is different. > > Supramundane path consciousness is the outcome of the development of > the understanding of the true nature of dhammas (fundamental > phenomena), namely, as anicca/dukkha/anatta. This development occurs > by the gradual accrual of panna that has as its object the different > individual dhammas (this is what is meant by insight/vipassana > bhavana). > > Mundane jhana consciousness is the outcome of the development of the > suppression of sense-door experiences (and consequently the > suppression of the kilesas that are conditioned by these experiences) > through concentration on a mental image (this is what is meant by > tranquillity meditation/samatha bhavana). This also requires panna, > since the concentration must be wholesome concentration, but it is > panna of the level/kind that knows kusala moments from akusala > moments, and sees the merit in excluding sense-door experiences that > condition akusala (not the panna that sees dhammas as they truly > are). > > So the development that leads to mundane jhana (i.e., samatha > bhavana) is on a different track altogether from the development that > leads to supramundane path consciousness (i.e., vipassana bhavana). > Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there is no > further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any > crossover from jhana to insight. The development of insight > (vipassana bhavana) has its own set of prerequisites, and these > differ from the factors that are prerequisites for samatha bhavana. > > The development of insight, however, subsumes all other forms of > kusala, so that the concentration that is necessary for the > supramundane path moments is developed along with the other path > factors (energy, wisdom etc) at each moment of insight into the true > nature of dhammas. > > 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) 18196 From: rahula_80 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:21am Subject: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi, Many scholars (eg. Pande, Nakamura etc.) have claim that the Buddha never denied the existence of Self except that the 5 aggregates is NOT Self or should be identified as Self. Are they in error? Examples: The rendering given anattâ is misleading: thus "Body is soulless, mind is soulless..." But the word anattâ is not adjective, qualifying rûpa; it would then be anatta.m. The Pali is in the masculine singular: anattâ; this can only mean "not-the-Self (or soul)," or "not-one-who-has-a-self." Do you see the difference? Suppose a group of men, a staff and you seeking their master. You pass them in review saying what? Not "you and you and your are masterless," but "you and you are not the master." You would not imply, if none of them was master, that the master was non-existent! ? C. Rhys Davids, *A Manual of Buddhism*, 153// "The doctrine [of anatta/non soul] denies that there is in the physical or mental realms anything which may properly be called one's "self" since everywhere within them impermanence and dependence rule. This of itself does not mean the denial of all "self" whatever, but only of the phenomenality of the "Self". What is usually denied is that any of the khandhas may be the Attâ, not the existence of the Attâ as such" (Govind Chandra Pande , Studies in the Origins of Buddhism, 499). "Thus, in early Buddhism, they taught avoidance of a wrong comprehension of non-âtman [no-self] as a step to the real âtman [Self]. Of things not to be identified with the self, the misunderstanding of body as âtman is especially strong opposed. Foolish people comprehend their body as their possession. Buddhist of early days called this mis-comprehension "the notion on account of the attachment to the existence of one's body" (sakkâyadi.t.thi) and taught the abandonment of it."(Haijime Nakamura, Ways of Thinking of Eastern Peoples) "Atman [the self] is often referred to with the image of light (jyotis) inheriting the teachings of earlier Upani.sads. Atman is compared to light. The practice of Buddhism can be interpreted as the formation of the true self" (Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, 64). "The realization of the true Self was striven for. Buddhism did not deny the self as such, contrary to the general assumption by many scholars who tend to regard the theory of Non-Self as a sort of nihilism" (Nakamura, Indian Buddhism, 64). ====== Can anyone verify the following allegations: 1. TW Rhys Davids went "mad" while working on the PTS Pali English Dictionary which Stede had to finish for him because of his "mental breakdown". 2. CAF Rahys Davids herself declared her late husband "inept" in being fooled by monastic Theravada nihilism which comes from Sarvastivada Samkhya Atomism. 3. The perverse way Mrs. Rhys-Davis used the reflexive pronoun only crept into her work after 1917. By that time she had become mentally unbalanced after the tragic loss of her son in the war, and had fallen under the sway of spiritualism. This accounts for her need to make Buddhist texts support eternalist views. 4. Caroline Rhys Davids named her husband the "Max Muller of Buddhism" see http://serendib.org/coins/media/cdn_1998.07.15_rhys_davids.htm 18197 From: lbn1959 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 8:27am Subject: test sorry .... 18198 From: nidive Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:35am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Dear Howard, > Okay. My point was that jhana or anything else is nothing beyond > its aspects/characteristics. You seem to be accepting that in this > post. No, you are mistaken. Consider the characteristics of nibbana described by the Buddha in these sample suttas from AccessToInsight: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." -- Ud VIII.1 "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." Questions... (1) Why have you not realized nibbana given the characteristics of nibbana? (2) If you have not realized nibbana, then is the descriptions of the characteristics of nibbana given by the Buddha incomplete? (3) If it is incomplete, how do we know that the "nibbana" that we know is the same as that known by the Buddha? (4) If it is complete, why haven't you realized nibbana? After all, nibbana is nothing beyond what the Buddha had described. (5) What is the cause of characteristics? Does a ball know that it is round? Does nibbana know that it is anatta? What is a characteristic other than it is mind-made? (6) If a characteristic is mind-made, then a characteristic must be impermanent. If a characteristic is impermanent (existing only as being sustained by the mind), the characteristic must come to cease (pass away). If nibbana is nothing beyond its characteristics and all characteristics must come to cease (pass away), nibbana must come to cease (pass away) as well. (7) If nibbana must come to cease (pass away), how do I understand the characteristic of nibbana which is "neither passing away nor arising"? > You are close to showing in this post, by analysis of > characteristics, that what is normally called "jhana" is subsumed > and superceded by supermundane path consciousness. To me, this > makes supermundane path consciousness "jhana plus". No, not so. Your analysis is likened to holding a wedding banquet when there isn't a bride and a groom. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18199 From: James Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:58am Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80 " wrote: > Hi, > > Many scholars (eg. Pande, Nakamura etc.) have claim > that the Buddha never denied the existence of Self except that the 5 > aggregates is NOT Self or should be identified as Self. > > Are they in error? Hi Rhula, Nice collection of quotes. Good scholarship on your part. I will give my two cents worth about anatta since I have been studying it a bit also. These scholars are mistaken. They are assuming that the aggregates individually are not `the self', so perhaps the aggregates together could be considered `the self'. In other words, to use an example, they are saying that the Buddha, when talking about a house, said, "The door is not the house, the roof is not the house, the walls are not the house, the windows are not the house, etc." But the house does exist if you put them all together. So individually the aggregates are non-self, but maybe together they are self. This is not what the Buddha meant. Since each aggregate is non-self, even put together they should be non-self. BUUUTTTT….actually, the Buddha didn't want us to try to answer the question if we have a self or not. He just wanted us to view the aggregates as non-self and to not try to figure out if, when put together, they create a self. When he was asked this question directly, `Do we have a self', he refused to answer. He later explained to Ananda that to say we either do or don't have a self is wrong view and makes practice impossible. In other words, anatta cannot be figured out intellectually because its nature is beyond the scope of either existence or non-existence as we know them. Check out this article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "No Self or Not Self?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html Take for example these words of the Buddha upon reaching enlightenment: Through the round of many births I roamed without reward, without rest, seeking the house-builder. Painful is birth again & again. House-builder, you're seen! You will not build a house again. All your rafters broken, the ridge pole destroyed, gone to the Unformed, the mind has come to the end of craving. I don't know about you, but I have no conceptual idea of what `the Unformed' could be. And I probably never could have a conceptual idea of it; I would just have to experience it. Thanks for raising this question. Anatta is a fascinating and endless subject. Metta, James ps. Someone sent me the introduction to a book that possibly describes someone who did have an 'Anatta' experience. Here is the text: THE POWER OF NOW by Eckhart Tolle Introduction I have little use for the past and rarely think about it; however, I would briefly like to tell you how I came to be a spiritual teacher and how this book came into existence. Until my thirtieth year, I lived in a state of almost continuous anxiety interspersed with periods of suicidal depression. It feels now as if I am talking about some past lifetime or somebody else's life. One night not long after my twenty-ninth birthday, I woke up in the early hours with a feeling of absolute dread. I had woken up with such a feeling many times before, but this time it was more intense than it had ever been. The silence of the night, the vague outlines of the furniture in the dark room, the distant noise of a passing train -- everything felt so alien, so hostile, and so utterly meaningless that it created in me a deep loathing of the world. The most loathsome thing of all, however, was my own existence. What was the point in continuing to live with this burden of misery? Why carry on with this continuous struggle? I could feel that a deep longing for annihilation, for nonexistence, was now becoming much stronger than the instinctive desire to continue to live. "I cannot live with myself any longer." This was the thought that kept repeating itself in my mind. Then suddenly I became aware of what a peculiar thought it was. "Am I one or two? If I cannot live with myself, there must be two of me: the 'I' and the 'self' that 'I' cannot live with." "Maybe," I thought, "only one of them is real." I was so stunned by this strange realization that my mind stopped. I was fully conscious, but there were no more thoughts. Then I felt drawn into what seemed like a vortex of energy. It was a slow movement at first and then accelerated. I was gripped by an intense fear, and my body started to shake. I heard the words "resist nothing," as if spoken inside my chest. I could feel myself being sucked into a void. It felt as if the void was inside myself rather than outside. Suddenly, there was no more fear, and I let myself fall into that void. I have no recollection of what happened after that. I was awakened by the chirping of a bird outside the window. I had never heard such a sound before. My eyes were still closed, and I saw the image of a precious diamond. Yes, if a diamond could make a sound, this is what it would be like. I opened my eyes. The first light of dawn was filtering through the curtains. Without any thought, I felt, I knew, that there is infinitely more to light than we realize. That soft luminosity filtering through the curtains was love itself. Tears came into my eyes. I got up and walked around the room. I recognized the room, and yet I knew that I had never truly seen it before. Everything was fresh and pristine, as if it had just come into existence. I picked up things, a pencil, an empty bottle, marveling at the beauty and aliveness of it all. That day I walked around the city in utter amazement at the miracle of life on earth, as if I had just been born into this world. For the next five months, I lived in a state of uninterrupted deep peace and bliss. After that, it diminished somewhat in intensity, or perhaps it just seemed to because it became my natural state. I could still function in the world, although I realized that nothing I ever DID could possibly add anything to what I already had. I knew, of course, that something profoundly significant had happened to me, but I didn't understand it at all. It wasn't until several years later, after I had read spiritual texts and spent time with spiritual teachers, that I realized that what everybody was looking for had already happened to me. I understood that the intense pressure of suffering that night must have forced my consciousness to withdraw from its identification with the unhappy and deeply fearful self, which is ultimately a fiction of the mind. This withdrawal must have been so complete that this false, suffering self immediately collapsed, just as if a plug had been pulled out of an inflatable toy. What was left then was my true nature as the ever-present I AM: consciousness in its pure state prior to identification with form. Later I also learned to go into that inner timeless and deathless realm that I had originally perceived as a void and remain fully conscious. I dwelt in states of such indescribable bliss and sacredness that even the original experience I just described pales in comparison. A time came when, for a while, I was left with nothing on the physical plane. I had no relationships, no job, no home, no socially defined identity. I spent almost two years sitting on park benches in a state of the most intense joy. But even the most beautiful experiences come and go . More fundamental, perhaps, than any experience is the undercurrent of peace that has never left me since then. Sometimes it is very strong, almost palpable, and others can feel it too . At other times, it is somewhere in the background, like a distant melody . Later, people would occasionally come up to me and say: "I want what you have. Can you give it to me, or show me how to get it?" And I would say: "You have it already. You just can't feel it because your mind is making too much noise." That answer later grew into the book that you are holding in your hands. Before I knew it, I had an external identity again. I had become a spiritual teacher. This book represents the essence of my work, as far as it can be conveyed in words, with individuals and small groups of spiritual seekers during the past ten years, in Europe and in North America. In deep love and appreciation, I would like to thank those exceptional people for their courage, their willingness to embrace inner change, their challenging questions, and their readiness to listen. 18200 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi - In a message dated 12/26/02 12:37:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Dear Howard, > > >Okay. My point was that jhana or anything else is nothing beyond > >its aspects/characteristics. You seem to be accepting that in this > >post. > > No, you are mistaken. > > Consider the characteristics of nibbana described by the Buddha in > these sample suttas from AccessToInsight: > > "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all > fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of > craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." > -- AN III.32 > > "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, > nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, > nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of > nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; > neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And > there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; > neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without > foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the > end of stress." > -- Ud VIII.1 > > "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. > If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- > become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely > because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is > discerned." > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: All the foregoing is a mere "pointing at", and not a listing of characteristics. Nibbana is asankhata, and an alleged ascription of characteristics is not an actual ascription of characteristics. What the Buddha is doing there is the best that can be done with language with respect to nibbana, a mere pointing. Nibbana is, after all, an absence - the absence of the three poisons and of dukkha. An absence is a thing with properties only linguistically, and not in reality. What color is the unicorn that is not in my room? ----------------------------------------------- > > > Questions... > > (1) Why have you not realized nibbana given the characteristics of > nibbana? > > (2) If you have not realized nibbana, then is the descriptions of the > characteristics of nibbana given by the Buddha incomplete? > > (3) If it is incomplete, how do we know that the "nibbana" that we > know is the same as that known by the Buddha? > > (4) If it is complete, why haven't you realized nibbana? After all, > nibbana is nothing beyond what the Buddha had described. > > (5) What is the cause of characteristics? Does a ball know that it > is round? Does nibbana know that it is anatta? What is a > characteristic other than it is mind-made? > > (6) If a characteristic is mind-made, then a characteristic must be > impermanent. If a characteristic is impermanent (existing only > as being sustained by the mind), the characteristic must come to > cease (pass away). If nibbana is nothing beyond its > characteristics and all characteristics must come to cease > (pass away), nibbana must come to cease (pass away) as well. > > (7) If nibbana must come to cease (pass away), how do I understand > the characteristic of nibbana which is "neither passing away > nor arising"? > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Answers ... (1) I have already replied with regard to the "characteristics" of nibbana. Moreover, knowing conceptually a list of the characteristics of a thing is not the same as direct apprehension. (2), (3), and (4) are unanswerable given the answer to (1). (5) and (6): I don't know what you mean here by "mind-made". If you mean concept-only, then no. (7) Who claims that nibbana must "come to cease"? Not I. ------------------------------------------------------- > > > >You are close to showing in this post, by analysis of > >characteristics, that what is normally called "jhana" is subsumed > >and superceded by supermundane path consciousness. To me, this > >makes supermundane path consciousness "jhana plus". > > No, not so. Your analysis is likened to holding a wedding banquet > when there isn't a bride and a groom. > ------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, I hope the food is good! ------------------------------------------- > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ========================= 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) 18201 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues,Qu on Fruition-attainment Dear Howard, see below. op 24-12-2002 19:17 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: As to: >> The conclusion regarding the issue of analysis: The ariyan who has not >> attained jhåna is not able to enter fruition attainment. ======================= > Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path > consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? Henepola > Gunaratana has written the following... Nina: I appreciate it that you studied this issue and gave it considerable thought. What you say about calm with lokuttara citta is quite right. This is mentioned at the end of the issue, as you will see. It is at the conclusion, but I shall now quote it: Jhana-factors here means: developed by the practice of samatha. As you will see from the parts that follow, many sources are used for this issue. It was difficult to translate, because many texts do not exist in English. I hope Num and Kom will help when you and others ask questions. Half a minute after I had met Num in Bgk, for the first time, waiting for the van to go to Kraeng Kacang, we dived into this text and immediately he phoned Kh Krisna, his aunt. She takes part in the weekly committee meetings where all the texts are prepared and gives an important imput there. She is very kind and said she will help again via Num. Just recently another booklet came out on the latent tendencies. Nina. 18202 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 28,the three characteristics, stages of insight Dear Victor and Sarah, see below. op 24-12-2002 20:59 schreef yu_zhonghao op yu_zhonghao@y...: > Hi Nina and all, > >> From what you wrote, I don't see that you really explained how the > understanding that hardness is not seeing relates to the > understanding that each and every aggregate is impermanent, > unsatisfactory, not self. > > Could you explain it in a more concise language? I like the way Sarah explained it and I quote: I like Sarah's post with additional comments and quotes from other commentaries. Sarah, I do not have Ven. Bodhi's translations, and if you have time I appreciate it very much if you can give more details. I heard on a tape that A. Sujin said to Rob K: in the words clear comprehension (in Thai ru chad) are included the development of panna going through all the stages of insight. Thus, it is a matter of development, not pariyatti, theoretical understanding, but patipatti, practice, so that finally panna of pativeda (direct realization) can be reached. When we read suttas we may not distinguish these three levels of panna. We can get some benefit from theoretical understanding, but we do not profit to the full if we do not develop satipatthana, awareness of this very moment. Nina. 18203 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patience, o patience Dear Sarah, Your reminders are very helpful, and also repeating this once more for me. Instead of anger, dosa, we can also think of aversion or sadness. But when we are sad because of what somone else said to us, it seems that we are at such moments not openminded to these reminders, even though we read them or type them out. Lack of satipatthana, the conditions are not right. But later on, conditions change again. Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. P.S. I also appreciate very much Beth's quote, because it is "my own" akusala when I am dismayed or sad, I better be aware of the citta at that moment: Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. Dhammapada 4:50 This is very deep in meaning, Beth. We can have theoretical understanding of it, that is, we think about our faults, the story. It does make a difference if sati sampajanna (sati and panna) can arise right at that moment. It can realize akusala as akusala. Or, on the level of satipatthana, sati sampajanna realizes at that moment the characteristic of the dhamma that appears, without having to think about it. It can be realized as only a conditioned nama, not self. It depends on conditions what level of understanding arises. With satipatthana the deepest meaning of what the Buddha taught can be understood. We learn that the Dhamma is subtle and deep, difficult to understand. It takes so long to develop satipatthana, but it is good to realize what we do not understand yet. It is good to know that by just reading and considering we have not understood the teachings yet. Reading and considering are conditions for the arising of sati sampajanna. Nina. op 25-12-2002 11:15 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > K.Sujin: “Whoever may have done wrong to us or may have harmed us, his > deeds have ceased at that moment, and therefore we should not continue to > be angry”. > ..... > Commentary: “With whom, then, should you now be angry, and by whom should > anger be aroused? When all phenomena are non-self, who can do wrong to > whom? 18204 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:04am Subject: Dhamma Issues, Fruition Attainment 2 Dhamma Issues, Fruition Attainment 2 2: The Visuddhimagga, Ch XXIII, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding (explaining who can enter fruition attainment and who cannot) states: ³All ariyans can enter fruition-attainment². This is a conclusion which refutes an argument of some teachers who had wrong view. They stated that the sotåpanna (streamwinner) and the sakadågåmí (once-returner) are not able to enter fruition-attainment, and that only the anågåmí (non-returner) and the arahat could enter fruition-attainment. They argued that only the anågåmí and the arahat could reach accomplishment in samådhi (concentration). However, even the ordinary person (who is not an ariyan) may reach accomplishment in samådhi, so that he may enter mundane jhåna-attainment, jhåna-samåpatti (5. Thus, all ariyans, namely, the sotåpanna, the sakadågåmí, the anågåmí and the arahat can enter fruition-attainment, provided they are able to attain jhåna. The Paramatthadípaní, Commentary to the Udåna, Khuddaka Nikåya, in the Commentary to Ch 1, Enlightenment explains the term vimutti sukha, the enjoyment of the happiness of freedom of the Buddha after his enlightenment. (6 We read in the ³Middle Length Sayings² (I, 44), ³The Lesser Discourse of the Miscellany² (Cúlavadallasutta) that the nun Dhammadinnå spoke with the layfollower Visåkha about the abiding in fruition-attainment, explaining cetovimutti, deliverance of mind (7. Thus, only the ariyan with jhåna-attainment can enter fruition-attainment. Footnotes: 5. Evenso, all ariyans who have accumulated the inclination to and the skill in the development of samatha, can attain jhåna. 6. See the Translation by P. Masefield, p. 58-62, ³But in the present case it is the Lord¹s liberation in terms of fruition that has nibbåna as its object that is implied, for which reason ³Experiencing the bliss of liberation (vimuttisukhapaìisaÿvedí) means: (he) was seated experiencing the bliss of liberation, the bliss associated with fruition-attainment²... The Buddha had attained all stages of rúpa-jhåna and arúpa-jhåna. 7. Ceto-vimutti refers to a person who has developed insight and samatha to the degree of jhåna. Dhammadinnå explains about the attainment of cessation of perception and feeling, which can be reached only by a person with jhåna attainment. 18205 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues,Qu on Fruition-attainment Wonderful, Nina! You have told me what was needed to answer my question. (I suspected I could count on you! ;-) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/26/02 1:07:31 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, see below. > op 24-12-2002 19:17 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > As to: > >>The conclusion regarding the issue of analysis: The ariyan who has not > >>attained jhåna is not able to enter fruition attainment. > ======================= > >Exactly what is meant by "attained jhana"? Is it not so that path > >consciousness is attained at least the level of the first jhana? Henepola > >Gunaratana has written the following... > Nina: I appreciate it that you studied this issue and gave it considerable > thought. What you say about calm with lokuttara citta is quite right. This > is mentioned at the end of the issue, as you will see. It is at the > conclusion, but I shall now quote it: > magga-citta arises there is a high degree of calm with absorption which can > be compared to the calm of the first stage of jhåna. One might therefore > conclude that afterwards he is likely to be able to enter > fruition-attainment with phala-citta accompanied by factors of the first > jhåna (pathama jhånika phala). However, we should consider the following: > it > is true that the magga-citta of the ariyan without jhåna-attainment has > calm > with absorption equal to the tranquillity of the first jhåna, but this is > because nibbåna is the object at that moment. Since he is without jhåna > attainment and he has lokuttara citta without jhåna factors, samådhi, > concentration, has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong > absorption in the object of nibbåna could arise again after he attained > enlightenment and became an ariyan.> > Jhana-factors here means: developed by the practice of samatha. > As you will see from the parts that follow, many sources are used for this > issue. It was difficult to translate, because many texts do not exist in > English. I hope Num and Kom will help when you and others ask questions. > Half a minute after I had met Num in Bgk, for the first time, waiting for > the van to go to Kraeng Kacang, we dived into this text and immediately he > phoned Kh Krisna, his aunt. She takes part in the weekly committee meetings > where all the texts are prepared and gives an important imput there. She is > very kind and said she will help again via Num. Just recently another > booklet came out on the latent tendencies. > Nina. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18206 From: nidive Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi Howard, > All the foregoing is a mere "pointing at", and not a listing of > characteristics. Nibbana is asankhata, and an alleged ascription > of characteristics is not an actual ascription of characteristics. > What the Buddha is doing there is the best that can be done with > language with respect to nibbana, a mere pointing. Nibbana is, > after all, an absence - the absence of the three poisons and of > dukkha. An absence is a thing with properties only linguistically, > and not in reality. What color is the unicorn that is not in my > room? Then please enlighten me on the characteristics of nibbana. I take it that anatta is not a characteristic of nibbana then, since all alleged descriptions of the characteristic of nibbana are not 'actual descriptions'. NEO Swee Boon 18207 From: James Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:05am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > > Then please enlighten me on the characteristics of nibbana. > I take it that anatta is not a characteristic of nibbana then, since > all alleged descriptions of the characteristic of nibbana are > not 'actual descriptions'. > > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, I am not Howard, but if I may jump in. I have little to do today! :-) Does Nibbana have the characteristic of Anatta? No. Nibbana doesn't have any definable characteristics...including non-self. Nibbana is indefinable because nibbana is release from all of the clung-to aggregates and any definitions come from mental formations (thoughts), which is one of the aggregates, so any definition from the mind cannot describe something that is foreign to the mind. Definable charactersitics come from thoughts, but nibbana is non- thought; so it cannot be defined or described. However, since the five aggregates are caused by fermentations, and fermentations are defined as something that is agitated, an approximate description for Nibbana would be `profound calm'. Metta, James 18208 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:53am Subject: Significant Event Hi Sarah and Jon, and fellow dsg-ers, Just wanted to draw your attention to a significant event happening on 28 December. Dhamma Study Group will have its third birthday. Walking, talking, and out of nappies now! Thank you for the camaraderie, the sharing and teaching, the metta and karuna, the humour and patience, the expounding and clarifying, and the hair-tearing exasperation some of your posts have caused.:-) Cheers, Chris 18209 From: James Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 0:23pm Subject: Re: Significant Event --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > and the hair-tearing exasperation some of your posts have caused.:-) Hey!! I think I resemble that remark! ;-) Thank you Christine for your insightful posts, thorough research, and being such a sweet person. I also want to thank Sarah and Jon for accepting me to this group, overlooking my rebel-rousing tendencies, and keeping me on the straight-and-narrow. I appreciate all of the main posters to this group and the lurkers out there. I am appreciative for the positive feedback I have gotten about my posts. Though they may sometimes lack the deepest insight, I hope they always show the deepest heart. And finally, I want to express my appreciation to `that Nina person' for providing a role model of `Dhamma Dedication'. I hope everyone is learning as much as I am. Metta, James 18210 From: chase8383 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:53am Subject: Re: Mara No More Hi Howard You said in your post: "The word 'salvific' bothers you, I'm sure, due to your Christian background. The word, itself, carries no onus. My background is different, and the word raises no red flags with me. The word merely means having the power to save," My question is, is there anything to be saved? If we are at our core Buddha Nature, where is the salvation? If an airbag pops open in my car, preventing me from hitting the dash board during a crash, was there an act of salvation? Or was there just a cause and effect? Did anything really change? Be spacious, David 18211 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/26/02 1:21:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Then please enlighten me on the characteristics of nibbana. > I take it that anatta is not a characteristic of nibbana then, since > all alleged descriptions of the characteristic of nibbana are > not 'actual descriptions'. > ========================== Anatta is not a characteristic of anything. It is the absence of something. It is the absence of a core and of a controlling agent. 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) 18212 From: peterdac4298 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 4:10pm Subject: Photo album Hi All Finally took the hint. Sorry about the quality, cheep home digi cam. Will nip out to the photo machine and get a less grainy analog version as soon as every thing is up and running after the bank holidays. Cheers Peter 18213 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 4:13pm Subject: Way 30, Synopsis "The Way of Mindflness" by Soma Thera, Section of the Synopsis p.41 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Consciousness and mental objects, too, should be contemplated upon by way of the diversity of the division of object (arammana], dominance [adhipati], conascence [sahajata], plane [bhumi], causal action [kamma], result [vipaka], non-causative functional process [kriya], and so forth [adi], beginning with impermanence [aniccadinam anupassananam vesena] and by way of the division of consciousness that is with passion and so forth come down in the portion of analytical exposition [niddesavare agatasaragadi bhedañca vasena]. [Tika] "Or the divisions of object... non-causative functional process and so forth." Contemplation should be done by way of the division of the blue and so forth pertaining to the variety of objects visual and so forth [rupadi arammana nanattassa niladi tabbhedassa); by way of the division of the "low" and so forth pertaining to the diverse kinds of dominance of the will-to-do and so forth [chandadi adhipati nanattassa hinadi tabbhedassa]; by way of the division of the spontaneous and non-spontaneous consciousness, absorption with initial application and so forth pertaining to the variety of conditions of conascence of knowledge, absorption and so forth [ñana jhanadi nanattassa sasankharikasankharika savitakkadi tabbhedassa]; by way of the division of lofty, middling, and so forth pertaining to the diverse planes, sensuous and so forth [kamavacaradi bhuminanattassa ukkattha majjhimadi tabbhedassa]; by way of the division of conduciveness to deva-plane-rebirth and so forth, pertaining to the diverse kind of moral action of skill and so forth [kusaladi kammananattassa devagati samvattaniyatadi tabbhedassa]; by way of the division of the state of requital which could be perceived in this very present condition of life and so forth, pertaining to the variety of dark and bright resultants of evil and good deeds (kanha sukka vipaka nanattassa dittha dhamma vedaniyatadi tabbhedassa]; by way of the division of the three good conditions of rebirth and so forth, pertaining to non-causative functional diversity of the sensuous plane and so forth [paritta bhumakadi kriya nanattassa tihetukadi tabbhedassa]. Mental objects should be contemplated upon by way of own characteristic [sallakkhana] [T: of impression and the like [phusanadi]]; by way of general characteristic [samañña lakkhana] [T: of impermanence and the like [aniccatadi]]; by way of phenomenon-emptiness [suññta dhamma], [T: namely, by way of the void-nature called soullessness [anattata sankhata suññata sabhavassa] to explain which clearly, the instruction of the portion dealing with the void in the Abhidhamma proceeded by means of the statement beginning with "At that time indeed there are phenomena, there are aggregates [yam vibhavetum abhidhamme tasmim kho pana samaye dhamma honti khandha hantiti adina suññatavara desana pavatta]], without any mention of a soul; by way of the seven contemplations of impermanence and so forth [aniccadi satta anupassananam]; and by way of the divisions of what is present and what is absent and so forth, in the analytical portion [niddesavare agata santasantadi bhedanañca vasena]. 18214 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 4:19pm Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: Hi Rhula, Nice collection of quotes. Good scholarship on your part. I will give my two cents worth about anatta since I have been studying it a bit also. These scholars are mistaken. They are assuming that the aggregates individually are not `the self', so perhaps the aggregates together could be considered `the self'. In other words, to use an example, they are saying that the Buddha, when talking about a house, said, "The door is not the house, the roof is not the house, the walls are not the house, the windows are not the house, etc." But the house does exist if you put them all together. So individually the aggregates are non-self, but maybe together they are self. This is not what the Buddha meant. Since each aggregate is non-self, even put together they should be non-self. BUUUTTTT….actually, the Buddha didn't want us to try to answer the question if we have a self or not. He just wanted us to view the aggregates as non-self and to not try to figure out if, when put together, they create a self. When he was asked this question directly, `Do we have a self', he refused to answer. He later explained to Ananda that to say we either do or don't have a self is wrong view and makes practice impossible. In other words, anatta cannot be figured out intellectually because its nature is beyond the scope of either existence or non-existence as we know them. Check out this article by Thanissaro Bhikkhu, "No Self or Not Self?" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/notself2.html KKT: Allow me to pop in here. There are two main meanings of Self. (1) The metaphysical self and (2) The empirical self. The self the Buddha refused to answer to the question about its existence is the << metaphysical self >> ! This self in the historical context of the Buddha's time refers to the Atman of Brahmanism or the Jiva (life principle) of Jainism. It has the same meaning of << soul >> A metaphysical self is something substantial, independent, self-existent, eternal, changeless, and permanent. The reason the Buddha refused to answer, I think, is because such question is of the domain of pure speculation and useless for the purpose of liberation. But the self you refer to as << individually the aggregates are non-self, but maybe together they are self >> is the << empirical self >> ! This is the << feeling of I, Me, Mine, Myself >> This is this self that in countless suttas the Buddha denounced it as the source of our ignorance, the cause of our endless rebirths, and << the house-builder >> ! I think one must distinguish clearly those two selfs. Peace, KKT 18215 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:13pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hello Sarah, We still have a house-full of guests left over from Xmas and I'm barely finding time to read the daily bulletins. Thanks for that extra material on vitari, it seems to answer all my questions and more. I'll report back when I've read it a few more times. Kind regards Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Ken H & All, > > I have some more quotes which I hope are useful on the theme of the 3 > virati cetasikas 18216 From: azita gill Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 6:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Significant Event --- "James " < > dear James, In the past I did not tear my hair out re some of your posts -- I just did not read them - press the delete button and you were gone! However, I have been reading some of your later posts and really like them - esp. the very sensitive and caring letters that you have written to the Star Kids. I have also benefited from them. I am enjoying Nina's posts on patience - Khanti - and thought that you have must have patience to answer the Star Kids' letters. Seems like we need LOTS of patience to develop right understanding of this present moment. I have been listening to tapes that were recorded while we were in Thailand and K.Sujin constantly reminds us to stay with this present moment and that clinging takes us away from this moment, again and again. I remind ple. to have patience, courage and good cheer, but I think I am only just beginning to see the real value in developing patience - the supreme purification of body, speech and mind. Thanks James, Cheers, Azita 18217 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 7:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 30, Synopsis Hi all, It looks to me like this section opens the contemplation of consciousness and dhammas to include all the fine details and many ways of classifying them of the abhidhamma. Does anyone know what text this line refers to and what it means: "the instruction of the portion dealing with the void in the Abhidhamma proceeded by means of the statement beginning with "At that time indeed there are phenomena, there are aggregates [yam vibhavetum abhidhamme tasmim kho pana samaye dhamma honti khandha hantiti adina suññatavara desana pavatta]], without any mention of a soul" thanks, Larry 18218 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta - View of some scholars “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha. . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pg.928, Bahudhatuka Sutta, The Many Kinds of Elements.) TG 18219 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 9:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta - View of some scholars Hi TG & all, There is an interesting note to the passage you quote, "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self -- there is no such possibility." Previously in this section of the sutta about the impossible and the possible the Buddha says a bhikkhu skilled in the impossible and the possible would say it is impossible that a person possessing right view could treat any *formation* as permanent or pleasurable. Here follows B. Bodhi's note: In the passage on self, sankhara, "formation," is replaced by dhamma, "thing." MA explains that this substitution is made to include concepts, such as kasina sign, etc., which the ordinary person is also prone to identify as self. However, in view of the fact that Nibbana is described as imperishable (accuta) and as bliss (sukha), and is also liable to be misconceived as self (see MN 1.26), the word "sankhara" may be taken to include only the conditioned, while "dhamma" includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned. This interpretation, however, is not endorsed by the commentaries of Acariya Buddhagosa. L: The note on MN 1.26 concerning how Nibbana is wrongly conceived as self is as follows: MA understands "Nibbana" here to refer to the five kinds of "supreme Nibbana here and now" included among the sixty-two wrong views of the Brahamajalla Sutta (DN 1.3.19-25/i.36-38), that is, Nibbana identified with the full enjoyment of sense pleasures or with the four jhanas. Enjoying this state, or yearning for it, he conceives it with craving. Priding himself on attaining it, he conceives it with conceit. Holding this imaginary Nibbana to be permanent, etc., he conceives it with views. L: I notice that in both notes, MA, the commentary to the Majjima Nikaya, avoids saying Nibbana is not self. Larry 18220 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 5:27pm Subject: Space element Hi Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis: vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. From the Bahudhatuka Sutta M.> There are Ananda these 6 elements:The earth,water,fire,air,space and consciousness element. Could someone please explain what this space element is, is it a Paramattha Dhamma or Pannatti/the concept of space as above ? Thanks Steve. 18221 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 10:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member Hi Ted (Tep), Beth, Dot and Ram, I'm also very glad to see you all here and appreciate the introductions you've kindly shared. Please be patient with old threads and just ignore those which are too confusing or feel free to ask for any clarifications. Best of all, just start your own - we always welcome new topics. Some particular topics in Useful Posts such as "New to the List', "New to Abhidhamma' and "Pali' may be helpful: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Also the simple Pali glossary if you're not familiar with many of the terms (I'm sure Ram is): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms Also the search function on the back-up archives can be helpful: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ ********** Beth, I'm also appreciating the helpful Dhp verses and your honest and sincere comments. Where do you live? Ram, as Chris said, there are a few others from Sri Lanka here and some of us have also spent quite a lot of time in your beautiful country. Actually, Jon and I met there and we also joined Chris and the others on the trip in June. Dot, I'm sure you'll feel very at home with the other Queenslanders here - quite a vocal mob on your doorstep and a treat to meet......(dreaming of Noosa....;-)) Ted, as Kom said, there are several Thais and American Thais around here...sometimes they even break out into Thai-Pali, so that should make life easier for you;-) I'm impressed that your friend's search found us and look f/w to hearing more about your ideas on vipassana and meditation. (Hope we hear again from Chuck, also from Texas and last spotted in Bangkok too..) Ram, I also share your appreciation for the Tipitaka and think we're really fortunate to have access to it and be able to study, share and discuss together. Look forward to reading any further comments, questions or answers that any of you care to contribute. Sarah ======== --- "Tep Sastri " wrote: > Hello everyone! > > I just recently joined DhammastudyGroup and would like to introduce > myself a little bit. 18222 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Significant Event Hi Christine, James & All, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Sarah and Jon, and fellow dsg-ers, > > Just wanted to draw your attention to a significant event happening > on 28 December. Dhamma Study Group will have its third birthday. > Walking, talking, and out of nappies now! ..... I'm not very good on baby stages - does that mean we're past the 'teething' one??? Thanks a lot for drawing our attention to this milestone event. Perhaps we'll have a little celebration.... ..... > Thank you for the camaraderie, the sharing and teaching, the metta > and karuna, the humour and patience, the expounding and clarifying, > and the hair-tearing exasperation some of your posts have caused.:-) ..... ;-) As you always remind us,'good friends' make the holy life and any group or list is only as good as the participants.....Many thanks to all for all the support and wonderful contributions -- including those that need a few prods on the 'straight and narrow';-)I've really benefited and learnt a lot from the good reminders, the references, the keen questioning and challenging, the debates, the friendships, the worldly conditions and more. For any (many) shortcomings in style or content on list or behind the scenes on our part, apologies and we'll try to improve.... As for the 'hair-tearing exasperation', just be glad it doesn't all show on screen yet;-) Thanks again for the kind words, Sarah ======= 18223 From: rahula_80 Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:41pm Subject: Origins of Buddhism Hi, Can anyone recommend books on the origins of Buddhism or early Buddhism other than Gombrich's "How Buddhism Began" Also, I would appreciate comments on the following books. 1. Studies in the Origins of Buddhism by Govind Chandra Pande 2. Early Buddhism and its Origins by Vishwanath Prasad Varma 3. Buddhist and Vedic Studies Oliver Hector de Alwis Wijesekara 4. Early Buddhism by T.W. Rhys Davids 5. Sakya or Buddhist Origins by Caroline A.F. Rhys Davids 6. The Vedantic Buddhism of Buddha by J.G. Jennings 7. Hinduism and Buddhism Ananda Kettish Coomaraswamy Rahula 18224 From: Sarah Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo album Peter, --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi All > > Finally took the hint. Sorry about the quality, cheep home digi > cam. Will nip out to the photo machine and get a less grainy analog > version as soon as every thing is up and running after the bank > holidays. ..... Good to see you in the 'Hall of Fame. The quality of yr neighbours' pic (Joanne and Janice)is just as poor....they may be begging for an upgrade too;-)No one minds and at least you managed to avoid the stray arm phantom that slipped into Larry's;-)Perhaps James can remove the grain without leaving home..... So to any other newbies or oldies, pls don't let grainy analog, stray arms or pouting expressions deter you from joining us (left side of home page under photos): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup And now, Peter, you can relax and help Chris & James drop hints to others;-) Sarah (retiring and handing over her album team place to James with his P.R. and scanning skills - ) ======= 18225 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 0:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Patience, o patience Hi Nina,(James and Christine) Thankyou for the extra reminders. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > But when we are sad because of what somone else said to us, it seems that we are at such moments not openminded to these reminders, even though we read them or type them out. Lack of satipatthana, the conditions are >not right. ..... Just as you say: we can write about patience, but when there aren’t the right conditions it doesn’t arise. We can also see at such times how much clinging there is to self - finding oneself important, raising the banner without any metta or consideration for the other or detachment from the sounds and visible objects being experienced at those times. ..... > But later on, conditions change again. > Thank you, with appreciation, Nina. > P.S. I also appreciate very much Beth's quote, because it is "my own" > akusala when I am dismayed or sad, I better be aware of the citta at > that > moment: > > Let none find fault with others; > let none see the omissions and commissions of others. > But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. > Dhammapada 4:50 .... As you say, while we are concerned with the others’ deeds, we forget about ‘our’ akusala cittas (unwholesome consciusness) at such times. James asked some time back about ‘whether generating metta toward oneself be the same as generating metta toward another’ as there’s no self. He also asked about being selfish. I think that whenever we find ourselves important or are concerned about our own thoughts, feelings or consciousness, the selfishness and attachment to self is evident. At these times we are so swayed and influenced by the 8 worldly conditions. When there is metta and kindness to others, on the otherhand, there is no concern for praise, gain and so on. There isn’t any expectation or anxiety about others’ responses to us. It’s not a matter of ‘working’ on metta, so much as understanding the difference between when there are moments of kindness, friendliness and consideration (without attachment or aversion) and when there aren’t. Howard gave some helpful reminders on patience, forgiveness and metta in post 17378. He wrote: “Also, I think the perfection of khanti (patience/forbearance) is close in meaning and effect to forgiveness.” There can be just a little more giving up of the clinging to self every day....dana, forgiveness and patience never hurt...slowly, slowly. Because, in reality there is no self, doesn’t mean that with more understanding ‘one’ doesn’t think of oneself and others. There can be thinking with right view, wrong view,ignorance or any other state. Metta remains a wholesome quality and selfishness an unwholesome one. I liked the reminders James quoted for the benefits of developed metta: “One sleeps easily, wakes easily, dreams no evil dreams. One is dear to human beings, dear to non-human beings. The devas protect one. Neither fire, poison, nor weapons can touch one. One’s mind gains concentration quickly. One’s complexion is bright. One dies unconfused and --if penetrating no higher -- is headed for the Brahma worlds”. I think like James wrote to one of the Star Kids, we can begin to see the heaven and hell we create for ourselves all the time and can begin to know the difference between the light and ‘pure’ states and compared to the heavy and ‘impure’ ones. ..... Christine was also discussing more about the characteristic of metta. In her book ‘Metta’(transl by Nina), Khun Sujin says: “No matter whether we meet people in a room, or outside, on the street or in the bus, do we consider everybody we meet as a friend? If that is not so we should not recite the words about extending metta to all beings, that will not be of any use. If we see someone now, at this moment, and we feel misgivings about him, we should not try to extend metta to all beings. Only those who have attained jhana are able to do this. When the meditation subject of metta brahma-vihara has been developed metta can become boundless. However, we should begin with simply applying sincere metta in daily life.” Later, she also says: “Metta conditions generosity in giving and it conditions kind, agreeable speech. It makes one abstain from rude, disgracious conduct,from doing wrong to others. We can help people with kindness and we can consider them as fellow-beings who are friends. We can learn not to think of them with conceit,as strangers who are different. We will learn not to think of them in terms of “he” and “me”, or to consider them as superior or as inferior in comparison with ourselves, because that is conceit. When we investigate the characteristic of our citta we will know from our own experience that kusala citta is completely different from akusala citta. The Dhammasangani (the 1st book of the Abhidhamma, 1340) refers to wholesome qualities such as plasticity, gentlenes, smoothness, pliancy, and humbleness of heart. The commentary to this passage (Atthasalini11,Bk111,395)describes humbleness of heart as follows: “by the absence of conceit this person’s heart is humble; the state of such a person is humbleness of heart.” Softness, gentleness, pliancy and humbleness of heart, these qualities are characteristics of metta.” ******* Sarah ====== 18226 From: Sarah Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 1:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Rahula, --- "rahula_80 " > 1. TW Rhys Davids went "mad" while working on the PTS Pali English > Dictionary which Stede had to finish for him because of his "mental > breakdown". ..... I have no idea whether this or the other comments you gave are correct or not. What I would say, though, is that I think we are all really indebted to the devotion and dedication of these early translators and compilers and founders of the PTS. For many of us, the PTS translations and dictionaries were for many decades the only ones available. These were our only access to the written dhamma. Miss Horner (a very kind and helpful lady imho), in her introduction to the translation of the Vinaya series, reminds us how when Rhys Davids and Oldenberg wrote their partial translation, the PTS had not been founded, the other Pali translations had not been published and nor had this dictionary. In his introduction to the dictionary,written in 1921, TW Rhys Davids acknowledges the immense support of Stede: “Anybody familiar with this sort of work will know what care and patience, what scholarly knowledge and judgment are involved in the collection of such material, in the sorting, the sifting and final arrangement of it, in the adding of cross references, in the consideration of etymological puzzles, in the comparison and correcion of various or faulty readings, and in the verification of references given by others, or found in the indexes. For all this work the users of the Dictionary will have to thank my colleague, Dr William Stede. It may be interesting to notice here that the total number of refernces to appear in this first edition of the new dictionary is estimated to be between one hundered and fifty and one hundred and sixty thousand. The Bavarian Academy has awarded to Dr Stede a personal grant of 3100 marks for his work on this Dictionary.” ***** These works were done by those living on very limited funds, no computers or even electric typewriters, very limited communication with other research expertise and so on. Rahula, with your other question about texts on early Buddhism, I can only refer you to the ancient texts themselves and their commentaries, which you would have no difficulty following. These would include: - Book of the Discipline (Vinaya) and Bahiranidana (introduction to the commentary)- all PTS - Mahavamsa -Ancient chronicles of Sri Lanka PTS - Atthasalini (Expositor) comm. to Dhammasangani, PTS ***** I also like Malalaskera’s “Pali Literature of Ceylon” a helpful history and Nina has “The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa” by Law. I’m not sure where you can get these - actually I want to get the one on Buddhaghosa if anyone sees it and can help. ***** Nina, Rob K or others may give further suggestions. I usually just read the texts themselves or books that stay very close to the texts. Sarah ======= 18227 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya) Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 1:55am Subject: RE: [dsg] Significant Event Dear Sarah, Jon, Christine & the Group, Congrats & thanks for opportunities offered! It is Great to be in the shade of those with prag~na; Yet struggling to find direction, Sumane 18228 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 2:03am Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Rahula, James, KKT, TG, Larry, and All, A few quotes on self and Self - (Buddha-nature, Dharma-body, rigpa and Nibbana get a mention as well). Bhikkhu Bodhi: "The Mulapariyaya Sutta, the first entry of the Majjhima Nikaya, ... sets itself the aim of exposing the whole mass of subjective misconceptions from their branches down to their roots. ... As both its title and position imply, the Mulapariyaya Sutta is the most fundamental of the Buddha's discourses found in the Pali Canon. It is the concentrated essence of the teaching, packing into its enigmatic statements profound truths of ontological, epistemological, and psychological significance." (The Discourse on the Root of Existence - the Mulapariyaya Sutta and its Commentaries) Thanissaro Bhikkhu says in his Translators Note to the Mulapariyaya sutta: "there has long been -- and still is -- a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" -- the entirety of our sensory & mental experience -- is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes. " The MN 1 Mulapariyaya Sutta 'The Root Sequence'ends with the unusual sentence - "That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words." "Any teaching that follows these lines would be subject to the same criticism that the Buddha directed against the monks who first heard this discourse." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html ----------------------------------------------- A quote from "No Inner Core - Anatta" by U Silananda "They claim that Buddha was only directing us not to see the real Self in the personal ego - a view identical to the Hindu view. They reason that Buddha's denial of certain things being atta indicates that He affirmed a true atta of a different nature. When Buddha said, "This is not atta," these scholars insert the following argument: "But a moment's consideration of the logic of the words will show that they assume the reality of a Self that is not any one or all of the `things' that are denied of it." But let us say, for the sake of argument, that I have five animal horns here. If I say "None of these horns is the horn of a rabbit," does it mean that there exists somewhere else or in another form such a thing as a horn of a rabbit? No. A horn of a rabbit is just a designation, an abstraction, without any corresponding reality. Similarly Buddha often said, "This is not atta. That is not atta. Nothing here is atta." Does that indicate that Buddha means that there exists somewhere something that can be called atta? No. I will conclude this section by explaining a very important statement found in Patisambhidamagga and in Majjhima Nikaya: "Sabbe sankhara anicca; sabbe sankhara dukkha (not in M.N.); sabbe dhamma anatta." The first sentence means, "AII conditioned things are impermanent." The second means, `All conditioned things are suffering." The third sentence, however is different. Here, Buddha does not use the word sankhara, but He uses dhamma instead. Dhamma here means all things without exception. So the third sentence means, `AII things, conditioned or unconditioned, are anatta, are void of self and soul." This means that even Nibbana, which is asankhara, unconditioned, is not atta or is void of atta. This statement unequivocally denies atta of any kind, even in ultimate Truth and Enlightenment, even in Nibbana. " http://www.buddha.per.sg/dharma01/anatta6.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80 " wrote: > Hi, > > Many scholars (eg. Pande, Nakamura etc.) have claim > that the Buddha never denied the existence of Self except that the 5 > aggregates is NOT Self or should be identified as Self. > > Are they in error? 18229 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 2:07am Subject: Re: Photo album Hi Peter, Great to see who I'm talking to at last! Victor, Paul and James are in the rows behind and the four of you should be able to keep all those kids there under control, if not - see Mrs. Abbott :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi All > > Finally took the hint. Sorry about the quality, cheep home digi > cam. Will nip out to the photo machine and get a less grainy analog > version as soon as every thing is up and running after the bank > holidays. > > Cheers > Peter 18230 From: Beth Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 3:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member *********snipped***************** Sarah wrote: Beth, I'm also appreciating the helpful Dhp verses and your honest and sincere comments. Where do you live? Hello all, Hello Sarah, Thank you for the warm welcome :-) I'm thankful for this list already, even though some of the subject matter is a tad heady for me at the moment. I realize when one begins something there's usually a learning curve :-) I will take advantage of the resources on this list. I live in Pennsylvania USA, very close to Philadelphia. I have as of yet to go to any of the Buddhist centers in the city as of yet. ~peace, Beth 18231 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 3:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... << I do think, however, that the following is somewhat overstated: "Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there is no further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any crossover from jhana to insight." There is cross-over, but more is required to achieve it - it is not an automatic development from the jhanas. Using the jhanas as a foundation for vipassana bhavana, as a basis, stepping-off point, support, and cross-over point is the most classical approach, expressed again and again, most especially in the Majhima Nikaya.>> What the texts talk about, to my recollection, is enlightenment with jhana as base, not jhana as a basis for insight. The difference is significant. When jhana forms the base for enlightenment, it does so by being the object of the moments of insight that lead to enlightenment. This of course cannot occur unless insight has already been developed to the point that enlightenment is imminent. To my knowledge, jhana is not given as a basis for the development of insight in the sense of facilitating, or being a stepping-off point, for that development. Liberation that is attained 'both ways' is a higher attainment that liberation by insight only. To my understanding, the persons who attain in this manner are relatively few, so I would not see it as the classic approach. I would be interested to know what suttas you have in mind here. <> Enlightenment however attained can only be the outcome of the proper investigation of reality (i.e., insight), and enlightenment both ways occurs in certain cases where jhana has been developed as well as that insight (but not by any means in all such cases). To my understanding, it is not a case of 'jhana first, then the investigation of reality'. There is reality at every present moment for all of us, and there is therefore the potential for some level of awareness of reality, if the appropriate conditions have been developed. Jon 18232 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member Hi, Beth - In a message dated 12/27/02 6:33:42 AM Eastern Standard Time, An_Morrigna@B... writes: > Hello all, Hello Sarah, > Thank you for the warm welcome :-) > I'm thankful for this list already, even though some of the > subject matter is a tad heady for me at the moment. I realize when one > begins something there's usually a learning curve :-) I will take advantage > of the resources on this list. > I live in Pennsylvania USA, very close to Philadelphia. I have > as of yet to go to any of the Buddhist centers in the city as of yet. > > ~peace, > Beth > > ========================= Welcome to the list from another member and an ex-Philadelphian! I was born in Philly *many* years ago, West Philly to be exact, and I remained there until my early 30's. My wife and lived there while I was going for my Ph.D. at the U. of P and teaching math at Temple University. We lived near City Line Avenue near the park at that time. Are there any Theravadin groups, centers, wats, or other Theravadin organizations in the area now? All I ever seem to see on lists are non-Theravadin, Buddhist organizations in the Philly area. 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) 18233 From: Date: Thu Dec 26, 2002 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Jon - In a message dated 12/27/02 6:37:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon - > ... > << I do think, however, that the following is somewhat > overstated: "Once the highest level of jhana has been attained, there > is no further development possible on that 'track'. Nor is there any > crossover from jhana to insight." > There is cross-over, but more is required to achieve it - it is not > an automatic development from the jhanas. Using the jhanas as a > foundation for vipassana bhavana, as a basis, stepping-off point, > support, and cross-over point is the most classical approach, > expressed again and again, most especially in the Majhima Nikaya.>> > > What the texts talk about, to my recollection, is enlightenment with > jhana as base, not jhana as a basis for insight. The difference is > significant. > > When jhana forms the base for enlightenment, it does so by being the > object of the moments of insight that lead to enlightenment. This of > course cannot occur unless insight has already been developed to the > point that enlightenment is imminent. To my knowledge, jhana is not > given as a basis for the development of insight in the sense of > facilitating, or being a stepping-off point, for that development. ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I understand your point. However, attaining the jhanas includes the the arousing of a number of enlightenment factors, which puts one already a step up on the way. By attaining jhanas, and then embarking on vipassana bhavana, one is starting the climb having already ascended some steps. Then, classically, as in the Anupada Sutta, and as you point out, the jhanas, their features, and especially the entering and leaving of jhanas, can serve as objects of investigation. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Liberation that is attained 'both ways' is a higher attainment that > liberation by insight only. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Liberation attained both ways, as I understand it, must involve the formless absorptions. That, however, is not the standard, classic formula, which involves achieving enlightenment from the base of the 4th jhana. ---------------------------------------------------------- To my understanding, the persons who> > attain in this manner are relatively few, so I would not see it as > the classic approach. ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: With regard to the role of the formless absorptions, I agree. But the formula involving the 4th jhana is, by far, the most repeated one, especially in the Majhima Nikaya. ---------------------------------------------------------- I would be interested to know what suttas you> > have in mind here. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: Loads of suttas in the M. Nikaya. They involve entering the 4th jhana, and then turning the mind to a variety of dhammas, to past lives, to the births and deaths of beings, and finally to the destruction of the taints. ------------------------------------------------------------ > < - specifically no investigation of reality, no intensified > application of mindfulness and clear comprehension to arising and > ceasing conditions, then no liberation follows; that is not even > remotely in dispute by me.>> > > Enlightenment however attained can only be the outcome of the proper > investigation of reality (i.e., insight), and enlightenment both ways > occurs in certain cases where jhana has been developed as well as > that insight (but not by any means in all such cases). > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not making a universal claim here, Jon. -------------------------------------------------- > > To my understanding, it is not a case of 'jhana first, then the > investigation of reality'. There is reality at every present moment > for all of us, and there is therefore the potential for some level of > awareness of reality, if the appropriate conditions have been > developed. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Jhana-first is *one* way, the most standard one, but far from the only one. There is insight-first, there is tandem development, etc. --------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ========================= With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18234 From: nidive Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Dear James, > Nibbana is indefinable because nibbana is release from all of > the clung-to aggregates and any definitions come from mental > formations (thoughts), which is one of the aggregates, so any > definition from the mind cannot describe something that is > foreign to the mind. I don't agree that nibbana is undefinable. If it were undefinable, I am sure the Buddha would have said that it is undefinable. But he didn't. Instead he gave us various descriptions of it through various suttas from the Tipitaka. And he never mentioned that nibbana is undefinable (not any sutta I know of). I am pretty sure the idea of nibbana as undefinable originates from the Mahayana school of teaching. I don't agree that nibbana is foreign to the mind of an ariyan. Nibbana is known by any ariyan. How is nibbana known? It is by means of the impermanent mind that nibbana is known. And it was through that that the Buddha was able to give us a description of nibbana. If nibbana was not known by the impermanent mind of the Buddha, we are all discussing about nibbana in vain. Supposing there is a kind of animal that no man had ever seen. How are we going to 'define' such an unknown animal? Something which is not known by the mind cannot be 'defined'. Similarly, a non-ariyan cannot 'define' nibbana simply because his mind does not know nibbana. But an ariyan can 'define' nibbana simply because his mind does know nibbana. > Definable charactersitics come from thoughts, but nibbana is > non-thought; so it cannot be defined or described. But I am sure that the following sutta quote comes from the thoughts of the Buddha: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 I am sure that the Buddha does know nibbana. I am sure that the Buddha is Fully Self-Enlightened. I am sure that if nibbana is undefinable, the Buddha would have said so. It is too important a subject for him to keep silent. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18235 From: nidive Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi Howard, > Anatta is not a characteristic of anything. It is the absence of > something. It is the absence of a core and of a controlling agent. What exactly do you mean by 'characteristic'? For I perceive the 'absence of a core and of a controlling agent' as a characteristic in itself. It is a negative characteristic as opposed to a positive characteristic, ie. 'presence of a core and of a controlling agent'. For example, "This person has long hair". Long hair is a characteristic of this person. It is a positive characteristic. "That person has no long hair". No long hair is a characteristic of that person. It is a negative characteristic. NEO Swee Boon 18236 From: James Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo album Sarah, I tried to remove the grain in Peter's picture. I was successful to some extent. I think it looks much better and gives a good idea of Peter's visage (I can just hear him saying `Cheers!') As requested, I also removed your gray hair. Additionally, I took the opportunity to give you a more forceful appearance. I don't think anyone will mess with you after they see this photo!! ;-) I also, for the holiday season, fixed up a picture of Howard. It captures his Jolly Spirit!! The pics can be viewed at this link: http://www.geocities.com/buddhatrue/dsg.htm Metta, James Ps. I have my niece visiting (7 years old) from out of town and she is very high maintenance…and views her uncle as a private entertainer! I will respond to the other posts written to me later when I have time. 18237 From: Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - I agree that defining what is meant by 'characteristic' is not easy. Generally I am suspicious of so-called "negative characteristics". There are too many of them. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/27/02 11:31:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >Anatta is not a characteristic of anything. It is the absence of > >something. It is the absence of a core and of a controlling agent. > > What exactly do you mean by 'characteristic'? > > For I perceive the 'absence of a core and of a controlling agent' as > a characteristic in itself. It is a negative characteristic as > opposed to a positive characteristic, ie. 'presence of a core and of > a controlling agent'. > > For example, > > "This person has long hair". Long hair is a characteristic of this > person. It is a positive characteristic. > > "That person has no long hair". No long hair is a characteristic of > that person. It is a negative characteristic. > > > NEO Swee Boon > > /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) 18238 From: nidive Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 8:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi Howard, > I agree that defining what is meant by 'characteristic' is not > easy. Generally I am suspicious of so-called "negative > characteristics". There are too many of them. There are just as many 'positive characteristics' as there are 'negative characteristics'. I think it is pretty pointless to go on discussing about this subject until there is a clear definition of what is meant by 'characteristic'. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18239 From: Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 4:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/27/02 11:44:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >I agree that defining what is meant by 'characteristic' is not > >easy. Generally I am suspicious of so-called "negative > >characteristics". There are too many of them. > > There are just as many 'positive characteristics' as there > are 'negative characteristics'. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Is any polygon simultaneously a triangle and a square? No. Is there such a characteristic, then, if nothing has it or can have it? I think not. But every polygon lacks being simultaneously triangular and square. Does that mean that there *is* the characteristic of not being simultaneously triangular and square? This is one problem I have with "negative characteristics". Any property concept we can dream up which applies to nothing at all yields a universal negative characteristic. To me, in general, to say that something is missing is not to ascribe a characteristic, but to deny one. I do not see a balance in this matter. But perhaps this is just a matter of taste. Whatever we may or may not work out on this, there is still dukkha and the need to remove it. So perhaps we should turn our efforts more towards that and a bit away from questions of how many characterictics can dance on the head of a pin! ;-)) ------------------------------------------------------ > > I think it is pretty pointless to go on discussing about this > subject until there is a clear definition of what is meant > by 'characteristic'. > -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree. --------------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ============================ 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) 18240 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 10:03am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 7 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 7 We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² (Miscellaneous Sayings)² Again, only the man of wisdom can patiently tolerate the wrongs of others, not the dull-witted man. In the man lacking wisdom, the wrongs of others only provoke impatience; but for the wise, they call his patience into play and make it grow even stronger. How shall we live from now on? If we have right understanding, we can patiently tolerate the wrongs of someone else, but if we lack understanding, impatience will increase. We read further on: Only the man of wisdom is skilful in providing for the welfare of all beings, without discriminating between dear people, neutrals, and enemies. All the teachings are beneficial. We can see that the Buddha helped his followers in explaining the Dhamma and exhorting them time and again to consider the benefit of kusala dhammas. For example, when he said, ³Only the man of wisdom is skilful in providing for the welfare of all beings, without discriminating between dear people, neutrals, and enemies.² We should not be on the side of our own group of friends, we should be impartial and skilful in providing for the welfare of all beings. When someone is really skilful, he has patience so that he is intent on what is beneficial. When he is impatient he will not acquire any benefit and this is to the disadvantage of himself. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct², no. 1, the Conduct of Akitti: Síla has been called ³tapa², ascetism or austerity, because it burns (3 the impurity arising from akusala. Because of the splendour and power of the perfection of patience and the perfection of viriya, also these perfections have been called tapa, ascetism: they burn the impurity of craving and laziness. The Bodhisatta developed those perfections to the highest degree when he was in this life. It should be said that he developed them by the power of the perfection of patience (khanti påramittånubhåvena), because the restraint by patience leads to what is supreme. The Exalted One said: ³patience is the highest ascetism² (khanti paramam tapo). The first words of the ³Exhortation to the Påtimokkha² are, ³Patience is the hishest ascetism². If patience and endurance are lacking, the perfections cannot lead to the realization of the four noble Truths. We should think of the patience of people at the time when the Buddha had not yet finally passed away. When we read the suttas and reflect on them in detail we can see the patience and endurance of people at that time who applied the Dhamma in their conduct and practice. footnote: 3. Tappati is the passive form of tapati. Tappati means to burn, to shine. 18241 From: nidive Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 10:11am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi Howard, > Does that mean that there *is* the characteristic of not being > simultaneously triangular and square? To me, there indeed is the characteristic of not being simultaneously triangular and square. > This is one problem I have with "negative characteristics". Any > property concept we can dream up which applies to nothing at all > yields a universal negative characteristic. To me, any negative characteristic will always yield a corresponding positive characteristic just as any positive characteristic will always yield a corresponding negative characteristic. I liken it to the nature of conditioned dhammas. Where there is this, there is that. Where there is not this, there is not that. > Whatever we may or may not work out on this, there is still dukkha > and the need to remove it. So perhaps we should turn our efforts > more towards that and a bit away from questions of how many > characterictics can dance on the head of a pin! ;-)) Agree. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18242 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 2:41pm Subject: Re: Space element Hi Steve, Nyanatiloka's definition is: "ákása: 'space', is, according to Com., of two kinds: 1. limited space (paricchinnákása or paricchedákása), 2. endless space (anantákása), i.e. cosmic space. 1. Limited space, under the name of ákása-dhátu (space element), belongs to derived corporeality (s. khandha, Summary I; Dhs 638) and to a sixfold classification of elements (s. dhátu; M 112, 115, 140). It is also an object of kasina (q.v.) meditation. It is defined as follows: "The space element has the characteristic of delimiting matter. Its function is to indicate the boundaries of matter. It is manifested as the confines of matter; or its manifestation consists in being untouched (by the 4 great elements), and in holes and apertures. Its proximate cause is the matter delimited. It is on account of the space element that one can say of material things delimited that 'this is above. below, around that' " (Vis.M. XIV, 63). 2. Endless space is called in Atthasálini ajatákása, 'unentangled', i.e. unobstructed or empty space. It is the object of the first immaterial absorption (s. jhána), the sphere of boundless space (ákásánañcáyatana). According to Abhidhamma philosophy, endless space has no objective reality (being purely conceptual), which is indicated by the fact that it is not included in the triad of the wholesome (kusalatika), which comprises the entire reality. Later Buddhist schools have regarded it as one of several unconditioned or uncreated states (asankhata dharma) - a view that is rejected in Kath. (s. Guide. p. 70). Theraváda Buddhism recognizes only Nibbána as an unconditioned element (asankhata-dhátu: s. Dhs. 1084)." http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Bodhi2500@a... wrote: > Hi > > Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis: > vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is > derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. > > From the Bahudhatuka Sutta M.> > > There are Ananda these 6 elements:The earth,water,fire,air,space and > consciousness element. > > > Could someone please explain what this space element is, is it a Paramattha > Dhamma or Pannatti/the concept of space as above ? > > Thanks > Steve. 18243 From: Beth Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 0:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member From: Hi, Beth - ========================= Welcome to the list from another member and an ex-Philadelphian! I was born in Philly *many* years ago, West Philly to be exact, and I remained there until my early 30's. My wife and lived there while I was going for my Ph.D. at the U. of P and teaching math at Temple University. We lived near City Line Avenue near the park at that time. Are there any Theravadin groups, centers, wats, or other Theravadin organizations in the area now? All I ever seem to see on lists are non-Theravadin, Buddhist organizations in the Philly area. With metta, Howard ************************************** Hello all, Hello Howard, Thank you Howard for sharing some of your background with me :-) I've lived in rural Pa. most of my life and moved here to Blue Bell about five years ago. I've checked the web, only centers I've seen thus far aren't specifically Theravedan. ~peace, Beth 18244 From: Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 0:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta - View of some scholars In a message dated 12/26/2002 9:46:41 PM Pacific Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: << L: I notice that in both notes, MA, the commentary to the Majjima Nikaya, avoids saying Nibbana is not self. Larry >> I disagree with your take on these quotes Larry. I believe in the first case, it in fact does directly say that Nibbana is not self as follows: -- Quote: -- "dhamma" includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned. The point of saying that "all dhammas are not self" as opposed to saying -- all sankharas are not self -- is to include both the conditioned and unconditioned (nibbana). The second quote is merely making a point regarding particular misconceivings of what Nibbana means; ie, various false views. 18245 From: Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 6:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Anatta - View of some scholars Hi TG, This quote, "Quote: -- "dhamma" includes both the conditioned and the unconditioned." is Ven. Bodhi's comment and he follows this with, "This interpretation, however, is not endorsed by the commentaries of Acariya Buddhagosa." Larry 18246 From: James Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 7:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Significant Event --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > --- "James " < > > dear James, > In the past I did not tear my hair out re some > of your posts -- I just did not read them - press the > delete button and you were gone! > However, I have been reading some of your > later posts and really like them - esp. the very > sensitive and caring letters that you have written to > the Star Kids. I have also benefited from them. > I am enjoying Nina's posts on patience - > Khanti - and thought that you have must have patience > to answer the Star Kids' letters. > Seems like we need LOTS of patience to develop > right understanding of this present moment. I have > been listening to tapes that were recorded while we > were in Thailand and K.Sujin constantly reminds us to > stay with this present moment and that clinging takes > us away from this moment, again and again. > I remind ple. to have patience, courage and > good cheer, but I think I am only just beginning to > see the real value in developing patience - the > supreme purification of body, speech and mind. > Thanks James, > Cheers, Azita Azita and All, You would actually delete my posts when you received them? Hehehe… That cracks me up! Good for you!! Better to delete my posts than to let them bother you. Well, I am not sure if I am terribly different now than when I began posting. Granted, my posts to the Star Kids are sweet, genuine, caring, creative, and more insightful than my posts to adult members most of the time. Why is that? I relate better with most kids more than most adults. Many adults (not all) seem to have too many hidden agendas, defensiveness, inferiority complexes, `know-it- all'ness, and insincerity. Most kids (not all) are like blank slates asking questions in a pure and straightforward way. Even when they disagree, it is not usually because they want to disprove someone else, they just don't agree. With adults, it is often a game of intellectual `king of the hill', and many people for reasons I have yet to understand often target me as someone to knock down. Azita, you did the right thing. If I rub you the wrong way, just delete my post. That should be the end of problem. But many adults are not insightful enough to do that. I have been banned (permanently and temporarily) from at least four other Buddhist/spiritual groups (two Buddhist, one gay Buddhist, one gay Pagan). I have received more hate mail from Buddhists than most would think possible. Was this entirely their fault? No, I think it was predominately my fault because I didn't have the patience you credit me with. One snotty post got another one in return from me, until it snowballed and I was finally kicked out or sanctioned. When it comes to a `war of words' I rarely lose and rarely give in. Not very wise on my part. Thankfully, DSG has predominately wise members who don't play `one-upmanship' (except a few new members who are pushing it lately) and is under the wise leadership of Sarah and Jon…who both have patience in abundance. Patience is indeed one the greatest virtues a person can cultivate. And it is just about the hardest thing to practice; but so very important. Patience is so difficult to have because just think about what it requires: humility, wisdom, compassion, love, selflessness, energy, dedication, faith, empathy, etc., etc., etc.,. Azita, you credit me far too much with the declaration that I have patience. I am still working on that one immensely; but I thank you all the same and am glad that my recent posts don't inspire you to delete `me' anymore…like some kind of voodoo doll destroyed in effigy ;-). I know I am going on about patience, but I think it is so important. I want to relate one more thing. These days I am reminded of an episode of 60 minutes I saw several years ago. In that episode, sociology researchers decided to conduct a longitudinal study of a group of six-year-olds. The study was to see the effect of patience in a person's life. They took each child into a room, put a small bowl of three M&Ms in front of him or her, and gave the following instructions: `I am going to leave the room. You are to stay in this chair and wait for me. If you want, you can eat these M&Ms, but if you can wait until I get back, I will give you five more.' Then the researcher left the child alone in the room for five minutes with nothing to do except stare at these candies. Some of them ate the candy right away; some of them waited a few minutes and ate the candy; and some of them waited the whole time to receive more candy. These children were re-visited 10, 15, and 20 years later to see how they were progressing in life. The majority of those who could not wait had a very hard life filled with drug abuse, crime, inability to maintain relationships, and personal dissatisfaction. The majority of those who could wait were very successful, highly educated, and had a great deal of personal satisfaction. Can we all wait before eating our three candies? So much rests on just that one thing. Metta, James 18247 From: James Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 7:54pm Subject: Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Dear James, > I don't agree that nibbana is undefinable. If it were undefinable, I > am sure the Buddha would have said that it is undefinable. Hi NEO, I replied to some of your comments in-text and follow up with some source information: I don't agree that nibbana is undefinable. If it were undefinable, I am sure the Buddha would have said that it is undefinable. But he didn't. Instead he gave us various descriptions of it through various suttas from the Tipitaka. And he never mentioned that nibbana is undefinable (not any sutta I know of). I am pretty sure the idea of nibbana as undefinable originates from the Mahayana school of teaching. I don't agree that nibbana is foreign to the mind of an ariyan. Nibbana is known by any ariyan. How is nibbana known? It is by means of the impermanent mind that nibbana is known. And it was through that that the Buddha was able to give us a description of nibbana. If nibbana was not known by the impermanent mind of the Buddha, we are all discussing about nibbana in vain. Supposing there is a kind of animal that no man had ever seen. How are we going to 'define' such an unknown animal? Something which is not known by the mind cannot be 'defined'. Similarly, a non-ariyan cannot 'define' nibbana simply because his mind does not know nibbana. But an ariyan can 'define' nibbana simply because his mind does know nibbana. > Definable charactersitics come from thoughts, but nibbana is > non-thought; so it cannot be defined or described. But I am sure that the following sutta quote comes from the thoughts of the Buddha: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 I am sure that the Buddha does know nibbana. I am sure that the Buddha is Fully Self-Enlightened. I am sure that if nibbana is undefinable, the Buddha would have said so. It is too important a subject for him to keep silent. Okay, I am rather busy with my niece so I don't have the time to track down the original suttas this article refers to and analyze them; thankfully, the work has already been done for me. Here is unequivocal proof that the Buddha and his enlightened monks/nuns said that it is impossible to describe Nibbana or Parinibbana, and why, from "Buddhist Women at the Time of the Buddha" by Hellmuth Hecker : "…Khema tried to explain this to the King with a simile. She asked him whether he had a clever mathematician or statistician, who could calculate for him how many hundred, thousand or hundred-thousand grains of sand are contained in the river Ganges. The King replied that that is not possible. The nun then asked him whether he knew of anyone who could figure out how many gallons of water are contained in the great ocean. That, too, the King considered impossible. Khema asked him why it is not possible. The King replied that the ocean is mighty, deep, unfathomable. Just so, said Khema, is the Exalted One. Whoever wished to define the Awakened One, could only do so through the five clung-to aggregates and the Buddha no longer clung-to them. "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is the Enlightened One, mighty, deep unfathomable as the great ocean." Therefore it was not appropriate to say he existed or did not exist, or existed and did not exist, nor did he neither exist nor not exist. All these designations could not define what was undefinable. Just that was liberation: liberation from the compulsion to stabilize as "self" the constant flux of the five aggregates, which are never the same in any given moment, but only appear as a discharge of tensions arising from mental formations. The King rejoiced in the penetrating explanation of the nun Khema. Later on he met the Enlightened One and asked him the same four questions. The Buddha explained it exactly as Khema had done, even using the same words. The King was amazed and recounted his conversation with the wise nun Khema, the Arahant. (S 44,1)" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel292.html Metta, James 18248 From: James Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 7:58pm Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear James, > > > But the self you refer to as > << individually the aggregates are non-self, > but maybe together they are self >> > is the << empirical self >> ! > > Peace, > > > KKT Hi KKT, I didn't refer to any such thing! I stated that the scholars Rahula quoted are using that argument, which I disagreed with. Hmmmm...was I unclear? My apologies. Metta, James 18249 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 9:01pm Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > Dear James, > > > But the self you refer to as > << individually the aggregates are non-self, > but maybe together they are self >> > is the << empirical self >> ! > > Peace, > > > KKT Hi KKT, I didn't refer to any such thing! I stated that the scholars Rahula quoted are using that argument, which I disagreed with. Hmmmm...was I unclear? My apologies. Metta, James KKT: Thanks for the clarification. It's my fault to not carefully read. Sometimes I think in using such medium people understand each other at best 30% :-)) Metta, KKT 18250 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 9:10pm Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Hi Rahula, James, KKT, TG, Larry, and All, A few quotes on self and Self - (Buddha-nature, Dharma-body, rigpa and Nibbana get a mention as well). < snip > KKT: Thank you very much for those interesting quotes. I'm particularly interested in the following one: Thanissaro Bhikkhu says in his Translators Note to the Mulapariyaya sutta: "there has long been -- and still is -- a common tendency to create a "Buddhist" metaphysics in which the experience of emptiness, the Unconditioned, the Dharma-body, Buddha-nature, rigpa, etc., is said to function as the ground of being from which the "All" -- the entirety of our sensory & mental experience -- is said to spring and to which we return when we meditate. Some people think that these theories are the inventions of scholars without any direct meditative experience, but actually they have most often originated among meditators, who label (or in the words of the discourse, "perceive") a particular meditative experience as the ultimate goal, identify with it in a subtle way (as when we are told that "we are the knowing"), and then view that level of experience as the ground of being out of which all other experience comes. " Peace, KKT 18251 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Dec 27, 2002 9:18pm Subject: Cankers/clingings/tendencies/fetters/defilements etc. vs Perfections Dear Group, I was thinking about the year to come, and the significance of New Year's Eve and the resolutions most people make. Usually the Resolutions are to decrease some qualities/behaviours seen as unwholesome (drinking, smoking, harsh speech) or to increase some qualities/behaviours seen as wholesome (thinking before one speaks, being kinder and more generous.). Just to help you prepare your List, here is what the Buddha taught were the Unwholesome things to be discouraged, and eradicated (rather depressingly, in so many lists and under so many different names). Does any list seem easier than the others? :-)): 3 floods, oghas a.k.a. 3 yokes, yoghas - sense-desire (kamasava), of (desiring eternal ) existence (bhavasava), and of ignorance (avijjasava). 4 cankers, asavas - sense-desire (kamasava), of (desiring eternal ) existence, (bhavasava), (wrong) views (ditthasava), and ignorance (avijjasava). 4 ties, ganthas - the bodily tie (kayagantha), covetousness (abhijjha), ill-will (vyapada), clinging to rule and ritual (silabbata-paramasa), of dogmatical fanaticism (idamsaccabhinivesa) 4 ways of clinging, upadanas - sensuous clinging (kamupadana), clinging to views (dittupadana), clinging to mere rules and ritual (silabbatupadana), clinging to the personality-belief (atta- vadupadana) 5 hindrances, nivaranas - sensuous desire (kamacchanda), ill-will (vyapada), sloth and torpor (thina-middha), restlessness and scruples (uddhacca-kukkucca) and sceptical doubt (vicikiccha). 7 latent tendencies, anusayas - sensuous greed (kama-raga), grudge (patigha), speculative opinion (ditthi), sceptical doubt (vicikiccha), conceit (mana), craving for continued existence (bhavaraga), ignorance (avijja). 10 fetters, samyojanas - personality-belief (sakkaya-ditthi), sceptical doubt (vicikiccha), clinging to mere rules and ritual (silabbata-paramasa) sensuous craving (kama-raga), ill-will (vyapada), craving for fine-material existence (rupa-raga), craving for immaterial existence (arupa-raga), conceit (mana), restlessness (uddhacca), ignorance (avijja). 10 defilements, kilesas - greed (lobha), hate (dosa), delusion (moha), conceit (mana), speculative views (ditthi), sceptical doubt (vicikiccha), mental torpor (thina), restlessness (uddhacca), shamelessness (ahirika), lack of moral dread or unconscientiousness (anottappa). And what the Buddha taught were the ten Wholesome qualities to be encouraged and increased: The Paramis - The Perfection of Giving (dana-parami) The Perfection of Morality (sila-parami) The Perfection of Renunciation (nekkhamma-parami) The Perfection of Wisdom (panna-parami) The Perfection of Energy (viriya-parami) The Perfection of Patience (khanti-parami) The Perfection of Truthfulness (sacca-parami) The Perfection of Resolution (adhitthana-parami) The Perfection of Loving-kindness (metta-parami) The Perfection of Equanimity (upekkha-parami). metta, Christine 18252 From: nidive Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:03am Subject: Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi James, But in AN III.32, he explained what it IS. I am sure there are numerous scholars who have turned the pages of the Tipitaka over and over again. If there were any suttas where the Buddha said that nibbana is undefinable, I should have read them at AccessToInsight. After all, nibbana is such an important topic. If nibbana is undefinable, the Buddha would have asked his Bikkhus to shut up, because discussions about nibbana would be unprofitable. Is there any Vinaya rule that says something to that effect? Those Mahayana Buddhists as indeed poor and misguided anyway. James, I appreciate your effort in finding this sutta. But Bikkhuni Khema was not talking about nibbana. She was talking about self- views. All four questions asked by the King have self-view as a requisite. That was why all four questions were rejected by the Buddha. Bikhuni Khema said: "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is the Enlightened One, mighty, deep, unfathomable as the great ocean." But she did NOT say: "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is nibbana, mighty, deep, unfathomable as the great ocean." Clearly, the Enlightened One, though unbound, is not equivalent to nibbana. Bikkhuni Khema did not say that nibbana is mighty, deep, unfathomable as the great ocean. The purpose of this sutta is to eliminate self-views. The King clearly sees the Enlightened One as possessing a self by reference to the four questions he asked. Bikkhuni Khema was trying to 'divert' the King away from self-views. The statement "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is the Enlightened One, mighty, deep, unfathomable as the great ocean." does not have self-views as a requisite. I would not comment on what was written by the author of this article. I only comment on what was said by Bikkhuni Khema. My interpretation of the sutta is different from that of the author of this article. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18253 From: nidive Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:15am Subject: Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi James, > I would not comment on what was written by the author of this > article. I only comment on what was said by Bikkhuni Khema. My > interpretation of the sutta is different from that of the author > of this article. On second thought, I think it would be unskilful of me not to comment on this statement made by the author of this article. ... Therefore it was not appropriate to say he existed or did not exist, or existed and did not exist, nor did he neither exist nor not exist. All these designations could not define what was undefinable. ... It is inappropriate NOT because these designations could not define what was undefinable. It is inappropriate because these designations have self-views as the requisite. P.: Does an Awakened One exist after death? K.: The Exalted One has not declared that an Awakened One exists after death. P.: Then an Awakened One does not exist after death? K.: That too, the Exalted One has not declared. P.: Then the Awakened One exists after death and does not exist? K.: Even that, the Exalted One has not declared. P.: Then one must say, the Awakened One neither exists nor not exists after death? K.: That too, the Exalted One has not declared. If the Buddha had not declared, how could the author of this article declare as undefinable what the Buddha had not declared? It is like stuffing words into the Buddha's mouth when the Buddha had not even opened his mouth to speak. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18254 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Significant Event Dear James. :-) :-) op 26-12-2002 21:23 schreef James op buddhatrue@y...: I want to express my appreciation to `that Nina person' > for providing a role model of `Dhamma Dedication'. I hope everyone is > learning as much as I am. 18255 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo album Hi, I could nopt stop laughing. Nina. op 27-12-2002 17:33 schreef James op buddhatrue@y...: > > I tried to remove the grain in Peter's picture. I was successful to > some extent. I think it looks much better and gives a good idea of > Peter's visage (I can just hear him saying `Cheers!') As requested, > I also removed your gray hair. Additionally, I took the opportunity > to give you a more forceful appearance. I don't think anyone will > mess with you after they see this photo!! ;-) I also, for the > holiday season, fixed up a picture of Howard. It captures his Jolly > Spirit!! 18256 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Space element Steve, See below op 27-12-2002 07:27 schreef Bodhi2500@a... op Bodhi2500@a...: > > Abhidhammattha Sangaha Ch VIII, section 4, on pannattis: > vii) concept of space (akasa), such as a well or a cave. It is > derived from space which is not contacted by the four Great Elements. > >> From the Bahudhatuka Sutta M.> > > There are Ananda these 6 elements:The earth,water,fire,air,space and > consciousness element. > > > Could someone please explain what this space element is, is it a Paramattha > Dhamma or Pannatti/the concept of space as above ? Nina:space is a quality of rupa which delimits the kalapas, groups of rupa. There is space in between them so that they are distinct. When we read that space cannot be cut or ploughed, it is a conventional way of explaining its characteristic. There is space in the ear, a condition for hearing sound. I do not need to think, is this a concept or reality. It clarifies realities for me. Nina. 18257 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 30, Synopsis, sunnatavara Larry, op 27-12-2002 04:26 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > It looks to me like this section opens the contemplation of > consciousness and dhammas to include all the fine details and many ways > of classifying them of the abhidhamma. Does anyone know what text this > line refers to and what it means: > > "the instruction of the portion dealing with the void in the Abhidhamma > proceeded by means of the statement beginning with "At that time indeed > there are phenomena, there are aggregates [yam vibhavetum abhidhamme > tasmim kho pana samaye dhamma honti khandha hantiti adina > suññatavara desana pavatta]], without any mention of a soul" Nina: the subco has: su~n~natadhammassaati ``dhammaa hontii''tiaadinaa (dhammasangani 121) su~n~natavaare aagatasu~n~natasabhaavassa vasena. Now I go to: Dhammasangani, p. 30. 31, Emptiness section (sunnatavaro): Now, at that time there are states... khandhas,ayatanas (spheres), elements, etc. these are states (dhammaa honti) that are good (kusala). Now I go to: Explanation by the Atthasalini, Expositor,I, Part IV, Ch IV, p. 206: Of the section on the void or emptiness: <...And here there are only states (dhammas); no permanent being, no soul is known These (fiftysix states) are mere states without essence, without a guiding principle. And it is to show the emptiness of this that they are stated here also.Therefore the meaning should here be thus regarded. At what time the first main type of moral consciousness (kusala citta) experienced in the realm of sense arises, at that time, by virtue of being factors in consciousness, the fifty and more states which have arisen are ultimate things. There is nothing else whatever, neither a being, nor an individuality, nor a man nor a person. Likewise they are aggregates in the sense of groups...> Now straight after this explanation in the Expositor something of interest for Howard: There is Jhana, there is Path, in that way they were enumerated in the list in the Dhsg. But now about jhana factors: in this context, the jhana facors developed in samatha are referred to. But the word jhana factor can also be used in a more general sense: they also accompany akusala citta. Thinking, vitakka performs its function so that lobha-mula-citta views the object closely, it conditions the accompanying dhammas by way of jhana-condition. This is one of the twentyfour main conditions. See Ven. Nyanaponika: Abhidhamma Studies. Nina. 18258 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:32am Subject: Dhamma Issues, 2, Fruition Attainment, no 3. Dhamma Issues, 2, Fruition Attainment, no 3. 3. The Saddhammappakåsiní, Commentary to the Paìisambhidåmagga, Path of Discrimination, Khuddaka Nikåya, explains that the ariyan who can enter fruition-attainment must have attained jhåna. We read in the Commentary to Ch XXXIII, Abiding without Conflict (Arana Vihåra, peaceful abiding) about the understanding of peaceful abiding (arana vihåra). It explains about the arana vihåra dhammas as the means to be without defilements which are like enemies or cause beings to cry and lament. It states that the ariyans who can enter fruition attainment must have attained jhåna; only then can they be intent upon fruition-attainment. As it is said: ³ Panítådhimutta, they are intent upon fruition attainment. (panítå means: excellent, superior, what does not cause agitation and leads to predominance (8; adhimutta means: to be intent upon, inclined to). The inclination and disposition to fruition-attainment is called paùítådhimutta. It is the inclination to fruition-attainment which is subtle and refined. Paùítådhimutta is here actually the prerequisite 9 for paññå which is intent upon fruition-attainment.² At another part we read, ³ In the explanation of the first jhåna etc., the Commentator assists in explaining in the same way the term panítådhimutta.² In another part in the Commentary, in the explanation of ³Understanding of Peaceful Abiding², arana vihåra ñåna, we read about the arahat entering into fruition-attainment: ²With the words pathamam jhånam, the first jhåna, he speaks about the attainment of jhåna (jhåna samåpatti) which is the object of vipassanå of someone wanting to enter fruition-attainment of the stage of the arahat.² Even the arahat who does not have the hindrances, when he wants to enter fruition-attainment, he must have calm of citta of the degree of jhåna, from the first stage of jhåna onwards, and this is arana vihåra, peaceful abiding. We read: ³The meaning of the words Œpathamena jhånena nívarane harati ti, arana vihåro¹, is as follows: it is called arana vihåra, peaceful abiding, because it removes the hindrances by the first jhåna. It is explained that the first jhåna is called peaceful abiding because the factors which constitute the first jhåna remove the hindrances (nívarane harati). The other words of the text also explain this in the same way. One should know that the first jhåna has been referred to as removing the hindrances because the first jhåna is opposed to the hindrances and this is said also with regard to the arahat who does not have them anymore.² We read further on: ²...Jhåna attainment which is the foundation for vipassanå of fruition attainment². This clearly shows that in order to enter fruition-attainment one must be able to attain jhåna. footnotes: 8. We read in the ³Path of Discrimination², Ch XXXIII, Abiding without conflict about the predominance of seeing: that contemplation of impermanence, dukkha and anattå is predominance of seeing. The Commentary explains that seeing here is insight knowledge. 9. Paññå accompanying jhånacitta. 18259 From: James Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:20am Subject: NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi NEO, Wow! You are a good sparing partner! Okay, round two of the intellectual combat. Are you prepared? To paraphrase what Morpheus tells NEO in the movie `The Matrix', `You think I am stronger than you because I have a bigger body. That is not what matters. The sizes of our bodies are illusion; the mind is the only thing that is real.' In other words, the size of our arguments and sutta references are illusion also. The mind is the only thing that is real. Additionally, ss Morpheus says to Neo in the movie, "There's a difference between knowing the path and walking the path." (Ignoring the bloodshed, The Matrix is one of my favorite Buddhist movies. I am looking forward to the sequels coming out this summer.) Neo, you write: "Bikhuni Khema said: "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is the Enlightened One, mighty, deep, unfathomable as the great ocean." But she did NOT say: "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is nibbana, mighty, deep, unfathomable as the great ocean." Clearly, the Enlightened One, though unbound, is not equivalent to nibbana. Bikkhuni Khema did not say that nibbana is mighty, deep, unfathomable as the great ocean." This is where you make your great mistake in thinking. You are taking the `illusionary' as real. It isn't. You think I am real and you are real. We aren't real. Nibbana is the only thing that is real. What is Nibbana? Release from the unreal. Who was released from the unreal? The Buddha. What is the difference between the Buddha and Nibbana? NONE. Furthermore, what causes the unreal? Stress and agitation from ignorance, desire for existence, and craving cause the unreal. What are the characteristics of Nibbana? From the perspective of our unreal existence: Profound peace or calm. As the Buddha said, in the sutta you like, `"This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." Is this a description for the characteristics of nibbana? You seem to think so, but I disagree. You seem to think that Nibbana is like a secret knowledge that the Buddha had that the rest of us have to learn. Nope, that isn't the point. Nibbana isn't 'knowing' anything specific, it is releasing the mind from the very thing that formed it. Let me use an analogy to explain what I think the mind of the Buddha was like. He saw that we are all composed of five pieces, like a jigsaw puzzle with five pieces. He was able to disassemble those five pieces when he went into the highest Jhanic states and rest in pure nibbana without the aggregates assembled. However, he could also put the pieces back together so that he could deal and interact mentally with the mundane world. But with the pieces together, that didn't mean he had lost Nibbana, he still had it all the time because he knew that he was just five pieces to an illusionary jigsaw puzzle. He could remove one piece at a time, change the pieces, and manipulate them anyway he saw fit. He was nibbana. When he died, he entered the highest jhanic state, thus breaking apart the five pieces of the puzzle, and let them finally disappear. He entered parinibbana, without the aggregates any longer. He could have done this sooner, but decided to stick around for 45 years to teach the rest of us about our jigsaw puzzles. Now, you and I think our jigsaw puzzle is one thing and the complete picture of reality. We cannot begin to think outside of what that puzzle shows us. The Buddha could go between Nibbana and Samsara at will. He saw that Samsara is an illusion, we see it as real. We cannot know nibbana while we still see samsara as real. As Morpheus explains to Neo in `The Matrix': "As long as the Matrix exists, the human race will never be free." As long as a human is stuck in samsara, it cannot know or be in nibbana. Does this apply to all humans? If all humans were liberated would samsara cease to exist completely? This possibility applies to your comment about Mahayana Buddhists, which I will address at a later time. I have some other things to do today. Metta, James 18260 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha. . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha (Majjhima Nikaya), pg.928, Bahudhatuka Sutta, The Many Kinds of Elements.) Hi Larry and other "not self" contemplators... I wasn't quite sure whether this quote was in dispute or the translation of it perhaps. It seems as clear as clear can be. The argument that the term sankhara was changed to dhamma in the infamous quote -- "All conditioned things (sankharas) are impermanent, all conditioned things (sankharas) are dukkha, all things (dhammas) are not self" -- to include such things as "concepts" makes no sense. Concepts would fall under the category of sankhara's as they are conditioned phenomena. And certainly from an Abhidhamma point of view, where dhammas are considered ultimate realities, there would be no reason to include concepts under the heading "dhammas." However, one would expect to include Nibbanna under that heading. There is another quote from the 4 Great Nikayas (not sure of exactly where) where the Buddha says that -- the 5 aggregates are not self and there is no other reasonable place to look for a self other than (outside of) the 5 aggregates. In other words...there isn't a self anywhere to be found. (Perhaps our friend Ray might know the exact spot of this quote?) It seems that "self view" is so dominating that people want to look for it in every possible nook and cranny. Just a few more thoughts on the subject. TG 18261 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 0:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 30, Synopsis, sunnatavara Hi Nina, Thanks for the research. I didn't follow what "kusala" had to do with it, but the main point seemed to be that "atta", self, wasn't listed among the list of 52 ultimate dhammas. It's interesting that citta process is contemplated under cittanupassana and dhammanupassana and own characteristic and general characteristic (tilakkhana) are only contemplated under dhammanupassana. Although I'm sure one could see that body, feeling, or consciousness are not self while practicing those mindfulnesses. Btw, it occured to me that "mindfulness" in the sense of attentiveness is a better translation of "anupassana" than of "sati". I'm thinking of the "look at" definition of anupassana here. "Mindfulness" in the sense of being mindful of kusala dhamma or mindful of the truth would fit "sati". What do you think? Larry 18262 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 0:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi TG, Abhidhamma doesn't consider concepts to be sankhara because it doesn't consider them to be impermanent. Thinking about concepts and what we understand by a certain concept are impermanent but the concept itself is not, at least according to the abhidhamma system. Larry 18263 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 0:41pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry & TG, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Hi TG, > > Abhidhamma doesn't consider concepts to be > sankhara because it doesn't > consider them to be impermanent. Thinking about > concepts and what we > understand by a certain concept are impermanent > but the concept itself > is not, at least according to the abhidhamma system. > The Abhidhamma lists concept as something that doesn't have its distinct characteristics (sabhava), i.e., it doesn't exist, at least not in the same way as feeling, sanna, citta, etc, does. Because it doesn't exist, it doesn't arise or fall away. It's not really permanent, or impermanent (because it doesn't exist). This is in contrast to all the other categories of sankhara dhammas, and visankhara dhammas (nibbana), which have their own distinct characteristics. kom 18264 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 2:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo album --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > I tried to remove the grain in Peter's picture. I was successful to > some extent. I think it looks much better and gives a good idea of > Peter's visage (I can just hear him saying `Cheers!') > The pics can be viewed at this link: > http://www.geocities.com/buddhatrue/dsg.htm > > Metta, James Thank you James for your kind effort. I finally gave up on the cheep digital cam, and went out and got a booth picture, which a local photographer's then put onto a floppy disk. It has been uploaded and replaces the original. Whilst it is a more accurate representation I somehow preferred the original grainy version: such is vanity. Cheers Peter 18265 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 4:06pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Kom, It is true that according to Abhidhamma concepts are not paramattha dhammas but it would be incorrect to say concepts are not dhammas. Correct? If this is correct, the commentators would be correct in saying the word "dhamma" could includes both sankhara dhammas and concepts but the word "sankhara" would not include concepts. They simply didn't take up the question of the characteristics of nibbana in the passage we are discussing. I don't know, but perhaps the commentary to the "all dhammas are anatta" line that TG brought up follows this same kind of interpretation, refering to concepts rather than nibbana, as is commonly thought. This would coincide with Bhikkhu Bodhi"s assertion that the ancient commentaries as we have them from A. Buddhaghosa do not support the position that "dhammas" is meant to include nibbana here. Nibbana is of course a dhamma but there is no point to jumping to a conclusion on either side of the fence. Maybe we should send someone ahead to see what exactly nibbana is and they could report back. Larry 18266 From: James Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 4:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo album --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Thank you James for your kind effort. > > I finally gave up on the cheep digital cam, and went out and got a > booth picture, which a local photographer's then put onto a floppy > disk. It has been uploaded and replaces the original. Whilst it is > a more accurate representation I somehow preferred the original > grainy version: such is vanity. > > Cheers > Peter Hi Peter! Oh thank you! You look dashing!!! What in the heck are you talking about?? If I weren't attached, I would probably start looking for cheap fares!! ;-) Wow! Don't look at the imperfections you see… look at the whole picture. I am. Quite a drink of water that is!! ;-) Metta, James 18267 From: vehapphala Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member > From: > Hi, Beth - > ========================= > Welcome to the list from another member and an ex- Philadelphian! I was born in Philly *many* years ago, West Philly to be exact, and I remained there until my early 30's. snip.............................................. ..................................... > Are there any Theravadin groups, centers, wats, or other Theravadin > organizations in the area now? All I ever seem to see on lists are > non-Theravadin, Buddhist organizations in the Philly area. > > With metta, > Howard > ************************************** > Hello all, Hello Howard, > snip............................................ ................................ ... moved here to Blue Bell about five years ago. I've checked the web, only centers I've seen thus far aren't specifically Theravedan. > > ~peace, > Beth .................................................. .............................. 1. Hello. My first post. If any in error please advise and delete. 2. Live in USA, retired, and travel as much as possible. Plan to reside in Thailand. 3. When in the Philly area visit the Wat Thai Mongkoltepmunee in Bensalem, PA just north of Philly. The address is 3304 Knight Road. The phone number is 215.638.9755. All six Thai monks speak english. The acting abbot, Phra Maha Chewaa, currently is in southern Thailand because his father died recently. Phra Maha Suprit speaks the best english. 4. When in the DC area I visit Wat Thai DC in Springfield, MD. But, that may be too far for you. Will provide particulars should anyone request. 5. FWIW, I picked "vehapphala" as I may never attain this level much less nibbana. Perhaps, I should use, "puthujjana?" metta, Norm 18268 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 1:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars Hi Larry I'm still interested in your feedback on this quote that is directly attributed to the Buddha from the Majjhima Nikaya... “It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self – there is no such possibility.â€? (The Buddha. . . Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha, pg.928, Bahudhatuka Sutta, The Many Kinds of Elements.) TG 18269 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:42pm Subject: Keeping Sila Dear Group, I have been reading around the topic of Sila, what Sila is, Keeping Sila, possible changes to Sila, and Sila as silabbataparamasa (clinging to sila and wrong practice). In the Kimmatha Sutta, the Buddha says that keeping Sila leads to arahantship. Seems pretty straight forward to me, unless there's a hidden meaning. 'Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their reward?" <<>> The Blessed One explained: "Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by- step to the consummation of arahantship." ' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-001.html Keeping Sila as the Suttas set it out sometimes seems to be presented as old-fashioned and outdated, clinging to rules, something that can change for those more advanced on the Way because of the higher level of panna that arises, something that can change with the times, or that can change with the mores of different cultures. I occasionally have the feeling some are implying that there is not just one wholesome Code of Conduct for all Buddhists, in the Training Rules. I almost feel that there is one way for the manyfolk but another way for those with greater understanding. The Buddha spoke of the eight rewards in AN VIII.39, Abhisanda Sutta 'Rewards'. They consisted of going for Refuge to the Buddha, Dhamma and Sangha, plus the five gifts (precepts). Isn't that a lovely term for the Precepts? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-039.html "Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts -- original, long- standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning -- that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & priests. Which five? "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. And this is the fourth reward of merit..." Each of the other Precepts is taught and the words "original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning" are repeated each time. From an Abhidhamma perspective, can I integrate RobK's reminders in post 17647 and 17694, when he says, 'I think the only way is to really learn to see the characteristics of dhammas; then, so I believe, panna will know what is ultimately right or wrong; it is never us actually who is or is not keeping sila.' ... and ... 'Sila is a necessary part of the development of insight but sometimes we forget that sila is a really a very brief moment of conditioned nama. We tend to think I am keeping sila and that is still clinging to concept', by reference to the Cetana Sutta AN XI.2 'An Act of Will', http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-002.html "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. In this way, mental qualities lead on to mental qualities, mental qualities bring mental qualities to their consummation, for the sake of going from the near to the Further Shore." ... or am I still missing something about how we are to live in this world? metta, Christine 18270 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 1:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Concepts are Sankhara IMO Irrespective of Abhidhamma's stance, I believe that concepts are sankhara. Concepts arise dependent on conditions and what is dependently originated in also impermanent. Test yourself...just try to generate a concept in your mind that is outside of any conditioned circumstance you have ever encountered. It is impossible. You will be able to image a different world, or experience, or different universal dimension...but they will all be just composites of things heard or experienced earlier. In other words, they will only be able to arise dependent on conditions. A concept is as only as good as a conceptual image currently existing in the mind...and they rise and fall continuously. There are no "free floating," "preexisting" concepts that permeate the universe IMO. Concepts just arise based on the conditions necessary for their generation. They are like a mental bubble that arise and cease very quickly based on conditions. That's the way I understand it. TG 18271 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:54pm Subject: Re: New Member Hi Norm(vehapphala), Welcome. How interesting to have a 'deva/god of abundant fruit' on the list. :-) Perhaps, we may all see you in Thailand sometime? Do you have to use ordinary airplanes like the rest of we puthujjanas, or have you mastered the elbow bending and straightening trick of vanishing and reappearing? :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "vehapphala " wrote: > 5. FWIW, I picked "vehapphala" as I may never attain this level much > less nibbana. Perhaps, I should use, "puthujjana?" > > metta, > > Norm 18272 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 7:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars "It is impossible, it cannot happen that a person possessing right view could treat anything as self -- there is no such possibility"? Hi TG, I read this to mean nothing could logically be considered to be self (atta). However, a Vedanta adept would agree. I hadn't followed this thread until the above quote caught my eye, so this may have already been settled. The main issue for me is whether nibbana is a mere cessation without reoccurance or an indesribable heaven-like underlayment that is revealed when akusala cittas finally cease. I don't see any other alternatives. Heaven sounds pretty good but if it is a mere cessation we might want to consider if that is really what we want. I'm inclined toward the cessation interpretation, but I haven't decided if that is what I really want or if there is an alternative other than dukkha. Cease or suffer, are those the only choices? Larry 18273 From: James Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 9:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Heaven sounds pretty good but if it is a mere cessation we might want to > consider if that is really what we want. I'm inclined toward the > cessation interpretation, but I haven't decided if that is what I really > want or if there is an alternative other than dukkha. Cease or suffer, > are those the only choices? > > Larry Hi Larry and All, Oh please, do not have fear or doubt! The path of the enlightened is like a light that shines more brilliant than all that we can know. I understand what you feel because I feel it also. The closer one gets to the answer, the more the fear of losing the familiar attacks. What is the solution? Faith!!!!!!!!! We all must have faith that the Buddha, with his infinite wisdom and compassion, would not lead us to an unsatisfactory state. Would the Buddha lead us astray? Of course not!! You know it and I know it! We feel toward the Buddha like we do our own mothers. We would/do crawl into his lap, hug him tight to us, and make him our comfort and shelter from all that is bad in the world. Did he want that? Of course he did!! The secret is to not let stupid thoughts, arising from ignorance but which seem so intelligent, get in the way of knowing the truth. Changing from a caterpillar into a butterfly is not an easy or quick process, but it is one that we all should/must go through. Does the Lord Buddha now exist? I am not completely sure, but I think so. Each time I read a profound sutta, I feel him. Each time I look at a Buddha staute, I feel him. Each time I bow in deference or raise my hands in wai, without a thought for myself, I feel him. Each time I enter a quiet Buddhist temple, where the air is still penetrated and hanging motionless with the wisdom of the faithful and the remaining wisdom of the Tathagata, I feel him. I think he must be there…somewhere. We won't stop existing when nibbana is reached, we will just exist in a way more brilliant and profound than the way we exist now. This is what I believe. Larry, I hope these words touch your heart and your mind…and those others reading. Don't doubt if the end should be reached. Please trust that what awaits is worth the effort to get there. Metta, James ps. I have so much else I want to post right now, but not the time. Though you may not care really, I do. I just wanted to say something. 18274 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 9:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars Hi James, Metta to you also. Larry 18275 From: Andrew Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 10:37pm Subject: Re: Keeping Sila --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > > Keeping Sila as the Suttas set it out sometimes seems to be > presented as old-fashioned and outdated, clinging to rules, something > that can change for those more advanced on the Way because of the > higher level of panna that arises, something that can change with the > times, or that can change with the mores of different cultures. > I occasionally have the feeling some are implying that there is not > just one wholesome Code of Conduct for all Buddhists, in the Training > Rules. I almost feel that there is one way for the manyfolk but > another way for those with greater understanding. > Hi Christine, Thanks for another thought-provoking post. I have no difficulty with the idea that, to an extent, sila is culturally-relative. For example, taking what is not given is a moral discipline that is likely to present very differently in an Australian Aboriginal context than a white North American context. Because of different ideas of ownership. Here is a quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Noble Eightfold Path"; "Though the principles laid down in this section [sila] restrain immoral actions and promote good conduct, their ultimate purpose is not so much ethical as spiritual. They are not prescribed merely as guides to action, but primarily as aids to mental purification. As a necessary measure for human well-being, ethics has its own justification in the Buddha's teaching and its importance cannot be underrated. But in the special context of the Noble Eightfold Path, ethical principles are subordinate to the path's governing goal, final deliverance from suffering. Thus for the moral training to become a proper part of the path, it has to be taken up under the tutelage of the first two factors, right view and right intention, and to lead beyond to the trainings in concentration and wisdom." Happy New Year Andrew 18276 From: Andrew Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:06pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau " wrote: In reality, there are no Red > Cross volunteers, no butchers, no occupations, just nama > and rupa . -- the real Right Livelihood can > occur anywhere at any time. It's hard to grasp and sometimes, > we don't want to grasp it. The main thing is that we're working > on it :-) > Hi KenH The above comment didn't seem right to me, not because of what it said (a very profound comment on anatta) but on what it implied (to me)for the mundane worldling. Can you in reality be a slaughterman and practice right livelihood? In "The Noble Eightfold Path", Bhikkhu Bodhi makes an interesting point that is relevant here: "Obviously any occupation that requires violation of right speech and right action is a wrong form of livelihood, but other occupations, such as selling weapons or intoxicants, may not violate those factors and yet be wrong because of their consequences for others." In the mundane world, perhaps there is a role for "tinker, tailor" lists after all? Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to think so. A slaughterman who practices right livelihood would have a very short career indeed. He would have to resign before the first swing of the poleaxe. Up until then, I suppose, he could indeed practice right livelihood. To mundane worldlings largely blind to the present moment and glimpsing it only in retrospect, we can but "work on" realising the relevance of nama-rupa. In the meantime, we may need some mundane prompting to look at what we do and its consequences for others. I hope you've surfed off your Christmas pudding and I look forward to seeing you soon! Andrew 18277 From: Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 6:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi, Kom and all - In a message dated 12/28/02 3:42:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Larry &TG, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > > >Hi TG, > > > >Abhidhamma doesn't consider concepts to be > >sankhara because it doesn't > >consider them to be impermanent. Thinking about > >concepts and what we > >understand by a certain concept are impermanent > >but the concept itself > >is not, at least according to the abhidhamma system. > > > > The Abhidhamma lists concept as something that doesn't have > its distinct characteristics (sabhava), i.e., it doesn't > exist, at least not in the same way as feeling, sanna, > citta, etc, does. Because it doesn't exist, it doesn't > arise or fall away. It's not really permanent, or > impermanent (because it doesn't exist). > > This is in contrast to all the other categories of sankhara > dhammas, and visankhara dhammas (nibbana), which have their > own distinct characteristics. > > kom > =========================== Well, not having read from the Abhidhamma Pitaka itself, I can't confirm or deny the claim that this is the Abhidhammic position, but, in my opinion, if it *is*, then it is the result of confusing concepts with the alleged referents of concepts. Concepts per se are thoughts, and thoughts come and go, are modified, recreated, and replaced, and, in any case, are impermanent. The alleged referents of concepts, the pa~n~natti, are, in most cases, non-existent, though that does not make the thoughts themselves meaningless. The thoughts/concepts themselves, when they are "well grounded", are mental constructs that are packages of information serving as shortcut references for aggregates of interrelated dhammas. When one thinks in detail, fo example, about a specific tree which one "sees", one may realize that there is no single thing that is being "seen". What there is is a host of multiway processed images and visual perceptions (carvings out), overlayed, mentally composed, and mentally summed up to "the tree". That summing up is grounded in a host of interrelated experiences, and is, thus, not from "whole cloth", but to say that "the tree that is seen" is findable is false. At least, this is how I see 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) 18278 From: nidive Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:36pm Subject: NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi James, > You seem to think that Nibbana is like a secret knowledge that > the Buddha had that the rest of us have to learn. Nibbana is indeed a secret knowledge that the Buddha had. If he had not taught anyone about it, it would remain forever a secret that only he knew. Nibbana cannot be learnt. Nibbana has to be KNOWN. > Nibbana isn't 'knowing' anything specific, it is releasing the > mind from the very thing that formed it. Nibbana has to be KNOWN. But nibbana itself is not equivalent to 'knowing' anything. The following suttas clearly shows that nibbana has to be KNOWN. -------------------------------------------------------- "I will teach you the penetrative explanation that is a Dhamma explanation. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said: "And which penetrative explanation is a Dhamma explanation? "Sensuality should be known. The cause by which sensuality comes into play should be known. The diversity in sensuality should be known. The result of sensuality should be known. The cessation of sensuality should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of sensuality should be known. "Feeling should be known. The cause by which feeling comes into play should be known. The diversity in feeling should be known. The result of feeling should be known. The cessation of feeling should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of feeling should be known. "Perception should be known. The cause by which perception comes into play should be known. The diversity in perception should be known. The result of perception should be known. The cessation of perception should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of perception should be known. "Fermentations (asava) should be known. The cause by which fermentations come into play should be known. The diversity in fermentations should be known. The result of fermentations should be known. The cessation of fermentations should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of fermentations should be known "Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known. "Stress should be known. The cause by which stress comes into play should be known. The diversity in stress should be known. The result of stress should be known. The cessation of stress should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of stress should be known. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an06-063.html "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving." -- SN XLVI.11 "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the stilling of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving, dispassion, cessation, Unbinding." -- MN 64 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sacca3.html "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/nibbana.html KNOWING nibbana is equivalent to KNOWING the Third Noble Truth. -------------------------------------------------------- The Buddha is not equivalent to nibbana. The Buddha knows what is nibbana, but he himself is not nibbana. It is not that I perceive the Buddha to be real or possessing a self. For the Buddha was nothing but merely the five aggregates. At his death, the five aggregates are extinguished. Extinguished, there is no more becoming. When there is no more becoming, there is FINALITY. To say that the Buddha is equivalent to nibbana is to refuse to admit THAT FINALITY. It shows the continued desire for existence (for eternity). It complicates that which is non-complicated. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18279 From: nidive Date: Sat Dec 28, 2002 11:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars Hi Larry, > The main issue for me is whether nibbana is a mere cessation > without reoccurance or an indesribable heaven-like underlayment > that is revealed when akusala cittas finally cease. I don't see > any other alternatives. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn044.html#beyond "What lies on the other side of Unbinding?" "You've gone too far, friend Visakha. You can't keep holding on up to the limit of questions. For the holy life plunges into Unbinding, culminates in Unbinding, has Unbinding as its final end. If you wish, go to the Blessed One and ask him the meaning of these things. Whatever he says, that's how you should remember it." Then Visakha the lay follower, delighting & rejoicing in what Dhammadinna the nun had said, bowed down to her and, keeping her to his right, went to the Blessed One. On arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there he told the Blessed One the full extent of the conversation he had had with Dhammadinna the nun. When this was said, the Blessed One said to him, "Dhammadinna the nun is wise, Visakha, a woman of great discernment. If you had asked me those things, I would have answered you in the same way she did. That is the meaning of those things. That is how you should remember it." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, Visakha the lay follower delighted in the Blessed One's words. 'Final End' means just that; cessation without reoccurrence. > Heaven sounds pretty good but if it is a mere cessation we might > want to consider if that is really what we want. I'm inclined > toward the cessation interpretation, but I haven't decided if > that is what I really want or if there is an alternative other > than dukkha. Cease or suffer, are those the only choices? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-030.html Then Ven. Maha Kotthita went to Ven. Sariputta and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to Ven. Sariputta, "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, is it the case that there is not anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there both is & is not anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "...is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?" [Sariputta:] "Don't say that, my friend." [Maha Kotthita:] "Being asked if, with the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media, there is anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Being asked if ... there is not anything else ... there both is & is not anything else ... there neither is nor is not anything else, you say, 'Don't say that, my friend.' Now, how is the meaning of your words to be understood?" [Sariputta:] "The statement, 'With the remainderless stopping & fading of the six contact-media [vision, hearing, smell, taste, touch, & intellection] is it the case that there is anything else?' complicates non-complication.[1] The statement, '... is it the case that there is not anything else ... is it the case that there both is & is not anything else ... is it the case that there neither is nor is not anything else?' complicates non-complication. However far the six contact-media go, that is how far complication goes. However far complication goes, that is how far the six contact media go. With the remainderless fading & stopping of the six contact-media, there comes to be the stopping, the allaying of complication. Note 1. See MN 18. As Sn IV.14 points out, the root of the classifications and perceptions of complication is the thought, "I am the thinker." This thought forms the motivation for the questions that Ven. Maha Kotthita is presenting here: the sense of "I am the thinker" can either fear or desire annihilation in the course of Unbinding. Both concerns get in the way of the abandoning of clinging, which is essential for the attainment of Unbinding, which is why the questions should not be asked. Yes, either cease or suffer. There are no other choices. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18280 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 0:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Howard, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Abhidhammic position, but, in my > opinion, if it *is*, then it is the result of > confusing concepts with the > alleged referents of concepts. Concepts per se > are thoughts, and thoughts > come and go, are modified, recreated, and > replaced, and, in any case, are > impermanent. The alleged referents of concepts, > the pa~n~natti, are, in most > cases, non-existent, though that does not make > the thoughts themselves > meaningless. From what I can understand from what you said above, I think we are only different in the use of words. When I use the word concept, it invariably means pannatti, which is neither nama nor rupa and doesn't have its distinct characteristic. I don't use the word concept for thought, or thinking, which in abhidhammic position, is quite real (having its distinct characteristics). This usage is probably (unless other people say otherwise) common in Nina's and K. Sujin's (translated) work. The abhidhamma system categorizes the object of cognition into 6 types: 1) Visible object 2) Sound 3) Smell 4) Taste 5) Tangible object (hard, soft, cold, hot, tension, vibration) 6) Dhammarmana (including all other paramatha, sankhara and visankhara, dhammas except the above 7, and concept). Whatever can be the object of the mind, but is not paramatha, is what I refer to as concept (pannatti). Howard, I hope this sits well with you in meaning, even if not in words. kom 18281 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:09am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > Hi Kom, > > It is true that according to Abhidhamma concepts > are not paramattha > dhammas but it would be incorrect to say concepts > are not dhammas. > Correct? I can definitely say that concepts (pannatti) are not paramatha. However, dhammas are used in so many different ways that I think the word by itself is very much contextual. The Buddha's teachings is called a dhamma, but yet the concept "teaching" is not paramatha. I think there are some cases that pannatti is referred to as dhamma as well. I think in some places, the commentaries would clarify the usage of dhamma in the particular context. > If this is correct, the commentators would be > correct in saying the word > "dhamma" could includes both sankhara dhammas and > concepts but the word > "sankhara" would not include concepts. They > simply didn't take up the > question of the characteristics of nibbana in the > passage we are > discussing. If concept doesn't even exist, how could it be a self? I probably would drive myself insane if I take something that (obviously) doesn't even exist as a self. I don't know what the commentators say, but I wouldn't be surprised if they include both sankhara dhammas, and concepts in dhamma. I am surprised that you (I think) say that nibbana is not included as part of dhamma (sorry, didn't follow the thread completely, will do so when I have a chance). I don't think we are going to remove our own doubt whether or not nibbana is anatta or not just by textual references / inferences alone. Unless we experience nibbana, we will always have the potential to have this doubt. However, I have seen how anatta is explained in the sutta in three different ways: 1) How could anything impermanent be atta? 2) How could anything dukkha be atta? 3) How could anything that you do not control (like a king controls his retinue), that is conditioned (for sankhara dhammas), be atta? The first two can be readily used to logically explain why there is no atta in the aggregates. The last one can be used to explain both the aggregates and nibbana, and is a bit harder to explain. I think of having no control in the following ways: 1) it is conditioned => without the right conditions, the dhamma doesn't arise regardless of what we want: this applies to all sankhara dhammas. 2) having its distinct (which nobody controls) characteristics => while a characteristic appears to the mind, there is nothing else in that characteristic. There is nothing else in anger except for the characteristics of anger. There is nothing else in nibbana except for the characteristics of nibbana. Of course, the characteristics of nibbana is just beyond our imagination, because we do not experience anything close to the extinguishment of all conditioned realities. But..., this argument only works if you think that nibbana has a characteristics. But as anything related to nibbana, this argument can go on for days without any clearer understanding related to this topic... kom 18282 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 3:24am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila Hi Andrew, I understand your point about non-urban Aboriginal people and property. But I'm just not so sure about cultural relativism with respect to the Precepts. I have been reading Peter Harvey's Intro. to Buddhist Ethics and in the chapter on the shared foundations of Buddhist Ethics he says, "this assumes that there is such a thing as objectively wrong action. ... Given Buddhism's clear criteria of what is unwholesome action, it is quite happy to agree to this, with an action's 'wrongness' subsisting in a combination of the action itself and the state of mind in which it is done. It is not a matter of what a person happens to like or dislike (emotivism), or of what his or her society happens to approve or disapprove of (cultural relativism). (Keown, 1992: 64, 231-2). Thanks for the quotes you gave from Bhikkhu Bodhi where he says, in part: "for the moral training to become a proper part of the path, it has to be taken up under the tutelage of the first two factors, right view and right intention, and to lead beyond to the trainings in concentration and wisdom." However, outside of the special context of the Noble Eightfold Path, I would also agree with his remarks in the essay Nourishing the Roots (Wheel 259/260) "...the internal aspect is the more important from the standpoint of spiritual development, since bodily and verbal deeds acquire ethical significance primarily as expressions of a corresponding disposition of mind. In the sequence of spiritual training, however, it is moral discipline that comes first. For at the beginning of training, purification of character stands as an ideal which must be reached; it is not a reality with which one can start." metta, and a Happy New Year to all at Cooran, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > > > Keeping Sila as the Suttas set it out sometimes seems to be > > presented as old-fashioned and outdated, clinging to rules, something > > that can change for those more advanced on the Way because of the > > higher level of panna that arises, something that can change with the > > times, or that can change with the mores of different cultures. > > I occasionally have the feeling some are implying that there is not > > just one wholesome Code of Conduct for all Buddhists, in the Training > > Rules. I almost feel that there is one way for the manyfolk but > > another way for those with greater understanding. > > > > Hi Christine, > Thanks for another thought-provoking post. I have no difficulty with > the idea that, to an extent, sila is culturally-relative. For > example, taking what is not given is a moral discipline that is likely > to present very differently in an Australian Aboriginal context than a > white North American context. Because of different ideas of ownership. > > Here is a quote from Bhikkhu Bodhi's "Noble Eightfold Path"; > "Though the principles laid down in this section [sila] restrain > immoral actions and promote good conduct, their ultimate purpose is > not so much ethical as spiritual. They are not prescribed merely as > guides to action, but primarily as aids to mental purification. As a > necessary measure for human well-being, ethics has its own > justification in the Buddha's teaching and its importance cannot be > underrated. But in the special context of the Noble Eightfold Path, > ethical principles are subordinate to the path's governing goal, final > deliverance from suffering. Thus for the moral training to become a > proper part of the path, it has to be taken up under the tutelage of > the first two factors, right view and right intention, and to lead > beyond to the trainings in concentration and wisdom." > Happy New Year > Andrew 18283 From: Ramindu Weeratna Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 3:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Prophetic tradition within Buddhism Sorry for the late reply Christine, Being able to see the future is not only done by Buddhas, I hear it was done by yogis in ancient times. Do u know of the teacher of king suddodana - Asita KalaDevala. he was a brakmana(non Buddhist) who had the Anagatassa gnana(the ability of seeing the future) That’s why he smiled & cried at the birth of Siddhartha. he saw that siddartha will attain Buddha hood. But he saw that he’ll not be living to see it. Buddhas can see the past as far as it gets & Buddhas can see the future Its not prediction. I’ve heard that in Thripitaka there's a place where Lord Buddha had mentioned of great personalities who came after his passing away, like king Ashoka,etc (any one know where exactly it is ?) Don’t take this as a all seeing & all hearing as with god. I’v heard that, Only & only when he wishes to see some thing, he uses the wisdom which is used to do it & it is reviled to him. Hope This Helps May u be well & happy With Metta Ram ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth " Date: Wed, 25 Dec 2002 21:47:10 -0000 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Prophetic tradition within Buddhism > Dear Group, > > In the Jataka Tales vol i (77) 'Mahasupina-Jataka' the sixteen > dreams of King Pasenadi are clarified by the Buddha. Each time he > makes a comment to the King along the lines of, "Sire, that dream > shall have no issue in your days or in mine....." "This dream too > shall have its fulfilment only in days to come ..." "Here again the > dream shall not have its fulfilment until the future, in the days of > unrighteous kins ..." > Is there any support in the Suttas for the belief that these dreams > were prophetic dreams about a future time, and that some of the > dreams could relate to events in this time period? > Is there a prophetic tradition within Buddhism? > > metta, > Christine 18284 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right livelihood (was, Tinker, Tailor ...) Andrew You asked: "Can you in reality be a slaughterman and practice right livelihood?" Like sila, right livelihood is a moment of abstention from 'wrongness'. So if a slaughterman abstains from wrong speech in the course of his livelihood, the wholesome mental state would be the one that is called 'right livelihood'. It may be more helpful to think in terms of (momentary) abstention from wrong livelihood than 'being in a right-livelihood or wrong-livelihood occupation' or 'practising right livelihood'. Jon --- "Andrew " wrote: > wrote: > > In reality, there are no Red > > Cross volunteers, no butchers, no occupations, just nama > > and rupa . -- the real Right Livelihood can > > occur anywhere at any time. It's hard to grasp and sometimes, > > we don't want to grasp it. The main thing is that we're working > > on it :-) > > > Hi KenH > The above comment didn't seem right to me, not because of what it > said > (a very profound comment on anatta) but on what it implied (to > me)for > the mundane worldling. Can you in reality be a slaughterman and > practice right livelihood? > > In "The Noble Eightfold Path", Bhikkhu Bodhi makes an interesting > point that is relevant here: > "Obviously any occupation that requires violation of right speech > and > right action is a wrong form of livelihood, but other occupations, > such as selling weapons or intoxicants, may not violate those > factors > and yet be wrong because of their consequences for others." > > In the mundane world, perhaps there is a role for "tinker, tailor" > lists after all? Bhikkhu Bodhi seems to think so. A slaughterman > who > practices right livelihood would have a very short career indeed. > He > would have to resign before the first swing of the poleaxe. Up > until > then, I suppose, he could indeed practice right livelihood. 18285 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 1:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi, Kom - Yes, you are right. We are differing only in word usage, not content. With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/29/02 3:29:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > >Abhidhammic position, but, in my > >opinion, if it *is*, then it is the result of > >confusing concepts with the > >alleged referents of concepts. Concepts per se > >are thoughts, and thoughts > >come and go, are modified, recreated, and > >replaced, and, in any case, are > >impermanent. The alleged referents of concepts, > >the pa~n~natti, are, in most > >cases, non-existent, though that does not make > >the thoughts themselves > >meaningless. > > From what I can understand from what you said above, I think > we are only different in the use of words. When I use the > word concept, it invariably means pannatti, which is neither > nama nor rupa and doesn't have its distinct characteristic. > I don't use the word concept for thought, or thinking, which > in abhidhammic position, is quite real (having its distinct > characteristics). This usage is probably (unless other > people say otherwise) common in Nina's and K. Sujin's > (translated) work. > > The abhidhamma system categorizes the object of cognition > into 6 types: > 1) Visible object > 2) Sound > 3) Smell > 4) Taste > 5) Tangible object (hard, soft, cold, hot, tension, > vibration) > 6) Dhammarmana (including all other paramatha, sankhara and > visankhara, dhammas except the above 7, and concept). > > Whatever can be the object of the mind, but is not > paramatha, is what I refer to as concept (pannatti). > Howard, I hope this sits well with you in meaning, even if > not in words. > > kom > > /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) 18286 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 7:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Significant Event James, I like this, so good the see the connection of patience with all those other good qualities. We may just be fixed on patience and forget the connection. Nina op 28-12-2002 04:02 schreef James op buddhatrue@y...: > > Patience is indeed one the greatest virtues a person can cultivate. > And it is just about the hardest thing to practice; but so very > important. Patience is so difficult to have because just think about > what it requires: humility, wisdom, compassion, love, selflessness, > energy, dedication, faith, empathy, etc., etc., etc.,. 18287 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 7:12am Subject: The Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 8 The Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 8 We read in the ³Discourse on the Analysis of the Elements² (Middle Length Sayings III, no 140): Thus have I heard: At one time the Lord, walking on tour among the people of Magadha, arrived at Råjagaha and approached the potter Bhaggava; having approached, he spoke thus to Bhaggava the potter: ³If it is not inconvenient to you, Bhaggava, I would spend one night in your dwelling.² ³It is not inconvenient 4, revered sir, but there is here one gone forth who came before you to stay. But if he allow it, do stay, revered sir, according to your pleasure.² We see the patience of the Buddha who wandered for the benefit of others, in teaching the Dhamma, so that he could help those who were able to realize the four noble Truths. He walked on tour in Magadha, he stopped in the city of Råjagaha and came to see the potter. He did not go to a place that was pleasant and confortable. He asked for a sleeping place in the potter¹s workshop just for one night. We read in the Commentary to this sutta, the ³Papañcasúdaní² that the potter Bhaggava thought: ³Monks usually have different inclinations: some like to keep company, and others like to be alone. If the monk who came here first is someone who wants to be alone, he will say, ŒRevered sir, do not enter here, because I am already in this dwelling¹, so that the person who comes afterwards will go away. If this would happen, both people would quarrel. Thus, what has been given should be considered as such, and what has been done cannot be altered.² Therefore, he said, ³It is not inconvenient 4, revered sir, but there is here one gone forth who came before you to stay. But if he allows it, do stay, revered sir, according to your pleasure.² We read further on in the Sutta: At that time there was a young man of family called Pukkusåti who had gone forth from home into homelessness through faith in the Lord. He was the person who had arrived first at that potter¹s dwelling. Then the Lord approached the venerable Pukkusåti: ³If it is not inconvenient to you, monk, I will spend a night in this dwelling.² ²Spacious, friend, is the potter¹s dwelling; let the venerable one stay according to his pleasure.² We read in the Commentary to this Sutta: King Pukkusåti reigned over his kingdom in the city of Takkasilå and King Bimbisåra reigned over his kingdom in the city of Rajagåha, and they were of the same age. Between them there was a deep bond of affection, although they had never seen each other. Their friendship was established by means of the merchants who travelled between their two countries for the purpose of trade. 18288 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 8:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars Hi Swee Boon, Thanks for the sutta references, very appropriate. Thinking about this further, it occurred to me that cares and concerns about the nature of nibbana can be seen, even now, as nonabiding and unreliable and therefore not self. So where does that leave us in regard to pathwise strategies? Nowhere. It's too late to be deluded. We already don't exist. Larry 18289 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Howard, I liked your explanation of the referents of concepts, very clear. In abhidhamma both names and their meanings are considered to be concepts, but their referents are considered to be either real or not [my guess]. There is a short piece on this in CMA. I'm still not super clear on what existence is. As Kom says, it is a matter of having (or being?) an "own nature" (sabhava or salakkhana). Still, existence seems pretty tenuous to me, considering the nature of sankhara. I guess the logic is that a compound has to be a compound of some "thing". Larry 18290 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:38am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Kom, Here's the note from B. Bodhi that started the controversy. Notice that he says the commentaries say "dhamma", in this case, means sankhara and concepts but don't say anything about nibbana. The sutta is the Bahudhatuka Sutta from MN. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18219 Larry 18291 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars In a message dated 12/28/2002 7:20:45 PM Pacific Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > I hadn't followed this thread until the above quote caught my eye, so > this may have already been settled. The main issue for me is whether > nibbana is a mere cessation without reoccurance or an indesribable > heaven-like underlayment that is revealed when akusala cittas finally > cease. I don't see any other alternatives. > > Heaven sounds pretty good but if it is a mere cessation we might want to > consider if that is really what we want. I'm inclined toward the > cessation interpretation, but I haven't decided if that is what I really > want or if there is an alternative other than dukkha. Cease or suffer, > are those the only choices? > > Larry > I agree Larry. Thanks for clarifying it. I think though, that cessation becomes a more "desirable" goal when suffering is seen more clearly. When the reality of the mater is: that there isn't a self, that there is only a delusion that brings more sorrow than happiness, that impermanence is going to wipe out all formations that we are attached to, then escape (cessation) from sorrow and delusion doesn't have a "downside." The Buddha described cessation as "the highest happiness," and also described it in terms of the elimination of greed, hatred, and delusion. I think a slight mystery of what Nibbana really is will always exist in the mind until it is directly experienced. The Buddha's teaching go in the direction of less and less attachment, and in my limited experience, that seems to always lead to a higher level of happiness. It makes sense, then, that the ultimate non-attachment would lead to the highest happiness whatever that happiness may be. TG 18292 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars Hi TG, I agree. A life without attachment would be very special indeed, and would be of inestimable benefit to others. And though the Buddha's actions had no kammic consequences for him, they continue to have consequences for us, even today. Larry 18293 From: James Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 10:50am Subject: NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > The Buddha is not equivalent to nibbana. The Buddha knows what is > nibbana, but he himself is not nibbana. > > It is not that I perceive the Buddha to be real or possessing a > self. For the Buddha was nothing but merely the five aggregates. At > his death, the five aggregates are extinguished. Extinguished, there > is no more becoming. When there is no more becoming, there is > FINALITY. > > To say that the Buddha is equivalent to nibbana is to refuse to > admit THAT FINALITY. It shows the continued desire for existence > (for eternity). It complicates that which is non-complicated. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon HI NEO, Okay, the Buddha before he was enlightened was like us, right? He was composed of five aggregates, which he clung to. He thought he was real (had a self) and the people around him thought he was real. And he suffered as a consequence. He finally stopped clinging to those aggregates and became enlightened and The Buddha (The Enlightened One). Then he no longer the illusion of 'Siddhartha', he was 'The Buddha'. Nibbana and the Buddha, for all practical purposes, are the same. This is not a complication, it is a liberation. I understand the difficulity it is to understand this because the assumption is that if the Buddha achieved Nibbana, he must have 'known' was Nibbana was. Like if he felt pain, he would 'know' pain. But the Buddha could not 'know' with mental fabrications something that is the absence of mental fabrications. With his mental fabrications, he knew Nibbana as profound calm...but that wasn't really Nibbana. He described the state of Nibbana without mental fabrications as the 'unformed'; which again is a negative description and isn't really a 'graspable characteristic.' If Nibbana was something to `know', not everyone would be able to `know' it. Since Nibbana is a `state', everybody can achieve it. Again, you are making the mistake in thinking that Nibbana is a secret knowledge that we must learn. That is not the case. All of the quotes you give refer to knowing what causes samsara and knowing when those causes cease, not to 'knowing' the state of nibbana. As I showed you with the sutta references, trying to 'know' Nibbana is like trying to 'know' all of the grains of sand on the bank of the Ganges River or all the gallons of water in the ocean. It can't be done. You have yet to disprove this specific statement; you just keep restating a 'self' view of Nibbana. Nibbana isn't really `knowing' anything; it is when the mind is liberated from the three poisons then `self' and `samsara' are seen as illusion. Here is a test: Tell me one thing that you could guarantee that every single person in the world could cognitively `know'. I don't think there is any such one thing. Everyone has such different minds, different perspectives, different backgrounds, etc., that we all see the world in a different way. But, nibbana is the same for everyone and everyone can achieve it. Why? Because it doesn't come from the mind, it comes from the dissolution of the mind's component parts. Nibbana can't be `known', it can only be `achieved'. Metta, James ps. I know that many people write about 'knowing' nibbana, but that is for convenience sake. Nibbana isn't a knowing, it is a negation to becoming. 18294 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 0:01pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 8:43 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars > Hi Swee Boon, > > Thanks for the sutta references, very appropriate. Thinking about this > further, it occurred to me that cares and concerns about the nature of > nibbana can be seen, even now, as nonabiding and unreliable and > therefore not self. So where does that leave us in regard to pathwise > strategies? Nowhere. It's too late to be deluded. We already don't > exist. > > Larry > > Hi Larry a bit of a side note. Even though the Buddha taught there was no self, he did not teach we do not exist. The answer to this riddle lies in Dependent Origination. From SN XII.48 The Cosmologist, "Staying at Savatthi. Then a brahman cosmologist [1] went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, exchanged courteous greetings with him. After an exchange of friendly greetings & courtesies, he sat to one side. As he was sitting there, he said to the Blessed One, "Now, then, Master Gotama, does everything [2] exist?" "'Everything exists' is the senior form of cosmology, brahman." "Then, Master Gotama, does everything not exist?" "'Everything does not exist' is the second form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Oneness?" "'Everything is a Oneness' is the third form of cosmology, brahman." "Then is everything a Manyness?" "'Everything is a Manyness' is the fourth form of cosmology, brahman. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. " End of quote. For me one of the most influential explanations of this middle way of dependent origination comes from the Visuddhimagga, "...so it has been termed here thus by the Sage who is skilled in phraselolgy that confoorms to its meaning: it has been accurately termed 'dependent origination' is the meaning, and while so termed: The first component will deny the false veiw of eternity And so on, and the second will pervent The nihilistic type of view and others like it, while the two Together show the true way that is meant." The expression of D.O. that helps me the most in meditation and contemplation is what I call the general formation of dependent origination. From MN 113 we read within the Sutta Ananda speaking: "But, vereralbe sir, (the Buddha), in what way can a bhikkhu be called skilled in dependent origination?" " Here, Ananda, a bhikkhu knows thus: 'When this exists, that comes to be; with the arising of this, that arises. When this does not exist, that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases." This formulation helps me in driving home the teachings of impermeance and non-self.... Ray 18295 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 3:14pm Subject: Re: Keeping Sila --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > It is not a matter > of what a person happens to like or dislike (emotivism), or of what > his or her society happens to approve or disapprove of (cultural > relativism). (Keown, 1992: 64, 231-2). > Christine, I don't know if this is true or not, but I read that in pre-European contact times, some Pacific Islander communities permitted husbands and wives to sleep with whomever. It was culturally acceptable and, as such, did not cause fights or the raising of eyebrows. In the context of that culture, would this be "sexual misconduct"? Do we stick with the culture the Buddha was born into and, for example, say that it is sexual misconduct to have relations with a female convict? Or do we re-interpret these sutta words, as Bhikkhu Bodhi does, to say that "female convicts" means "those prohibited as partners by the law of the land"? If there is no degree of cultural relativism at all, do we not risk becoming dogmatic and rule-driven? [I don't know the answers, by the way, and am hoping you have some clues]. By the way, you'll be pleased to learn that Smokey Joe is on a feline diet!! Andrew 18296 From: Andrew Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 3:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Right livelihood (was, Tinker, Tailor ...) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Andrew > > You asked: > "Can you in reality be a slaughterman and practice right livelihood?" > > Like sila, right livelihood is a moment of abstention from > 'wrongness'. So if a slaughterman abstains from wrong speech in the > course of his livelihood, the wholesome mental state would be the one > that is called 'right livelihood'. > > It may be more helpful to think in terms of (momentary) abstention > from wrong livelihood than 'being in a right-livelihood or > wrong-livelihood occupation' or 'practising right livelihood'. > > Jon > Thanks Jon I think I understand that from previous posts. But does that not reduce right livelihood to a synonym for right thought/speech/action? Why did the Buddha talk about right livelihood and usury and soothsaying etc? What does it add to the teachings on right thought/speech/action? Andrew 18297 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 4:07pm Subject: Way 31, Comm, Synopsis "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera The Section of the Synopsis p.42 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html If, in the meditator's body, called the world, covetousness and grief are abandoned, in the worlds of his feelings and so forth too, these are abandoned owing to the earlier abandoning of these by the yogi [kamañcettha kayasankhate loke abhijjha domanassam pahinam vedanadi lokesu pi tam pahinameva pubbe pahinatta]. Still, everywhere, the abandoning of the defilements has been stated by way of the different types of persons and by way of the diversity of the thought-unit, in which the development of the different subjects of the Arousing of Mindfulness takes place [nana puggalavasena pana nana cittakkhana satipatthana bhavanavasena ca sabbattha vuttam]. Or it should be understood thus: It is stated in this manner in order to indicate that the abandoning of the defilements in one object implies the abandoning of the defilements in the remaining objects. [Tika] Therefore, it is not fit to speak again of the abandoning of these; for while the defilements are abandoned, they are not abandoned separately in one object after another, -- i.e., the defilements pertaining to the body, for instance, are not first abandoned and then those belonging to the feeling and so forth, in succession, but the defilements of all objects are abandoned when the defilements are abandoned in one object. [T] That is due to the fact that only the defilements which can arise in the future are capable of being abandoned through the scorching out of the causes by the attainment of the Path or through measures that make the causes temporarily impotent, because of the observance of virtue and the development of absorption. Past defilements and those arising in the present are beyond the scope of abandoning. [T] The abandoning of the defilements of one object in the thought-unit of the Path is indeed the abandoning of the defilements of all objects. [T] It is right to say that by the Path, are the defilements abandoned. [T] The abandoning of the defilements of one person is not necessarily the abandonding of the defilements of another person [nahi ekassa pahinam tato aññassa pahinam nama hoti]. Reference to the different types of persons is made to point this fact of possible difference of method by way of object. [T] "The diversity of the thought-unit." The mundane thought-unit is meant, as the preliminary path is dealt with here. [T] What is abandoned temporarily by mundane meditation in the body, is not suppressed in the feelings and the other objects. [T] Even if covetousness and grief should not occur in the feelings and the other objects, when it is suppressed in the body, it should not be stated that owing to efficient rejection by meditation opposed to covetousness and grief, there is no covetousness and grief in the other objects such as feelings and in the case of suppression by meditation, therefore, it is fit to speak of the rejection of covetousness and grief again in feelings and the other objects. [T] The defilements abandoned in one object are abandoned in the remaining objects too [ekattha pahinam sesesu pi pahinam hoti]. This statement refers to the supramundane meditation of Mindfulness-arousing. In the case of mundane meditation the rejection is stated everywhere with reference to bare non-occurrence of the defilements [lokiya bhavanaya sabbattha appavatt mattam sandhaya vuttam]. [T] In regard to the four objects of contemplation through the Arousing of Mindfulness, it is said in the Vibhanga thus: Even the Five Aggregates are the world [pañca pi khandha lokoti hi Vibhange catusu pi thanesu vuttanti]. 18298 From: Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 4:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars Hi Ray, Thanks for the notes on dependent arising. It's always worthwhile contemplating this. What I meant by "we already don't exist" is that no person exists and nothing of any lasting significance arises when cares and concerns arise and this is not a state that we may or may not aspire to enter. It is already the case. best wishes, Larry 18299 From: James Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 4:55pm Subject: Re: Anatta - forget the scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > Hi Larry a bit of a side note. Even though the Buddha taught there was > no self, he did not teach we do not exist. The answer to this riddle lies > in Dependent Origination. Hi Ray, I am not sure if I completely agree with you. Of course it depends on how one defines `exist'. We exist and yet do not exist. We exist, and samsara exists, very much like a fire exists. When ignorance is present, it fuels our existence just as fire is fueled by wood. Does fire exist? Yes, but it only exists as a condition of certain factors. Fire can't be put in a bottle and doesn't have a material existence other than energy. When the fuel is taken away, the fire goes away. Where does it go? Well, it doesn't go anywhere; it's just that the conditions that created it have been removed. So it didn't really exist on its own. We are under the illusion that we exist on our own and independent of causes. We are ignorant of our true existence, which is transitory and non-self. By the most common definition of the term `exist: To have actual being; be real' I would say that we don't exist. We are under the illusion of existing as a separate and independent being. However, the Buddha, who had removed the source for his existence, REALLY didn't exist anymore. He didn't exist in his mind or in actuality. He had `gone out'. Here are some sutta quotes to support this explanation of mine: ""And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-086.html "Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as you see fit. How do you construe this, Vaccha: If a fire were burning in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front of me'?" "...yes..." "And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?" "...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'" "If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?" "...yes..." "And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?" "That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished -- from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other -- is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)." "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply. "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html Metta, James 18300 From: James Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 5:26pm Subject: NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) HI NEO, I wanted to give you one more sutta reference where the Buddha states, unequivocally, that Nibbana is impossible to describe or cognitively 'know': Upasiva: One free from passion for all sensual pleasures relying on nothingness, letting go of all else, released in the highest emancipation of perception: Does he stay there unaffected? The Buddha: One free from passion for all sensual pleasures relying on nothingness, letting go of all else, released in the highest emancipation of perception: He stays there unaffected. Upasiva: If he stays there, O All-around Eye, unaffected for many years, right there would he be cooled & released? Would his consciousness be like that? The Buddha: As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind goes to an end that cannot be classified,[2] so the sage free from naming activity goes to an end that cannot be classified. Upasiva: He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you. The Buddha: One who has reached the end has no criterion [3] by which anyone would say that -- for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with,[4] all means of speaking are done away with as well. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp5-06.html Please pay particular attention to this last response from the Buddha. So you see, the Buddha did say that Nibbana was impossible to describe. Did the Buddha `know' Nibbana? Nibbana is, as he states, something that `cannot be classified'. In other words, it cannot be known with cognitive thought. Metta, James 18301 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 6:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2002 4:55 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > > > Hi Larry a bit of a side note. Even though the Buddha taught > there was > > no self, he did not teach we do not exist. The answer to this > riddle lies > > in Dependent Origination. > > Hi Ray, > > I am not sure if I completely agree with you. Of course it depends > on how one defines `exist'. We exist and yet do not exist. We > exist, and samsara exists, very much like a fire exists. When > ignorance is present, it fuels our existence just as fire is fueled > by wood. Does fire exist? Yes, but it only exists as a condition of > certain factors. Fire can't be put in a bottle and doesn't have a > material existence other than energy. When the fuel is taken away, > the fire goes away. Where does it go? Well, it doesn't go anywhere; > it's just that the conditions that created it have been removed. So > it didn't really exist on its own. Hi James, Yes I agree with what you are saying here. > > We are under the illusion that we exist on our own and independent of > causes. We are ignorant of our true existence, which is transitory > and non-self. By the most common definition of the term `exist: To > have actual being; be real' I would say that we don't exist. We are > under the illusion of existing as a separate and independent being. It seems here you are saying that because the Buddha taught that the self does not exist he also taught nothing exists? I think this notion of a common definition of existence is covered under the teachings of non-self, rather than teaching on existence or non-existence. > However, the Buddha, who had removed the source for his existence, > REALLY didn't exist anymore. He didn't exist in his mind or in > actuality. He had `gone out'. In terms of the Buddha's parinibbana I think the Suttas you quote seem to be saying that the terms exist or does not exist does not apply. I dont see how they support the position that the Buddha REALLY didn't exist anymore? Then again, it will not be the first time I missed something LOL......Ray (PS I am leaving the Suttas you quoted in this message as a reference) > > Here are some sutta quotes to support this explanation of mine: > > ""And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a > truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to > declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative > man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is > described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata > exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not > exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > > "No, lord." > > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only > stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-086.html > > > "Of course you're befuddled, Vaccha. Of course you're confused. Deep, > Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, tranquil, > refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by > the wise. For those with other views, other practices, other > satisfactions, other aims, other teachers, it is difficult to know. > > That being the case, I will now put some questions to you. Answer as > you see fit. How do you construe this, Vaccha: If a fire were burning > in front of you, would you know that, 'This fire is burning in front > of me'?" > > "...yes..." > > "And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in > front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would > you reply?" > > "...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning > dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'" > > "If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know > that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?" > "...yes..." > > "And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in > front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? > North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?" > > "That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a > sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished -- from having > consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other -- is > classified simply as 'out' (unbound)." > > "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the > Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its > root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the > conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from > the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, > hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not > reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't > apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply. > "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... > > "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would > describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, > like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, > not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of > consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to > fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' > doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't > apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html > > Metta, James > 18302 From: James Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 6:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta - forget the scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > > Hi James, > It seems here you are saying that because the Buddha taught that the > self does not exist he also taught nothing exists? Hi Ray, He did not teach this specifically, because it is outside of the realm of dukkha and the cause of dukkha, but he might have taught this unintentionally. I am currently, when I have time, researching the illusionary nature of 'self' and 'samsara'. I am also looking at their cause, 'ignorance'. Since 'the self' is illusion, it only stands to reason that samsara is illusion as well; or does it? If it is illusion, what causes it? Are we all to blame? Are we illusionary entities semi-existing in an illusionary world of our own making? Interesting questions. Though this may seem the realm of Mahayana Buddhism it really isn't. I will post when I have completed my research and have 'all my ducks in a row'. :-) Metta, James 18303 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Dec 29, 2002 9:58pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry, I have looked at the two notes that you posted, as well as the specific section in the sutta in question. Here's my opinion (watch out!): In the first note, I think B. Bodhi offers (unknown if it was his opinion) an explanation of what Dhamma here means, and the explanation includes nibbana as part of dhamma. However, he is also saying that the commentaries do not explicitly offer this explanation, and he is disclaiming that the explanation is part of the commentaries. He (unfortunately for us) doesn't point out other places that might support or disprove this explanation. In the commentaries (Thai version) of this sutta, the commentaries simply point out that the Buddha didn't say "sankhara" in the last set, but said "dhamma" to include concepts that are objects of jhana meditation. The commentary does not exclude nibbana from this set, although it neither explicitly includes it. However, it is common that the commentaries (sometimes) do not explain what has already been explained earlier (either in DN or earlier MN), or is already well understood. In MN 1.26, Mulapariyaya sutta, the Buddha was explaining how the unlearned worldlings perceives dhammas differently from learned worldlings (successively all the way to the Buddha himself). From the sutta: He perceives Nibbana as Nibbana. Having perceived Nibbana as Nibbana, he conceives [himself as] Nibbana, he conceives [himself] in Nibbana, he conceives [himself apart] from Nibbana, he conceives Nibbana to be 'mine,' he delights in Nibbana. Why is that? because he has not fully understood it, I say. If you come from my point of view, where I have learned that the (real) Nibbana cannot possibly be object as self, nor the object of attachment. This short statement about Nibbana (by the Buddha) would be indeed very puzzling. The commentaries clear this up by saying that the word Nibbana here only refers to the common (wrong) views of that time about what Nibbana was (as sensory delights, or the absorption of the 4 jhanas): the commentaries implicitly excludes the real Nibbana from what is called Nibbana in this section. There is no need to explain anything about the real nibbana at this point because what is referred to is not about nibbana. I don't think the Commentators were avoiding the issue about Nibbana being anatta in this passage. Larry, I am very delighted with dhamma friends who are very detailed with their studies (like you are), because I think it is a resolve to study the truth/or what is said (and I learn much from such a person). However, I don't think you could form a supportable opinion on this issue based on just these two suttas. K. Sujin encourages us not to rush to a conclusion based on just few fragments from the tipitaka, but we should do our best to get points from other parts of the tipitaka too (which I cannot offer at this point). As for the opinion of the scholars, I don't think it is as important as the truths. But since we cannot possibly know the truths (nibbana) right now, perhaps it is best to carefully study many tipitaka references (and the commentaries) on this issue and form a picture in our mind about what the tipitaka/commentaries really say (instead of relying on other people's opinion). kom 18304 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Keeping Sila Hi Andrew (& Christine later), It seems a long time since we’ve chatted. I’m really appreciating the break in your studies and the chance to listen in on your chats with Chris and others. --- "Andrew " > If there is no degree of cultural relativism at all, do we not risk > becoming dogmatic and rule-driven? ..... I think this would very much be the popular view - i.e the Vinaya rules for bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, precepts, moral guidelines and other aspects of the Buddha’s teachings are out of date, culturally bound, dogmatic and to be picked at according to convenience;-)I also appreciate your comments to Ken H in which you point out that whilst “working on” realising the ‘relevance of nama-rupa’, ‘we may need some mundane prompting to look at what we do and its consequences for others’. You mention other culturally accepted norms. I think the confidence in sila and other wholesome qualities will always go against the stream and like Chris, I’m sceptical about ‘cultural relativism with respect to the precepts’. I think her quote from Peter Harvey made a good point: “It is not a matter of what a person happens to like or dislike (emotivism), or of what his or her society happens to approve or disapprove of (cultural relativism).” ***** It may appear that the alternatives cause no harm and that everyone is happy but it is seldom so simple. When we first arrived in Hong Kong, it was still the norm amongst many from China to have concubines and some of my students had more than one mother as a result, which always seemed to cause complications. It was also the norm for the other expatriate lawyers from Jonothan’s division to go off to Manila for the weekend for fun without their wives. Being ‘one of the boys’ was almost a prerequisite for promotional advancement. Jon was considered pretty odd at that time because he didn’t drink or party and was scrupulously honest in his Prosecution work. In the interview for his job, his Australian boss asked him if it was true, as rumoured, that he liked to lie on a bed of nails to meditate;-). Everyone seemed cheerful about the ‘norms’, but life is never so simple. Many young families came unstuck in the process. Most his colleagues and bosses are Chinese these days and his values and lifetsyle are now well-respected by others too;-) The more confidence one has in the value of sila and of all wholesome states, the easier it is to abstain from wrong speech, action and livelihood, no matter what the peer pressure or rewards may be. However, I think we also start off ‘where we are’. If one’s livelihood is working in a slaughterhouse, as one sees the harm in killing, gradually there will be fewer and fewer conditions for these acts. A sotapanna cannot break the precepts under any conditions, but until that time, the development is gradual. Someone may know that working in a slaughterhouse would lead to wrong livelihood but would swat flies or mosquitoes in the kitchen at home, exaggerate expenses claims on tax forms or use office equipment or wrong speech at work for personal gain without compunction. I think we all have many opportunities in a day to follow good sila or the reverse. I feel very fortunate and blessed to live with somone who has the highest integrity and who sets an example for me by seeing the harm in the slightest deviation from what is ‘right’ no matter what the circumstances or cultural norms. It’s very easy to be casual or careless about one’s actions and the consequences. I really appreciate the Abhisanda sutta Christine quoted from in this regard about the five gifts (precepts) “that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgable contemplatives & priests....” These gifts “original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the beginning” cannot be underestimated as I see it. ***** Christine, you ask about the value of sila, the Abhidhamma perspective and living “in this world”. I don’t see any conflict or distinction. Wholesome states including right speech, action and livelihood will only develop with the keen understanding that clearly knows the difference between moments of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’. As Andrew quoted B.Bodhi as saying: “Thus for the moral training to become a proper part of the path, it has to be taken up under the tutelage of the first two factors, right view and right intention.....” Clearly understanding dhammas as conditioned and not-self is not an excuse or justification for any unwholesome action. Clearly this would be wrong view. On the contrary, panna clearly knows what needs to be developed, what is harmful and prompts the samvegga (sense of urgency) to develop that which is beneficial to all. I really like your other quote from the Cetana Sutta as well: “Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom from remorse as their reward. In this way, mental qualities lead on to mental qualities, mental qualities bring mental qualities to their consummation, for the sake of going from the near to the Further Shore.” ***** Thank you also for your helpful New Year’s list of cankers/clingings etc. We can see from the many classifications that the same defilements are explained and categorised in different ways to help people understand the dangers of them. I think the more they are understood as impermanent dhammas which are anatta, the less depressing they seem. ***** I look forward to further discussion from you both and others too. I commiserate with Smokey Joe on his feline diet, Andrew;-( A good example of how kind acts are not always appreciated;-) Sarah ======= 18305 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member Hi Norm, Let me join Christine in welcoming you here and also to thank you for introducing yourself;-) --- "vehapphala " wrote: > > > 1. Hello. My first post. If any in error please advise and delete. > > 2. Live in USA, retired, and travel as much as possible. Plan to > reside > in Thailand. .... No errors at all - very glad to hear from you. Sounds like you have some interesting retirement plans. Keep us updated with your travels to Asia! It sounds like you have some Thai and Pali knowledge - look forward to hearing more. There are quite a few Thais here as well. > 5. FWIW, I picked "vehapphala" as I may never attain this level much > less nibbana. Perhaps, I should use, "puthujjana?" .... Thanks for being prompted to come in with the other helpful info for Beth & Howard. It's always better to have 'higher states' as reminders and as an encouragement, perhaps;-) Look f/w to more..let us know if you have any questions or problems making yourself at home here.... Sarah ===== 18306 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi James & Swee Boon, Appreciating your discussions very much. Look forward to many more;-) I thought this post of Swee Boon's was particularly helpful: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages/18278 --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > Nibbana cannot be learnt. Nibbana has to be KNOWN. > > > > Nibbana isn't 'knowing' anything specific, it is releasing the > > mind from the very thing that formed it. > > Nibbana has to be KNOWN. But nibbana itself is not equivalent > to 'knowing' anything. The following suttas clearly shows that > nibbana has to be KNOWN. > > -------------------------------------------------------- > "I will teach you the penetrative explanation that is a Dhamma > explanation. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > > The Blessed One said: "And which penetrative explanation is a Dhamma > explanation? > > "Sensuality should be known. The cause by which sensuality comes > into play should be known. The diversity in sensuality should be > known. The result of sensuality should be known. The cessation of > sensuality should be known. The path of practice for the cessation > of sensuality should be known. ================================ 18307 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:31am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila Hi Andrew, You say: "If there is no degree of cultural relativism at all, do we not risk becoming dogmatic and rule-driven?" C: Thinking this over, I think that my answer is 'yes, possibly, but not necessarily'. Does having a firm base in the five precepts have to mean dogmatism? The problem as I see it is that customs of a country are usually formulated by the most powerful group acting in ways that are most beneficial and convenient to them. Mostly, throughout history this group has consisted of high status adult males. There is a trickle down effect to less powerful groups of males. Females and small children were simply seen as chattels - moveable property, and their wishes were rarely considered. I think this process still occurs today - the groupings may change a lttle, the tools are different (the media as opposed to the pulpit) but the most powerful still heavily influence and benefit from the customs of a country. What degree of flexibility should there be in the meaning of the Precepts? And who decides? For instance, with regard to the first Precept - not to take the life of any sentient being, would cultural relativism mean this should not apply to Buddhists where one of the customs of the country is that people participate in blood sports and pastimes like hunting animals and birds with powerful rifles or bows and arrows, fishing, or bull fighting etc.? With regard to the fifth Precept - to abstain from drugs and intoxicants, should this not apply to Buddhists in Western countries where their use is clearly a popular custom of the country for a majority of people? Slippery slope don't you think? What was the original purpose of the Precepts? From the suttas already mentioned, they originated as advice on the course of conduct most favourable to the production of good Kamma. So, I'm still leaning towards thinking the Precepts should be viewed from a universal point of view as opposed to what is dictated by time, place, customs, circumstances, and personal interpretation. My sympathies to Smokey Joe - Tell him the one about 'a moment on the lips, a lifetime on the hips'. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > It is not a matter > > of what a person happens to like or dislike (emotivism), or of what > > his or her society happens to approve or disapprove of (cultural > > relativism). (Keown, 1992: 64, 231-2). > > > > Christine, I don't know if this is true or not, but I read that in > pre-European contact times, some Pacific Islander communities > permitted husbands and wives to sleep with whomever. It was > culturally acceptable and, as such, did not cause fights or the > raising of eyebrows. In the context of that culture, would this be > "sexual misconduct"? > Do we stick with the culture the Buddha was born into and, for > example, say that it is sexual misconduct to have relations with a > female convict? Or do we re-interpret these sutta words, as Bhikkhu > Bodhi does, to say that "female convicts" means "those prohibited as > partners by the law of the land"? > If there is no degree of cultural relativism at all, do we not risk > becoming dogmatic and rule-driven? > [I don't know the answers, by the way, and am hoping you have some clues]. > By the way, you'll be pleased to learn that Smokey Joe is on a feline > diet!! > Andrew 18308 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 3:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Prophetic tradition within Buddhism Hi Ram, Thanks for this information - I found it very interesting. Does the fact that people can see the future, mean it is already settled? Wouldn't this mean there is no point in making any effort to listen to and follow the Dhamma - what difference would it make if the future already exists? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ramindu Weeratna" wrote: > Sorry for the late reply Christine, > > Being able to see the future is not only done by Buddhas, I hear it was done by yogis in ancient times. > Do u know of the teacher of king suddodana - Asita KalaDevala. he was a brakmana(non Buddhist) who had the Anagatassa gnana(the ability of seeing the future) That's why he smiled & cried at the birth of Siddhartha. he saw that siddartha will attain Buddha hood. But he saw that he'll not be living to see it. > > Buddhas can see the past as far as it gets & Buddhas can see the future Its not prediction. I've heard that in Thripitaka there's a place where Lord Buddha had mentioned of great personalities who came after his passing away, like king Ashoka,etc (any one know where exactly it is ?) > > Don't take this as a all seeing & all hearing as with god. I'v heard that, Only & only when he wishes to see some thing, he uses the wisdom which is used to do it & it is reviled to him. > > Hope This Helps > May u be well & happy > With Metta > Ram 18309 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Right livelihood (was, Tinker, Tailor ...) Andrew --- "Andrew " wrote: ... > Thanks Jon > I think I understand that from previous posts. But does that not > reduce right livelihood to a synonym for right > thought/speech/action? No, not a synonym at all. Considered at the level of fundamental phenomena (paramattha dhamma), the abstention that is Right Livelihood is a different metal factor from the abstention that is Right Speech or Right Action, which means I suppose that it is abstention of a different kind. Each Eightfold Path moment (supramundane path consciousness) is accompanied by Right Livelihood as well as by Right Speech and Right Action. > Why did the Buddha talk about right livelihood and usury and > soothsaying etc? I suppose because, considered at the conventional level, certain livelihoods necessarily involve repeated instances of wrong livelihood and are to be avoided if possible. Jon 18310 From: James Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:32am Subject: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James & Swee Boon, > > Appreciating your discussions very much. Look forward to many more;-) > > I thought this post of Swee Boon's was particularly helpful: > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/messages/18278 > > --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > Nibbana cannot be learnt. Nibbana has to be KNOWN. > > > > > > > Nibbana isn't 'knowing' anything specific, it is releasing the > > > mind from the very thing that formed it. > > > > Nibbana has to be KNOWN. But nibbana itself is not equivalent > > to 'knowing' anything. The following suttas clearly shows that > > nibbana has to be KNOWN. > > > > -------------------------------------------------------- > > "I will teach you the penetrative explanation that is a Dhamma > > explanation. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." > > > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > > > > The Blessed One said: "And which penetrative explanation is a Dhamma > > explanation? > > > > "Sensuality should be known. The cause by which sensuality comes > > into play should be known. The diversity in sensuality should be > > known. The result of sensuality should be known. The cessation of > > sensuality should be known. The path of practice for the cessation > > of sensuality should be known. > > ================================ Hi Sarah, I am glad that you are enjoying the posts. It is a fascinating subject and I plan to write more a bit later. However, I am not sure why you find this post by NEO helpful. Would you be willing to explain? I find the conclusion about Nibbana that he draws from this sutta to be incorrect. Metta, James 18311 From: nidive Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:31am Subject: NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi James, > I wanted to give you one more sutta reference where the Buddha > states, unequivocally, that Nibbana is impossible to describe or > cognitively 'know': Thank you for finding that sutta. I have found another sutta where the Buddha explained that nibbana cannot be described even more clearly. "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. [1] Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html I am convinced now that nibbana cannot be described or articulated in any language. Because languages are of the All. Nibbana lies beyond range of the All. Therefore, no speech can describe it adequately. But I am still not convinced that nibbana cannot be KNOWN. Ananda: In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient? The Buddha: There is the case, Ananda, where he would be percipient of this: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all mental processes; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbana.' -- A X.6 [Ananda puts the same question to Sariputta, who responds that he himself once had experienced such a concentration.] Ananda: But what were you percipient of at that time? Sariputta: 'The stopping of becoming -- nibbana -- the stopping of becoming -- nibbana': One perception arose in me as another perception stopped. Just as in a blazing woodchip fire, one flame arises as another flame disappears, even so, 'The stopping of becoming -- nibbana -- the stopping of becoming -- nibbana': One perception arose in me as another one stopped. I was percipient of the stopping of becoming -- nibbana. -- A X.7 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html These suttas clearly show that the Buddha and Venerable Sariputta KNEW nibbana. Yet this perception of nibbana is not a 'state' that is attained upon the death of an arahant. This perception of nibbana is separate from nibbana itself. This perception of nibbana is impermanent, for perception is one of the five aggregates. Nibbana is therefore neither a 'state' nor the highest jhanic 'state' like what you described in Message 18259. Nibbana is simply cessation. There is nothing beyond. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18312 From: James Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 7:51am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > You say: "If there is no degree of cultural relativism at all, do we > not risk > becoming dogmatic and rule-driven?" > > C: Thinking this over, I think that my answer is 'yes, possibly, but > not necessarily'. Does having a firm base in the five precepts have > to mean dogmatism? Hi Christine, Sarah, and Andrew, I was meaning to jump into this conversation because it is so fascinating. It seems that the conversation is starting to get away from Christine's original, and profound, question: Is there one set of sila for ordinary folk and one set for those who have begun the path to arahantship/buddhahood? This is one area where I believe the teachings of the Buddha are in direct conflict with the teachings of the Abhidhamma (Sarah doesn't seem to think so, but I do). From what I am reading about the Abhidhamma, which is commentary granted, it stresses that wholesome states of mind and unwholesome states of mind are equal fodder for mindfulness and that they both should be viewed equally until they are both abandoned through insight. That to force wholesome states of mind, keep sila no matter what, is sila as silabbatupadana (wrong practice which is clinging to certain rules (rites and rituals) in one's practice). In other words, following sila with the belief that it is `I' who follows sila doesn't detach one from the false view of self and will result in further births, especially in heaven realms. However, the Buddha taught that sila should be practiced no matter what, even if it does result in rebirth in heaven realms. Why did the Buddha stress this? The Abhidhamma seems to me to be advocating a `short-cut' to arahantship, which may not be a short cut at all really. What will happen if one views unwholesome mental states and wholesome mental states as being `non-self' and therefore equal and unchangeable? Well, if insight is developed fully, they will achieve Sukha- vipassako: (those who have gained "dry" release through the power of insight, having developed the bare minimum of concentration before attaining the knowledge that does away with mental effluents (asavakkhaya-ñana) and gaining release. They have no other powers or skills). However, if insight is not developed fully enough, because the base of concentration and tranquility isn't present, such practice could result in sa-upadi-sesa nibbana (arahatship with the khandhas or groups of existing remaining, thus non final nibbana at death of arahat). And in that case, the arahant would still reappear in a heaven realm to dissolve the remaining khandhas. So you see, rebirth in a heaven realm may be a requirement before the attaining of full nibbana can be reached. As the Buddha said, sila should be practiced even if `one has tears on his face' from the difficulty of doing it. Cultural relativism is a non-issue. The precepts should be practiced as stated, no ifs- ands-or-buts about it. Why? Because following the precepts allows for tranquility, tranquility allows for concentration, concentration allows for full release and the ability to be a role model/teacher to others. Take care. Be good, even if it hurts! ;-) Metta, James 18313 From: nidive Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:08am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila Hi James, > However, if insight is not developed fully enough, because > the base of concentration and tranquility isn't present, such > practice could result in sa-upadi-sesa nibbana (arahatship with > the khandhas or groups of existing remaining, thus non final > nibbana at death of arahat). > And in that case, the arahant would still reappear in a heaven > realm to dissolve the remaining khandhas. So you see, rebirth > in a heaven realm may be a requirement before the attaining of > full nibbana can be reached. It is to my understanding that sa-upadi-sesa nibbana (nibbana with fuel remaining) means that the arahant has not died yet (the five aggregates are not extinguished yet). Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is released through right knowing. His five sense faculties still remain, and owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. That which is the passing away of passion, aversion, & delusion in him is termed the nibbana property with fuel remaining. And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right knowing. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow cold right here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel remaining. -- Iti 44 The phrase referring to the range of feeling as 'growing cold right here' is a set expression describing death as experienced by one who has reached the goal. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18314 From: James Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:38am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > > It is to my understanding that sa-upadi-sesa nibbana (nibbana with > fuel remaining) means that the arahant has not died yet (the five > aggregates are not extinguished yet). > > Monks, there are these two forms of the nibbana property. Which two? > The nibbana property with fuel remaining, and the nibbana property > with no fuel remaining. > > And what is the nibbana property with fuel remaining? There is the > case where a monk is a worthy one devoid of mental effluents, who > has attained completion, finished the task, laid down the burden, > attained the true goal, destroyed the bonds of becoming, and is > released through right knowing. His five sense faculties still > remain, and owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the > pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. That > which is the passing away of passion, aversion, & delusion in him is > termed the nibbana property with fuel remaining. > > And what is the nibbana property with no fuel remaining? There is > the case where a monk is a worthy one... released through right > knowing. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished will grow > cold right here. This is termed the nibbana property with no fuel > remaining. > > -- Iti 44 > > The phrase referring to the range of feeling as 'growing cold right > here' is a set expression describing death as experienced by one who > has reached the goal. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- > 1.html > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, I got that definition, exactly, from the Pali terms in the `Files' section of this group. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali _terms (*Hint* Everyone, if you get confused over the Pali terms used in these posts, this link is invaluable.) I agree with your sutta reference, but even though it doesn't mention death, it still applies to death. If the aggregates aren't completely released, they are still present upon death. The arahant of such a state cannot make them dissolve like the arahant who has achieved the proper level of tranquility and concentration. Just as the Buddha had to go into the fourth Jhana to dissolve the aggregates, the arahant of sa-upadi-sesa nibbana cannot do this. He/She cannot because insight was reached without the proper foundation of tranquility and concentration. Metta, James' Ps. I am going to reply to `knowing Nibbana' later. I think you and I just have different definitions of `knowing'. 18315 From: nidive Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:44am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila Hi James, > Just as the Buddha had to go into the fourth Jhana to dissolve the > aggregates, the arahant of sa-upadi-sesa nibbana cannot do this. It is not to my understanding that the Buddha attained the fourth jhana to 'dissolve' the five aggregates. Any jhana is still of the five aggregates. Jhanas are five aggregates themselves. How do you dissolve aggregates with aggregates? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18316 From: nidive Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:47am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila Hi James, > Ps. I am going to reply to `knowing Nibbana' later. I think you > and I just have different definitions of `knowing'. I am going to sleep now. We'll talk tomorrow. By the way, do you spend a lot of your time in this group? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18317 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:00am Subject: Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 4 Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 4 The Commentary (of the Path of Discrimination) to the Chapter on ³Attainment of Cessation² (Nirodha Samåpatti, Ch XXXIV) explains three classifications of insight knowledge, vipassanå ñåna: ³There are three kinds of insight knowledge: insight as comprehension of formations (sankhåra parigganhanaka vipassanå 9) insight as fruition-attainment, phala-samåpatti vipassanå insight as cessation-attainment, nirodha-samåpatti vipassanå 10 These three kinds of vipassanå are explained as different: insight as comprehension of formations is paññå which understands conditioned dhammas, sankhåra dhammas, that is, nåma dhamma and rúpa dhamma; insight as fruition-attainment and insight as cessation attainment are degrees of insight knowledge which have as their aim to enter fruition-attainment and progressively cessation-attainment. For the latter two attainments it is necessary to be able to attain jhåna which is in conformity with those attainments.² 4. Lokuttara cittas have been classified by way of forty (according to the method of hundred and twentyone cittas), as different from the classification by way of eight (according to the method of eightynine cittas). They have been classified as forty in accordance with the levels of the five jhånas 11. The reason for this is that there are two kinds of ariyans: the ariyan who has lokuttara cittas accompanied by jhåna factors (of the different stages of jhåna) and who can therefore enter fruition-attainment, and the ariyan who has lokuttara cittas unaccompanied by jhåna factors and who can therefore not enter fruition-attainment. In what way is the ariyan who is a person with ³dry insight², sukkha vipassaka (without jhåna attainment), different from the ariyan who is able to attain jhåna, who is jhåna-låbhí (låbhí : possessing)? If the ariyan who is without jhåna attainment could enter fruition-attainment, he would be the same as the ariyan who is able to attain jhåna. There must be a difference between the ariyan with dry insight and the ariyan with jhåna attainment, who is jhåna låbhí. footnotes: 9. Pariganhati means to comprehend. This knowledge comprehends the conditioned realities, sankhåra dhammas as impermanent, dukkha, anattå. 10. Nirodha, cessation or extinction, is the temporary suspension of citta and cetasikas. Only anågåmís and arahats who have mastery of rúpa-jhånas and arúpa-jhånas can attain this. Corrections and additions to Issue 2, no1:end of footnote 4: peaceful abiding, arana vihara, which can lead to fruition-attainment. Add to footnote 8 (of no 3): We read in the same section of the ³Path of Discrimination², § 448: ³The first jhåna is an abiding without conflict...² and so on with all the stages of jhåna. Old footnote 9 is erased. 18318 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 30, Synopsis, sunnatavara Hi Larry :-) op 28-12-2002 21:14 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...:> I didn't follow what "kusala" had to do with > it, but the main point seemed to be that "atta", self, wasn't listed > among the list of 52 ultimate dhammas. N: There are many lists following, but it starts with the eight kusala cittas of the sense sphere. We can also see when reading on, that for kusala cittas and akusala cittas more cetasikas are needed then for the vipakacitta of seeing etc. As for me personally, I found it helpful to be reminded in Thailand that all this is not theory. Citta, cetasika and rupa have characteristics which can be directly understood without thinking about them. As we read about sunnatta in the Expositor: I was reminded that we cannot choose whether kusala citta or akusala citta arises after the votthapanacitta, determining-consciousness and the mind-door adverting-consciousness. These are extremely short moments and it depends on the accumulated cetasikas what will follow. 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 vipåkacittas and the javana-cittas which are kusala citta or akusala citta. A friend (Kh Anop) said, it seems that there is I who acts, I who thinks. A. Sujin asked: what is I? The answer was : personality belief, sakkaya ditthi. What I also learnt: it is difficult to know the difference between citta and cetasika, and only through insight knowledge one can precisely know the difference, right at the moment they appear. But we cannot try to know the difference. >L: It's interesting that citta process is contemplated under cittanupassana > and dhammanupassana and own characteristic and general characteristic > (tilakkhana) are only contemplated under dhammanupassana. Although I'm > sure one could see that body, feeling, or consciousness are not self > while practicing those mindfulnesses. N: As far as I understand, first the specific characteristic of any dhamma that appears is gradually understood, no matter it is rupa, feeling, citta or dhamma. Later on the general characteristics of any dhamma that appears are gradually understood. L: Btw, it occured to me that "mindfulness" in the sense of attentiveness > is a better translation of "anupassana" than of "sati". I'm thinking of > the "look at" definition of anupassana here. "Mindfulness" in the sense > of being mindful of kusala dhamma or mindful of the truth would fit > "sati". What do you think? N: I do not think it matters what word we use. I was reminded that no words are needed when sati arises, sati is not thinking. Sati does not choose, it is naturally aware of whatever dhamma appears, also akusala. If there is no awareness of akusala we keep on taking akusala for self. We can use the word attention or attentiveness, but this is not intention to try. Or: noticing. Anupassana: passana : seeing. Anu: can mean to follow, or: again and again. For this person this word is helpful, for another person another word. You discussed concepts with Kom. As Kom explained, thinking itself is not a concept. We had many discussions before on this subject, but I learnt in Thailand that it is very useful to consider thinking of concepts when it occurs in our life. By reasoning and defining there will only be theoretical understanding of thinking. When we are fast asleep, there is life-continuum, bhavanga-citta. No world appears, no thinking of people, we do not know who we are. Only when process cittas arise there is seeing and thinking of what we see: the world appears. If there were no citta which thinks, there would not be any concepts, no world. I find as for myself that I have not considered this enough in my life. Nina. 18319 From: James Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:04am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > > Just as the Buddha had to go into the fourth Jhana to dissolve the > > aggregates, the arahant of sa-upadi-sesa nibbana cannot do this. > > It is not to my understanding that the Buddha attained the fourth > jhana to 'dissolve' the five aggregates. > > Any jhana is still of the five aggregates. Jhanas are five > aggregates themselves. How do you dissolve aggregates with > aggregates? > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Your understanding is mistaken. There is a difference between Jhanic states and supermundane Jhanic states. The latter is not dependent on the aggregates. Here is a sutta reference from the words of the Buddha: "There is the case, Sandha, where for an excellent thorough-bred of a man the perception of earth with regard to earth has ceased to exist; the perception of liquid with regard to liquid... the perception of heat with regard to heat... the perception of wind with regard to wind... the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space with regard to the dimension of the infinitude of space... the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness with regard to the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the perception of the dimension of nothingness with regard to the dimension of nothingness... the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception with regard to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... the perception of this world with regard to this world... the next world with regard to the next world... and whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: the perception with regard even to that has ceased to exist. Absorbed in this way, the excellent thoroughbred of a man is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, heat, wind, the dimension of the infinitude of space, the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world; nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after or pondered by the intellect -- and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas & their chief queens, pay homage even from afar: Homage to you, O thoroughbred man. Homage to you, O superlative man -- of whom we have no direct knowledge even by means of that with which you are absorbed." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html BTW, goodnight, we can discuss later; I hope your sleep is peaceful and without bad dreams. And, yes I spend a lot of my time in this group. Currently, this is the only Buddhist group I belong to. From my experience, it is the supreme group for those advanced in Buddhist studies. Metta, James 18320 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:34am Subject: Yasodhara Dear Group, Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details of Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the whole, not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada tradition. metta, Christine 18321 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 1:16pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Andrew, I'm still playing full time host and haven't had time to become a complete know-it-all on the subject of virati(e.g., I can't quite follow the point you and Jon have been discussing). Pressing on regardless; you wrote: ------- > To mundane worldlings largely blind to the present moment and glimpsing it only in retrospect, we can but "work on" realising the relevance of nama-rupa. > ------- Yes, when we understand that there is only nama and rupa, then ideas of self, slaughterman, cow, etc., lose their appeal and we see the dangers of akusala kamma. We understand that the volition of the present moment is all that matters (all that can matter). -------------- >In the meantime, we may need some mundane prompting to look at what we do and its consequences for others > -------------- I don't see why. What better prompt can there be than to remember there is only nama and rupa? Why should we need to fall back on the purely conventional prompting to which non-Buddhists are limited? Isn't there a danger that conventional prompting will conceal the truth of conditionality and admit excuses for wrong action? (e.g., "I can't help it, I'm only human!") Kind regards Ken H PS Thanks for asking, but the surf at Noosa has been lousy -- as it has been for most of the past twelve months. There's a lot of indulgence to be `surfed off' before the Christmas pudding gets its turn. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau > " wrote: > > In reality, there are no Red > > Cross volunteers, no butchers, no occupations, just nama > > and rupa . -- the real Right Livelihood can > > occur anywhere at any time. It's hard to grasp and sometimes, > > we don't want to grasp it. The main thing is that we're working > > on it :-) > > > > Hi KenH > The above comment didn't seem right to me, 18322 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:06pm Subject: Re: Yasodhara Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Dear Group, Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details of Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the whole, not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada tradition. metta, Christine KKT: You might enjoy this exceptional article: A Mysterious Being: The Wife of Buddha by Professor Andre Bareau, University of Paris. http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm And also: http://www.buddhadust.org/TheOnes/theonesenglish235-247.htm Metta, KKT 18323 From: James Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:17pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau " wrote: > Hi Andrew, > ------- > > To mundane worldlings largely blind to the present > moment and glimpsing it only in retrospect, we can but > "work on" realising the relevance of nama-rupa. > > ------- > >In the meantime, we may need some mundane prompting to > look at what we do and its consequences for others > > -------------- > > I don't see why. What better prompt can there be than to > remember there is only nama and rupa? Why should we need > to fall back on the purely conventional prompting to > which non-Buddhists are limited? Isn't there a danger > that conventional prompting will conceal the truth of > conditionality and admit excuses for wrong action? > (e.g., "I can't help it, I'm only human!") > > > Kind regards > Ken H Hi Ken H., If you don't mind, I am going to jump in here. Though I feel you don't hold me in high regard, never mind. Andrew is quite correct I feel; we must put our efforts more and more (continually actually) toward the mundane existences of others. Why? Such attention benefits others and our final goals. We are surrounded by the selfish; and, admittedly, we have a trace of the selfish in us as well. The way to help them and to help us is to be selfless. They want that (they count on us really) and we need that. To dedicate entire energies to `nama/rupa', `existence/non-existence', and `nibbana/samsara' is wrong. Such focusing will perpetuate the very thing we endeavor to cease; it will not end it. Do you want to become selfless? How do you do that in this mundane existence? Focus everything you have on the benefit of others; and do that with wisdom and patience. The rewards are sweet release of others and sweet release of your self…to ultimately to become non-self. I bet you know this already. I pray I have not offended. :-) Metta, James 18324 From: peterdac4298 Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 2:34pm Subject: Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details of > Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any > such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the whole, > not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada tradition. > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine In the PTS Dictionary of Proper Names, G.P.Malalasekera, she has an entire article all to herself, it is also cross referenced to Rahula and others. Some time ago I had a request from an Aussi Composer who was doing a project on her and asked me for some info. I knocked up an article from the DoPN entry and would have enclosed it here, but as you may have guessed, I can't for the life of me find it. I don't off hand know which page it is on, or which of the two volumes it is in as the Pali alphabet is a complete mystery to me. But it is in there trust me. I would post my article if I could find it, as I would appreciate some feed back on some of my foot notes to it. The only part that stumped me was a song that Yasodhara sang when she first saw her husband on his return to Kapilavastu as the Buddha, Dr Malalasekera only gives a reference to it. I have yet to find someone who is willing and able to do a sympathetic translation. I'll follow up with it as soon as I locate it. Cheers Peter 18325 From: peterdac4298 Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:12pm Subject: Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details of > Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any > such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the whole, > not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada tradition. > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine Just found that article:- Hi XXXXXX I copied the following from the "Dictionary of Pali Proper Names", G.P.Malalasekera, Pali Text Society, 1974, Vol II, pp 741. This book is difficult to navigate since it is in alphabetical order using the Pali alphabet. It is as authoritative as you can get for Theravadan Buddhism. However, you may well find it worth while asking in the Zen and especially Tibetan news groups for the variations according to these traditions, which can be quite insightful. The Tibetan sources are likely to be very rich in detail and narrative, especially of the rebirth stories. Please let me know if there is anything in this that is not quite clear. Also if there is anything else I can help with. Cheers Peter [My notes in square brackets] (My foot notes in round brackets. Please excuse occasional footnotes within footnotes.) Raahulamaataa(1). The name, generally given in the texts, of Raahula's mother and Gotama's wife. She is also called Bhaddakaccaa, and, in later texts, Yasodharaa, Bimbaadevii and, probably Bimbaasundarii. The Northern [Mahayana, which includes Tibetan] texts seem to favour the name of Yasodharaa, but they call her the daughter of Dandapaanii. It is probable that the name of Gotama's wife was Bimbaa, and that Bhaddakaccaa, Subhanddakaa, Yasodharaa and the others, were descriptive epithets applied to her, which later became regarded as additional names. It is also possible that in Gotama's court there was also a Yasodharaa, daughter of Dandapaanii, and that there was a later confusion of names. The Commentarial explanation, that she was called Bhaddakaccaanaa because her body was the colour of burnished gold, is probably correct. To suggest that the name bears any reference to the Kaccaanagotta seems to be wrong, because the Kaccaana was a brahmin gotta and the Saakyans were not brahmins [I do not know what a gotta is]. Raahulamaataa was born on the same day as the Bodhisatta [Title of the Buddha before his Awakening]. She married him (Gotama) at the age of sixteen, and was placed at the head of forty thousand women, given to Gotama by the Saakyans, after he had proved his manly prowess to their satisfaction. Gotama left the household life on the day of the birth of his son Raahula. It is said that just before he left home he took a last look at his wife from the door of her room, not daring to go nearer, lest he should awake her. When the Buddha paid his first visit to Kapilavatthu [Capital city of his fathers kingdom] after the Enlightenment, and on the second day of that visit, he begged in the street for alms(2). This news spread, and Raahulamaataa looked out of her window to see of it were true. She saw the Buddha, and was so struck by the glory of his personality [as a result of his tranquility, compassion and awareness] that she uttered eight verses in its praise. These verses have been handed down under the name of Narasiihagaathaa (3). On that day, after the Buddha had finished his meal in the palace, which he took at the invitation of Suddhodana [his father, the King], all the ladies of the court, with the exception of Raahulamaataa, went to pay him obeisance. She refused to go, saying that if she had any virtue in her the Buddha would come to her. The Buddha went to her with his two chief Disciples and gave orders that she should be allowed to greet him as she wished(4). She fell at his feet, and clasping them with her hands, put her head on them. Suddhodana related to the Buddha how, from the time he had left home, Raahulamaataa had herself abandoned all luxury and had lived in the same manner as she had heard that the Buddha lived - wearing yellow robes, eating only once a day, etc. And the Buddha then related the Candakinnara Jaataka [Rebirth story] to show how, in the past, too, her loyalty had been supreme. On the seventh day of the Buddha's visit, when he had left the palace at the end of his meal, Raahulamaataa sent Raahula to him saying, "That is your father, go and ask him for your inheritance"(5). Raahula followed the Buddha, and, at the Buddha's request, was ordained by Saariputta. Later, when the Buddha allowed women to join the Order, Raahulamaataa became a nun under Mahaapajaapatii Gotamii(6). Buddhaghosa(7) identifies Raahulamaataa with Bhaddakaccaanaa who, in the Anguttara Nikaaya [Collection of discourses or Suttas], is mentioned as chief among nuns in the possession of supernormal powers (8). She was one of the four disciples of the Buddha who possessed such attainment, the others being Saariputta, Moggallaana, [the Buddha's two chief disciples mentioned earlier] and Bakkula. She expressed her desire for this achievement in the time of Padumuttara Buddha [the Buddha of that earlier aeon]. In this account Bhaddakaccaanaa is mentioned as the daughter of the Saakyan Suppabuddha and his wife Amitaa. She joined the Order under Pajaapatii Gotamii in the company of Janapadakalyaanii (Nandaa), and in the Order she was known as Bhaddakaccaanaa Theri (9). Later, she developed insight and became an arahant, [ie a fully Awakened being]. She could, with one effort, recall one asankheyya and one hundred thousand kappas(10). In the Therii Apadaana an account is found of a Therii, Yasodharaa by name, who is evidently to be identified with Raahulamaataa, because she speaks of herself as the Buddha's pajaapatii before he left the household(11), and says that she was the chief of ninety thousand women. In the time of Diipankara Buddha, when the Bodhisatta [Buddha to be] was born as Sumedha, she was a brahmin-maiden, Sumittaa by name, and gave eight handfuls of lotuses to Sumedha, which he, in turn, offered to the then Buddha. Diipankara, in declaring that Sumedha would ultimately become the Buddha, added that Sumittaa would be his companion in several lives. The Apadaana account mentions how, just before her death, at the age of seventy-eight, she took leave of the Buddha and performed various miracles [See above and note (8)]. It also states that eighteen thousand arahant nuns, companions of Yasodharaa, also died on the same day(13). The Abbhantara Jaataka mentions the Bimbaadevii (who is called the chief wife of Gotama and is therefore evidently identical with Raahulamaataa) was once, after becoming a nun, ill from flatulence. When Raahula, as was his custom, came to visit her, he was told that he could not see her, but that, when she had suffered from the same trouble at home, she had been cured by mango-juice with sugar. Raahula reported the matter to his preceptor, Saariputta, who obtained the mango-juice from Pasenadi [probably a lay devotee]. When Pasenadi discovered why the mango- juice had been needed, he arranged that from that day it should be regularly supplied. The Jaataka relates how, in a past birth too, Saariputta had come to Raahulamaattaa'a rescue.(14) Numerous stories are found in the Jaataka Commentary in which Raahulamaataa is identified with one or other of the characters. In five lives she is the Queen, in two the Queen Consort, a wife in two, a female in two, a potters wife, a smith's wife, a mother, a woman ascetic, a mother-deer, and a named character in many more. -oOo- (1)Pronunciation. I have decided to use a subset of a well known system evolved for pure ascii - IBM - type key boards. Double vowels are stresses and pronounced as long versions of the single vowel. a as in hut not as in hat. u as in boot not as in under. aa as in 'far'. i as in pin not pine. ii as in pea not vine. e as in café not as in get. o as in boat not bottle. I have ignored double consonants, since they do not sound appreciably different from single consonants. Paired consonants are sounded separately. th as in hot house, not as in 'this' or 'faith'. c as in church not cake. So ch is as in beach-hut not as in church. This ought to be enough for the above passage. See http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html for a good intro for Theravada See http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/N/Nyanatiloka/WOB/wobpr ef.htm#998977 for a good treatment of pronunciation. (2)In modern Thailand the alms round is not seen as begging. The monks traditional code of rules, [Vinaaya, laid down by the Buddha himself] sets strict procedures for the alms round, and lay supporters make their own special arrangements too. (3)I can probably extract these verses from the CDROM that I have containing the entire Pali Cannon, but would not be able to translate it. However, I have a friend who is very experienced at lucid translations of Pali text: the problem is though, he is currently a novice monk and his 'base' monastery is on winter retreat until the end of March, so I am not sure what I can do. Please let me know if this will be useful, as I can well imagine it could be. (4)Taking his two chief Disciples would have been an insurance against speculation and gossip concerning his and her emotively charged first meeting in the privacy of her own rooms. (5)From the article on Raahula in the same dictionary: ...Raahula Thera. Only son of Gotama and Yasodharaa. He was born on the day on which his father left the household life. When the Buddha visited Kapilavatthu for the first time after his Enlightenment and accepted Suddhodana's invitation, Raahula's mother Raahulamaataa sent the boy to the Buddha to ask for his inheritance. The Buddha gave him no answer, and, at the conclusion of the meal, left the palace [giving Raahula his alms bowl and asking him to carry it for him]. Raahula followed him, reiterating his request, until at last the Buddha asked Saariputta to ordain him(15). When Suddhodana [the King] heard of this he protested to the Buddha, and asked as a boon that, in future, no child should be ordained without the consent of his parents, and to this the Buddha greed(16)... (6)The Buddha's foster mother, his natural mother dying seven days after his birth, was the first woman to request acceptance into the Sangha. She was initially refused on the grounds that female membership would spoil the Sangha. However, by the Buddha's own admission, women were equally capable of attaining to full Awakening, and she was duly admitted. This is probably the earliest ever record of women's rights being claimed together with their due recognition: for that time this would have been very radical. (7)Buddhaghosa, the major Pali commentator of medieval or similar period, took most of his material from all the earlier commentaries, sorting and editing them into a set of comprehensive and coherent documents, whilst adding some of his own insights too. His work must have been good because all the earlier Commentarial documents were then neglected to such an extent that none of them survive today. (8)These were not miracles in the Biblical sense, ie intervention by God, but were more like the psychic gifts that some people even to day might have. But given the extent of her moral purity, mental clarity and focus, her abilities must have been quite impressive. (9)Theri, elder nun of at least ten rains, after twenty rains Mahatheri, also similar for Thera/Mahathera, monks. (10)Incalculable long periods of time, many universal contractions and expansions. (11)A term for dependence. Familiar to monks who use the term for formally taking dependence on their teacher for the period of the annual Rains retreat, in which the monks request support from the Abbott in supplying the allowable four material requisits, namely food, lodgings, robes and medicines(12) for the duration of the retreat. In return they undertake to support the Abbott with diligent practice to enhance his reputation as well as for his own personal satisfaction as a teacher, this training will include the taking care of all menial chores and general support for all his personal requirements. Hence here, this term would indicate a marital, [and hence devotional] vow of a student teacher kind [and would have been a reference to the Buddha's Enlightenment], rather than the more conventional equality vows. (12)In those 'low tech' days medicine would include things like butter and honey as well as all the usual herbal remedies. But animal parts would have been forbidden as part of the Buddha's rule prohibiting monks from exploiting an animal in any way whatsoever. Even meat was forbidden if it was either seen, heard or suspected to have been acquired especially for them. Though they were compelled to accept it if given with a pure heart, so as to avoid social discrimination against lower casts. (13) Were they all seventy eight too? Seriously though, no nuns were recorded as present at the Parinibbana [passing away of the Buddha] two years later, even though all other details of that event were reported in great detail. But the lineage must have survived somehow because nuns were sent to Sri Lanka during Ashoka's reign some three hundred years later. Having sent his son, the arahant Mahinda, Asoka followed this up by sending his daughter Theri Sangamitta with a sapling of the Bodhi Tree under which the Buddha attained enlightenment, thereby establishing the order of nuns in Sri Lanka: regrettably not surviving to day, though the sapling does at Anuradhapura and thus seems to be the worlds oldest documented tree! (14)It is Saariputta's rescue because he had, as the preceptor, direct access to lay support. Junior monks would have had no direct access and as such were dependent on the preceptors standing with lay supporters. In those misogynistic days Raahulamaattaa would have been equally, if not more, isolated: psychic powers and all. (15)This way Raahula gets the inheritance that his father is now capable of bequeathing to him rather than the conventional one which earlier had been renounced. (16)Suddhodana was now left without any heir to his throne, having lost both his son and his grand son, together with all the nobles who also left to join the Sangha. Consequently, the power vacuum resulting from his death, contributed to the destabilisation of the Ganges valley which was not resolved until the ascent of Emperor Ashoka, some three hundred years later. -oOo- 18326 From: nidive Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:26pm Subject: Re: Keeping Sila Hi James > There is a difference between Jhanic states and supermundane > Jhanic states. The latter is not dependent on the aggregates. To my understanding, there isn't really anything called supramundane jhanic states. The supramundane path has the attributes of jhana simply because it has nibbana as its object. Yet the supramundane path is not any jhana at all. The shared attributes are: applied thought, sustained thought, rapture, happiness and one-pointedness. These attributes counter the five hindrances that are impediments to attaining jhana or the supramundane paths. > Here is a sutta reference from the words of the Buddha: The sutta reference you have given refers to the Attainment of Cessation. This is described in "A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas" by Henepola. This Cessation can only be reached in "five constituent becoming", i.e. in realms where all five aggregates are found. It cannot be reached in the immaterial realms since it must be preceded by the four fine material jhanas, which are lacking in those realms. Non-returners and arahants with the required qualifications (mastery of all eight mundane jhanas) attain to cessastion because, being wearied by the occurrence and dissolution of formations, they think: "Let us dwell in bliss by being without consciousness here and now and reaching the cessation that is nibbana." The Visuddhimagga Maha Tika points out that the phrase "cessation that is nibbana" means that cessation is similar to the nibbana element without residue. It should not be taken literally as establishing identity between the two. The Attainment of Cessation, ..., is neither mundane nor supramundane, neither conditioned nor non-conditioned. As the cessation of consciousness, it takes no object (not even nibbana). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18327 From: Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:33pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Kom, I agree there is not enough in these commentary notes to say anything about nibbana. My main point of interest is that I had assumed that the "dhamma" in the sutta referred to sankhara and nibbana. This is apparently not the case. Rather, it refers to sankhara and concept as object of jhana. Perhaps this does not mean all concepts. Can we say the object of jhana, a concept, is experienced in a way that other concepts are not? Also, I'm not really certain if this sutta is saying anything about the Atman of Vedanta. Clearly it is pointing at ego clinging, but I don't know if it is going beyond that. I have a very vague recollection of reading that Vedanta is not identified in the suttas. If so, this would be an historical curiosity. As you say, nibbana could not be experienced as "oneself" like a khandha, so there would be no reason to include it here. From my point of view the reason to include nibbana as not self is to say nibbana is not the "Self" of Vedanta. But maybe that is just a modern question. Larry 18328 From: dotl Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara That is very interesting Peter..We were discussing The Budha's wife recently, and (as details are scarece and sketchy) I cant really comment much further than to say that My Teacher said She had died early on in Rahula's life, and he had been raised by an aunt. 18329 From: dotl Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 4:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara Sorry..I hit the send button inadvertantly!! I will be seeing my teacher(s) this weekend, and will ask again. Also the CD Rom of the Pali Canon.. I hear that this is being produced in English.does anyone have any further details on this? Love dotl 18330 From: bodhi2500 Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 5:50pm Subject: Clinging Aggregates Hi Does anyone have any info on where the article/book >"Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates" can be found. Bhikkhu Bodhi has in Note 65 of the Khandhavagga of his translation of the Samyutta >For a detailed study of this problem see Bodhi,"Aggregates and clinging Aggregates." I'm not sure if he means Bhikkhu Bodhi is the author or it is in one of the Bodhi Leaves articles. I cant seem to find it anywhere. Thank-you. Steve. 18331 From: James Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:23pm Subject: Re: Keeping Sila --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James > > > There is a difference between Jhanic states and supermundane > > Jhanic states. The latter is not dependent on the aggregates. > > To my understanding, there isn't really anything called supramundane > jhanic states. The supramundane path has the attributes of jhana > simply because it has nibbana as its object. Yet the supramundane > path is not any jhana at all. The shared attributes are: applied > thought, sustained thought, rapture, happiness and one- pointedness. > These attributes counter the five hindrances that are impediments to > attaining jhana or the supramundane paths. > > > > Here is a sutta reference from the words of the Buddha: > > The sutta reference you have given refers to the Attainment of > Cessation. This is described in "A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas" > by Henepola. > > This Cessation can only be reached in "five constituent becoming", > i.e. in realms where all five aggregates are found. It cannot be > reached in the immaterial realms since it must be preceded by the > four fine material jhanas, which are lacking in those realms. > > Non-returners and arahants with the required qualifications (mastery > of all eight mundane jhanas) attain to cessastion because, being > wearied by the occurrence and dissolution of formations, they > think: "Let us dwell in bliss by being without consciousness here > and now and reaching the cessation that is nibbana." > > The Visuddhimagga Maha Tika points out that the phrase "cessation > that is nibbana" means that cessation is similar to the nibbana > element without residue. It should not be taken literally as > establishing identity between the two. > > The Attainment of Cessation, ..., is neither mundane nor > supramundane, neither conditioned nor non-conditioned. As the > cessation of consciousness, it takes no object (not even nibbana). > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Ugh!! You just had to awaken from your slumber didn't you!! ;-) Okay, I see that there is no escape. If I say `Up', you are going to say `Down', no matter what! That is plainly evident by the mess of mumbo jumbo you write in this post. What in the heck are you talking about? You write, `The supramundane path has the attributes of jhana… Yet the supramundane path is not any jhana at all.' Oh, this is really clear! ;-) It may look, taste, and smell like an apple, but it really isn't an apple. Why? Because Neo says so. Where is your support for this ridiculous assertion? You refer to the `Visuddhimagga Maha Tika', for an pretty much unrelated point, without proper citation, and frankly I have no clue what in the heck that is. What is the `Visuddhimagga Maha Tika'? Why should I believe it or know it? I am fairly sure many fairy tales and scandalous stories have impressive Pali names also, should I believe all of them? (And if this is some sort of obscure reference, and you quote it knowing that I will not know what it is, you are guilty of extreme conceit. Trying to outshine others is quite unnecessary. We are trying to reach the truth here…not be `know-it-alls') Please Neo, I have more important things to do than to play tit-for- tat when you don't provide proper citations or analysis. I will ignore you from this point forward if you don't substantiate your claims with proper research and logic. Metta, James 18332 From: peterdac4298 Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:31pm Subject: Re: Yasodhara Hi KKT Having just read the article at your link: http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm I can't help thinking that the general conclusion is that we don't know much about the Buddha's wife. This must make perfect sense if we consider that the early Cannon is nothing other than what the Buddha taught for the training of his disciples, either Vinaya or Suttanta. Details of his previous domestic life, particularly of his parents, wife and family must surely be irrelevant if not actually distracting for these purposes. The little we know of Yasodhara and all the others is consistent with the teaching: it is either contributing to the confidence we have in our reflections on the Buddha or exhibiting points of discipline or insight. Cheers Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > > Dear Group, > > Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details of > Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any > such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the whole, > not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada tradition. > > metta, > Christine > > > > > KKT: You might enjoy this exceptional article: > > A Mysterious Being: The Wife of Buddha > by Professor Andre Bareau, University of Paris. > > http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm > > And also: > > http://www.buddhadust.org/TheOnes/theonesenglish235-247.htm > > > Metta, > > > KKT 18333 From: peterdac4298 Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara Hi dotl I was only quoting the PTS DoPPN. My own additional notes were for the benefit of a non-Buddhist who was working on a project for a musical score. It could well be that your teacher is right. Cheers Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dotl" wrote: > That is very interesting Peter..We were discussing The Budha's wife > recently, and (as details are scarece and sketchy) I cant really comment > much further than to say that My Teacher said She had died early on in > Rahula's life, and he had been raised by an aunt. 18334 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 6:50pm Subject: RE: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry, -----Original Message----- From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] I agree there is not enough in these commentary notes to say anything about nibbana. My main point of interest is that I had assumed that the "dhamma" in the sutta referred to sankhara and nibbana. This is apparently not the case. Rather, it refers to sankhara and concept as object of jhana. Perhaps this does not mean all concepts. Can we say the object of jhana, a concept, is experienced in a way that other concepts are not? ========= I am not sure if the first sutta (Bahudhatuka)'s dhamma is supposed to include nibbana or not. I think it might be implicitly (although the commentary doesn't say this): we may have to look for earlier commentaries in MN or DN to see if this has been explained before this sutta or not. I think the concept of the jhana is the same as the concept of everything else: it has no characteristic (sabhava). However, we need to note that the aramana of jhana cittas are classified as: mahaccata (sp?) aramana, i.e., aramana that can condition the jhana absorption. In order for a jhana meditator to reach the level of upacara (access concentration), and uppana (jhana concentration), the conceptual object must be vividly kept in mind that it appears to the meditator even when not looking at the object... here. From my point of view the reason to include nibbana as not self is to say nibbana is not the "Self" of Vedanta. But maybe that is just a modern question. ========= I have almost no idea about Vedanta teaching, so I don't think I can add any more here... kom 18335 From: Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 3:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Not Self = Voidness? This is an interesting quote from the Patisambhidamagga on a subject often debated about... "Contemplation-of-Not-self, and Contemplation-of-Voidness -- are these states different in meaning and different in letter, or are they one in meaning and only the letter is different? Contemplation-of-Not-self, and Contemplation-of-Voidness -- these states are one in meaning and only the letter is different." (Patisambhidamagga, Treatise on Liberation, #82) TG 18336 From: Andrew Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 8:45pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: Do you want to > become selfless? How do you do that in this mundane existence? > > Metta, James Hello all First of all, I want to thank Jon and Sarah for their serious replies to my ramblings. I do greatly appreciate your input, challenging as it is. I don't reply immediately, if at all, as I need to give your comments much reflection. I am inspired, however, by your generosity with time and your patience. To Christine and KenH, thanks for your further input, likewise subject to further reflection. I dont' always fully reply to you guys because I think we meet up and can talk about things then. Probably a bad excuse! Thanks James for better stating the question that has bothered me (above). I haven't yet worked out the interplay between mundane and supra-mundane and have a great deal of study to do. In my present ignorance, I think as follows: Unlike Jesus, Buddha didn't command cripples to walk and stand by and watch a miracle. Buddha more said "You've got to be subject to a curative process before you can expect to walk." No miracles. I am a cripple because of my ignorance. I am a mundane worldling. I can understand the supra-mundane only up to a certain point. There is much work to do before I reach the supra-mundane level and can REALISE what before I only understood intellectually. Is not telling me not to think about conventional livelihoods but to focus on the present moment - commanding a cripple to walk? Do we not NEED to go through all the conventional stuff as we slowly move away from the elephant? I already have a feeling that I have misrepresented some of you and I apologise in advance. I will continue studying and maybe look back on this email and think "Did I write that?" Sorry guys. Happy New Year to all. Andrew 18337 From: Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 9:56pm Subject: RE: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Kom, I think the commentators were making a point specifically about concepts which were objects of jhana. Would this be a nimita (sign)? Is a nimita a visualization? If so, I could see how a visualization or dream could be regarded as self. Also visualizations and dreams are "near" khandhas. Maybe that is the criterion they are using here and the reason only certain kinds of concept in certain conditions would be considered as self. Mathematics wouldn't be considered as self. What we are talking about is a psychological self and there is no psychology in nibbana so there would be no reason to say nibbana is not self. It is not self _by_definition_. Larry 18338 From: Sarah Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi James, --- "James " wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I am glad that you are enjoying the posts. It is a fascinating > subject and I plan to write more a bit later. However, I am not > sure why you find this post by NEO helpful. Would you be willing to > explain? I find the conclusion about Nibbana that he draws from > this sutta to be incorrect. ..... I’ll try, though I think Swee Boon(NEO) does an excellent job of substantiating his comments calmly and clearly in the post I drew your attention to and also in later ones. You may also like to consider the summary from a footnote Nina recently gave in Dhamma Issues, Ch2, no1 which I’ve put at the end of this post.* Full details can be found in the Visuddhimagga. As Swee Boon suggests, nibbana is the unconditioned dhamma which is realized or known by the very highly developed wisdom and associated mental factors accompanying the supramundane consciousness. This consciousness is conditioned, impermanent, unsatisfactory and without any self, like all other sankhara dhammas. When it falls away, the fruition consciousness experiences nibbana too, momentarily, but afterwards there is seeing and hearing, just like now, followed by accumulated wholesome and unwholesome states except in the arahant’s case. In the arahant’s case, all defilements have been eradicated, as discussed, and instead of wholesome consciousness, there is inoperative (kiriya) consciousness - no new kamma is accumulated. For the rest of his life, the arahant still experiences the results of previous kamma however. At the end of his life, however, there are no causes for further rebirth and this is parinibbana. As Swee Boon explained, the Buddha is not nibbana. The Buddha also cannot be felt or experienced in anyway (as you suggested to Larry, I think). In reality the Buddha never existed, just as a self never exists. When we refer to the Buddha, it is also to the 5 khandhas as it is to ‘James’ or ‘Swee Boon’. The 5 khandhas that made up ‘the Buddha’ finally disintegrated for the last time at his parinibbana. The 5 khandhas making up ‘James’ will continue to arise and fall away indefinitely while there are conditions to do so, lifetime after lifetime. When we think we can ‘experience’ or ‘feel’ the Buddha, it is in truth just thinking about concepts accompanied by different mental states and pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feelings. When there is no thinking in this way, where is the Buddha? So we can see that it is the thinking that ‘exists’ and can be known, the thinking which is impermanent and without self. When we are carried away by the story or lost in the ‘fantasy’, there is no awareness or understanding of the paramattha dhamma. Regardless of whether there is any wisdom accumulated or not, there are still only the 5 khandhas and no self to be found. You also wondered in some earlier posts to Ray and others why there are differences amongst the fully enlightened, even though all defilements have been eradicated. There is no choice involved when it comes to accumulations or conditioned realities. There is only ever one Buddha in any Buddhist era and no Buddha within us.When we read about the great arahants in the Buddha’s time, we can see the different tendencies of each, even though for all of them, the defilemets had been eradicated and there would be no rebirth. Along the way, the diversity of types and tendencies is always stressed as well. There was a helpful comment in the recent extract from the Way on this point (Way 31): ..... “Still, everywhere, the abandoning of the defilements has been stated by way of the different types of persons and by way of the diversity of the thought-unit, in which the development of the different subjects of the Arousing of Mindfulness takes place [nana puggalavasena pana nana cittakkhana satipatthana bhavanavasena ca sabbattha vuttam]. Or it should be understood thus: It is stated in this manner in order to indicate that the abandoning of the defilements in one object implies the abandoning of the defilements in the remaining objects.” ***** the Tika (sub-commentary) notes gave further detail, including: “The abandoning of the defilements of one object in the thought-unit of the Path is indeed the abandoning of the defilement of all objects. it is right to say that by the Path, are the defilements abandoned.” ***** Besides wishing to give Swee Boon a little encouragement to continue helping with his inspiring posts, I also wished to give you the encouragement to really consider what he is writing carefully, to continue your reflections and research and not to give up when the going gets tough;-) Just take a break from time to time (and some sleep;-))- it doesn’t matter who has the last word, whose high regard we have or whether ‘good cheer’ posters like Azita zap us all;-) I’ve greatly appreciated your recent attempts to come to terms with many of the difficult and subtle points, to pull out relevant suttas and to keep an open mind. I know you do many lurkers a really great favour by expressing your doubts and opinions and also by encouraging other members like Swee Boon to articulate their deep consideration of the suttas. In appreciation, Sarah p.s Thanks for your photgraphic efforts - Howard looked very cheery, but I think I’ll stick to the original feeble version with grey (gray) hair;-) ===== * “When paññå has been developed to the degree that enlightenment can be attained, lokuttara cittas, supramundane cittas experiencing nibbåna arise. The magga-citta (path-consciousness), which is lokuttara kusala citta, directly experiences nibbåna. When the magga-citta has fallen away, it is immediately succeeded by its result, the phala-citta (fruition-consciousness), which is lokuttara vipåkacitta, also experiencing nibbåna. There are four stages of enlightenment and at each stage defilements are eradicated by the magga-citta until they are all eradicated at the fourth stage, the stage of the arahat. The magga-citta of a particular stage of enlightenment arises only once in the cycle of birth and death.......” ============================= 18339 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 10:53pm Subject: RE: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > > > Hi Kom, > > I think the commentators were making a point > specifically about concepts > which were objects of jhana. Would this be a > nimita (sign)? Is a nimita > a visualization? The word used in the commentaries is "kasina" (not translated to Thai). > If so, I could see how a > visualization or dream could > be regarded as self. Also visualizations and > dreams are "near" khandhas. Yes, I think you are right. > self. Mathematics wouldn't be considered as self. > What we are talking > about is a psychological self and there is no > psychology in nibbana so > there would be no reason to say nibbana is not > self. It is not self > _by_definition_. > This sounds right to me. On the other hand, if I were to come from a point where I think nibbana is an unconditioned consciousness, then it would be easy for me to think that with all the conditioned consciousness stripped out, what remains is the true self, even if it might not be a distinct self. Don't you think? kom 18340 From: James Date: Mon Dec 30, 2002 11:28pm Subject: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > ===== > * "When paññå has been developed to the degree that enlightenment can be > attained, lokuttara cittas, supramundane cittas experiencing nibbåna > arise. > The magga-citta (path-consciousness), which is lokuttara kusala citta, > directly experiences nibbåna. When the magga-citta has fallen away, it is > immediately succeeded by its result, the phala-citta > (fruition-consciousness), which is lokuttara vipåkacitta, also > experiencing > nibbåna. Hi Sarah, I absolutely, 100% disagree with this. I don't care if it is written down, if you and NEO agree with it or not. The Buddha specifically taught the opposite of these outlandish statements. No cittas, supramundane or not, experience Nibbana. I have already quoted extensively from the Buddha regarding this. Nibbana is not and never could be an object of the mind. And I also think that you have the wrong idea of what the aggregates are, but I am going to drop it. You know too much to be told otherwise. I don't 'know' anything, I only feel. Frankly, I am glad that I don't 'know' as much as you and NEO. You seem to forget the heart. However, please don't presume to tell me what I feel. I know what I feel. I feel the Buddha in all of those situations I described. I am sorry you never have. Metta, James 18341 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 0:35am Subject: NUM - looking at the moon on a cloudy night Hi Num, I hope you’ve managed to have some break from the hospital and all its demands over Christmas. It was great to spend a little more time with you in Thailand last month. I meant to add one or two comments after you kindly posted extract 6 from your series form Patisambhidamagga (Path of Discrimination) and its commentaries (not available in English). I particularly liked the following quote and had meant to include it when I wrote to Rob Ep about the various sakayaditthi (wrong views of self). I was just reflecting onyour comments when I was reading Nina’s ‘Dhamma Issues’. It’s very deep in meaning, I think and combines deep abhidhamma knowledge with common metaphors. ..... “ If one wants to cross a river and stand on the other side of the river. He grasps a rope, which tied to a tree, then he jumps and takes off fast. He then stands on the other side of the river. He is no longer frightened. One, who wants to overcome defilement, sees the dangers of sakayaditthi on this side of the river. He crosses the river and stands on the other side of the river, nibbana, which has no danger. He first grasps rupakhandha or namakhandha with udayabbayanupassana. Then he jumps with avajjana-citta, and takes off with anuloma-nana. He is then close to the other side of the river, he sees nibbaba, and lets go of the rope with gotarabhunana. He then lands on ground, which is nibbana, with magganana.” ..... It makes me smile - landing on the ground with magganana (Path wisdom). A long way to go before landing on the ground. Meanwhile, of more relevance to most of us is: "One, who wants to overcome defilement, sees the dangers of sakayaditthi (self views) on this side of the river." Let's keep focussed on the problems on this side before without too much concern about the moon behind the clouds;-) Earlier you wrote: “magganana dries the vast ocean of dukkha....’’Very descriptive and it appears in the quote below as well. As I understand, ‘Uddayabayanupassana’(above) refers to the knowledge of the rise and fall, the first of the 9 insight knowledges in the patipada nanadassana visuddhi (purification by knowledge and vision of path progress).* A detailed account of the nanas (stages of vipassana) is given in the Visuddhimagga. A particularly helpful summary is also given in the ‘Stages of Vipassana” in K.Sujin’s ‘Survey’ which Rob K and others are currently preparing for publication. http://www.abhidhamma.org/Para12.htm ..... You also quoted from the commentary to the Patisambhidamagga: “One wants to see the moon in a cloudy night. When the wind blows the thick cloud away little by little, one then can see the moon. Anulomanana is the wind that blows avijja away, but the wind does not see the moon. A man, gotarabhunana, sees the moon, but he himself cannot eradicate the darkness from the cloud. Magganana, which gets a signal from gotarabhu, absorbs into nibbaba, so it can eradicate lobha. Like an archer gets a signal from others, he then lets go of his arrow. His arrow is able to pierce through 100 layers of targets. Magganana dries up the vast ocean of sankaradukkha, closes all doors of bad direction, fulfills one with 7 ariya assets, lets go of miccamagga, subdues all dangers, and 100 times more of other benefit” ..... I like your translation. Lots of difficult points that also tie in with Nina’s series on Dhamma Issues - the subtle points raised on supramundane consciousness and so on at the Foundation. Many thanks and hope to hear more from you. Sarah ====== *When the vipassana nanas (insight knowledges) are classified as nine, they start with this knowledge of the arising and falling away of namas and rupas and end with anuloma knowledge (adaptation knowledge). These nine are the balava vipassana (vipassana as powers)and have to arise and be developed before the attainment to enlightenment. Only when insight is highly developed by following these stages can the anuloma nana (adaptation knowledge)’conform’ to the realization of nibbana and be followed by the gotrabhu nana (change of lineage knowledge), magga nana (path knowledge), phala nana (fruition knowledge) and paccavekkhana nana (reviewing knowledge). ======================= 18342 From: Sarah Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 0:45am Subject: Happy New Year and No Need to Agree..... Hi James, --- "James " wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I absolutely, 100% disagree with this. ..... No problem....we don't need to agree and I probably came in with the wrong words at the wrong time, even though I meant well. There will be plenty of others who also agree with your points in this regard and be glad to hear your spirited defence of them anytime. I apologise for any offence caused with any 'unfeeling' comments. Get some rest so that you can enjoy the New Year tonight;-)Must be pretty close for Rob K in New Zealand.... Happy New Year to everyone else too. metta, Sarah ====== 18343 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:17am Subject: Re: Yasodhara Hi Peter, I am so glad I asked the question about Yasodhara, I have been uncomfortable since ever I heard Gotama had deserted her on the night their son was born. Your post to KKT below is quite a logical explanation for the Yasodhara-shaped gap in the Canon. I'll save your article for re-reading along with the links KKT gave me. As well, I think I might try to obtain "Dictionary of Pali Proper Names", G.P.Malalasekera, Pali Text Society, 1974, Vol II - Sarah mentioned it once before as well. Thank you. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi KKT > > Having just read the article at your link: > > http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm > > I can't help thinking that the general conclusion is that we don't > know much about the Buddha's wife. This must make perfect sense if > we consider that the early Cannon is nothing other than what the > Buddha taught for the training of his disciples, either Vinaya or > Suttanta. > > Details of his previous domestic life, particularly of his parents, > wife and family must surely be irrelevant if not actually > distracting for these purposes. The little we know of Yasodhara and > all the others is consistent with the teaching: it is either > contributing to the confidence we have in our reflections on the > Buddha or exhibiting points of discipline or insight. > > Cheers > Peter > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 > " wrote: > > > > Dear Christine, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > > " wrote: > > > > > > Dear Group, > > > > Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details > of > > Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any > > such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the > whole, > > not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada > tradition. > > > > metta, > > Christine > > > > > > > > > > KKT: You might enjoy this exceptional article: > > > > A Mysterious Being: The Wife of Buddha > > by Professor Andre Bareau, University of Paris. > > > > http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm > > > > And also: > > > > http://www.buddhadust.org/TheOnes/theonesenglish235-247.htm > > > > > > Metta, > > > > > > KKT 18344 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:18am Subject: Re: Yasodhara Dear KKT, I appreciate these links. I did indeed enjoy the article by Professor Andre Bareau, so densely packed with information, that it will need to be read and re-read. Thank you. (Part of each day I work in the Maternity Section of the hospital - a common occurrence is for pregnant women to feel rather unreasonably disenchanted with the process at about 36 weeks with 4 weeks still to. I am struck mute with awe at the very idea of Yasodhara's 312 weeks. :-)) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > > Dear Group, > > Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details of > Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any > such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the whole, > not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada tradition. > > metta, > Christine > > > > > KKT: You might enjoy this exceptional article: > > A Mysterious Being: The Wife of Buddha > by Professor Andre Bareau, University of Paris. > > http://www.buddha-kyra.com/wife.htm > > And also: > > http://www.buddhadust.org/TheOnes/theonesenglish235-247.htm > > > Metta, > > > KKT 18345 From: Ramindu Weeratna Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:27am Subject: Re : Yasodhara Threrani @ Thripitaka. Dear Christine, Details of Yasodhara Therani can be found in Thripitaka @ Kuddaka nikaya - Apadana Pali - Thri aapadana.. I'v heard that, She set out on the journey of becoming Siduhath’s (Lord Buddha before attaining Nirvana) wife same time as he started his journey about 20 Asanka+1000000 Kalpas ago (Manoprani Dhana). With Metta Ram ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth " Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 19:34:24 -0000 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Yasodhara > Dear Group, > > Can anyone refer me to articles on or writings mentioning details of > Yasodhara? I have been looking but find there is a dearth of any > such writings. She seems to be all but invisible, and, on the whole, > not to have received much appreciation from the Theravada tradition. > > metta, > Christine -- 18346 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:31am Subject: Re: Clinging Aggregates Hi Steve, On p. 1992 of Samyutta Nikaya - Bibliography II Translations and Secondary Works Bodhi, Bhikku. "Aggregates and Clinging Aggregates" Pali Buddhist Review 1 (1976): 91-102 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi > Does anyone have any info on where the article/book >"Aggregates > and Clinging Aggregates" can be found. Bhikkhu Bodhi has in Note 65 > of the Khandhavagga of his translation of the Samyutta >For a > detailed study of this problem see Bodhi,"Aggregates and clinging > Aggregates." I'm not sure if he means Bhikkhu Bodhi is the author or > it is in one of the Bodhi Leaves articles. > I cant seem to find it anywhere. > Thank-you. > Steve. 18347 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:22am Subject: Re: Re : Yasodhara Threrani @ Thripitaka. Hi Ram, Thanks Ram - though I'm not sure if this is available in an English translation. I have heard before that Yasodhara was a great being who made the aspiration to be Gotama's wife an unimaginably long time ago. That is an interesting perspective to consider ... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ramindu Weeratna" wrote: > Dear Christine, > > Details of Yasodhara Therani can be found in Thripitaka @ Kuddaka nikaya - Apadana Pali - Thri aapadana.. > > I'v heard that, She set out on the journey of becoming Siduhath's (Lord Buddha before attaining Nirvana) wife same time as he started his journey about 20 Asanka+1000000 Kalpas ago (Manoprani Dhana). > > > > With Metta > Ram > > Meet Singles > http://corp.mail.com/lavalife 18348 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:32am Subject: Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I am so glad I asked the question about Yasodhara, > As well, I think I might try to obtain "Dictionary of Pali Proper > Names", G.P.Malalasekera, Pali Text Society, 1974, Vol II - Sarah > mentioned it once before as well. Thank you. > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine You may as well get both volumes while you are at it, as they are quite cheep, maybe ukp15 each or so. Unless of course you are restricted for shelf space, they are quite large! Cheers Peter 18349 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:54am Subject: Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Peter, > > I am so glad I asked the question about Yasodhara, I have been > uncomfortable since ever I heard Gotama had deserted her on the > night their son was born. Hi Christine I think this may indicate the depth of anguish that the Boddhisatva must have been suffering in that moment. It may provide some indication of the motivational power that would drive him through all the trials that were to follow. Maybe Yasodhara understood this? Either way, it is quite a strong statement. Cheers Peter 18350 From: Ramindu Weeratna Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Keeping Sila Dear Christine, No u r not missing any thing, Pan sil (5 Precepts) are the minimum which is required of a Buddhist. If one keeps to these 5, this person is guaranteed of a birth as a human or higher level. It is said that 5 good things come to those who practice it, 1-welth(basically) will be achieved (Good news..!) 2-will be popular amongst ppl 3-fear less amongst any gathering 4-death will be with mindfulness 5-born in good place Further more, Sil is the basis on which u should practice Meditation. With perfection of seela good samadhi can be achived. Seela is the FOUNDATION...! May u keep pure sila..! :) With Metta Ram ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth " Date: Sun, 29 Dec 2002 02:42:09 -0000 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Keeping Sila > Dear Group, > > I have been reading around the topic of Sila, what Sila is, Keeping > Sila, possible changes to Sila, and Sila as silabbataparamasa > (clinging to sila and wrong practice). > > In the Kimmatha Sutta, the Buddha says that keeping Sila leads to > arahantship. Seems pretty straight forward to me, unless there's a > hidden meaning. > 'Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and on arrival, having bowed > down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the > Blessed One: "What is the purpose of skillful virtues? What is their > reward?" > <<>> > The Blessed One explained: "Ananda, skillful virtues lead step-by- > step to the consummation of arahantship." ' > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-001.html > > Keeping Sila as the Suttas set it out sometimes seems to be > presented as old-fashioned and outdated, clinging to rules, something > that can change for those more advanced on the Way because of the > higher level of panna that arises, something that can change with the > times, or that can change with the mores of different cultures. > I occasionally have the feeling some are implying that there is not > just one wholesome Code of Conduct for all Buddhists, in the Training > Rules. I almost feel that there is one way for the manyfolk but > another way for those with greater understanding. > > The Buddha spoke of the eight rewards in AN VIII.39, Abhisanda > Sutta 'Rewards'. They consisted of going for Refuge to the Buddha, > Dhamma and Sangha, plus the five gifts (precepts). Isn't that a > lovely term for the Precepts? > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-039.html > "Now, there are these five gifts, five great gifts -- original, long- > standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, unadulterated from the > beginning -- that are not open to suspicion, will never be open to > suspicion, and are unfaulted by knowledgeable contemplatives & > priests. Which five? > "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. And this is the > fourth reward of merit..." > Each of the other Precepts is taught and the words > "original, long-standing, traditional, ancient, unadulterated, > unadulterated from the beginning" are repeated each time. > > From an Abhidhamma perspective, can I integrate RobK's reminders in > post 17647 and 17694, when he says, 'I think the only way is to > really learn to see the characteristics of dhammas; then, so I > believe, panna will know what is ultimately right or wrong; it is > never us actually who is or is not keeping sila.' ... and ... 'Sila > is a necessary part of the development of insight but sometimes we > forget that sila is a really a very brief moment of conditioned nama. > We tend to think I am keeping sila and that is still clinging to > concept', by reference to the Cetana Sutta AN XI.2 'An Act of Will', > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an11-002.html > > "Skillful virtues have freedom from remorse as their purpose, freedom > from remorse as their reward. In this way, mental qualities lead on > to mental qualities, mental qualities bring mental qualities to their > consummation, for the sake of going from the near to the Further > Shore." > > ... or am I still missing something about how we are to live in this > world? > > metta, > Christine -- 18351 From: Ramindu Weeratna Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Prophetic tradition within Buddhism No I don’t think so. Since it is v. difficult to think Its best left alone :) (There however are theories in science such as parallel time lines, etc etc) In Buddhism there are lots of stuff, which are unthinkable & are asked to be left alone like end of universe, beginning of samsara, the science of Karma, the science of beings. This is because not only our minds, but minds with various jana’s cant even comprehend some of these things. Until u achive some leavel in Buddhism, its hard even to get an idea of the true processes of these things I don’t thing these things can be explained that easily. That’s why there is a Abidhamma pitaka in Thripitaka. If u learn it u’ll come to have some sense. Any way, If v have the ability, we can look ahead & stop doing stuff, but since v cant c the future, I think well have to do stuff. :-) With Metta Ram ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth " Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2002 11:05:45 -0000 To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [dsg] Prophetic tradition within Buddhism > Hi Ram, > > Thanks for this information - I found it very interesting. Does the > fact that people can see the future, mean it is already settled? > Wouldn't this mean there is no point in making any effort to listen > to and follow the Dhamma - what difference would it make if the > future already exists? > > metta, > Christine > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ramindu Weeratna" > wrote: > > Sorry for the late reply Christine, > > > > Being able to see the future is not only done by Buddhas, I hear it > was done by yogis in ancient times. > > Do u know of the teacher of king suddodana - Asita KalaDevala. he > was a brakmana(non Buddhist) who had the Anagatassa gnana(the > ability of seeing the future) That's why he smiled & cried at the > birth of Siddhartha. he saw that siddartha will attain Buddha hood. > But he saw that he'll not be living to see it. > > > > Buddhas can see the past as far as it gets & Buddhas can see the > future Its not prediction. I've heard that in Thripitaka there's a > place where Lord Buddha had mentioned of great personalities who came > after his passing away, like king Ashoka,etc (any one know where > exactly it is ?) > > > > Don't take this as a all seeing & all hearing as with god. I'v > heard that, Only & only when he wishes to see some thing, he uses > the wisdom which is used to do it & it is reviled to him. > > > > Hope This Helps > > May u be well & happy > > With Metta > > Ram > -- 18352 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 5:02am Subject: Re: Keeping Sila Hi James, > You write, `The supramundane path has the attributes > of jhana… Yet the supramundane path is not any jhana at all.' Oh, > this is really clear! ;-) It may look, taste, and smell like an > apple, but it really isn't an apple. Why? Because Neo says so. I think our understanding differs because of the Abhidhamma. Our understanding have to part here, I guess, since you aren't a fan of the Abhidhamma. By the way, have you eaten 'vegetarian meat'? Some of these food may look, taste and smell like meat, yet it is not meat. > Where is your support for this ridiculous assertion? You refer to > the `Visuddhimagga Maha Tika', for an pretty much unrelated point, > without proper citation, and frankly I have no clue what in the > heck that is. What is the `Visuddhimagga Maha Tika'? Why should > I believe it or know it? I am fairly sure many fairy tales and > scandalous stories have impressive Pali names also, should I > believe all of them? (And if this is some sort of obscure > reference, and you quote it knowing that I will not know what it > is, you are guilty of extreme conceit. Trying to outshine others > is quite unnecessary. We are trying to reach the truth here…not > be `know-it-alls') I am not sure if you had read "A Critical Analysis of the Jhanas" by Henepola. Those mumbo-jumbo are from there. I can e-mail you the PDF document if you want. It is about 1.4 megabytes. > Please Neo, I have more important things to do than to play > tit-for-tat when you don't provide proper citations or analysis. As far as I know, I am not playing tit-for-tat. But I admit I am negligent not to have informed you carefully of where those mumbo- jumbo came from. > I will ignore you from this point forward if you don't > substantiate your claims with proper research and logic. I apologise for causing much distress to you. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18353 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 0:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi, James (and Sarah, Swee Boon, and all) - In a message dated 12/31/02 2:31:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah > wrote: > >Hi James, > > >===== > >* "When paññå has been developed to the degree that enlightenment > can be > >attained, lokuttara cittas, supramundane cittas experiencing > nibbÃ¥na > >arise. > >The magga-citta (path-consciousness), which is lokuttara kusala > citta, > >directly experiences nibbÃ¥na. When the magga-citta has fallen > away, it is > >immediately succeeded by its result, the phala-citta > >(fruition-consciousness), which is lokuttara vipÃ¥kacitta, also > >experiencing > >nibbÃ¥na. > > Hi Sarah, > > I absolutely, 100% disagree with this. I don't care if it is > written down, if you and NEO agree with it or not. The Buddha > specifically taught the opposite of these outlandish statements. No > cittas, supramundane or not, experience Nibbana. I have already > quoted extensively from the Buddha regarding this. Nibbana is not > and never could be an object of the mind. And I also think that you > have the wrong idea of what the aggregates are, but I am going to > drop it. You know too much to be told otherwise. I don't 'know' > anything, I only feel. Frankly, I am glad that I don't 'know' as > much as you and NEO. You seem to forget the heart. > > However, please don't presume to tell me what I feel. I know what I > feel. I feel the Buddha in all of those situations I described. I > am sorry you never have. > > Metta, James > > =============================== I have reservations as well with the idea of conditioned discernment taking the unconditioned as object. But that may in part be due to how one understands taking something as an object. Nibbana is an absence. We are, of course, able to observe absences, though that is possibly by means of comparison with the corresponding presences. Nibbana, of course, is an ultimate absence, an absence of all defilement and of all (separate) conditions - it is not nothing, but, being thoroughly uncondititoned, is without possibility of definitional circumscription. But there is the possibility of "pointing" to it, both lingistically and, I believe, observationally. In this latter regard, which relates to what you are discussing, James, about taking nibbana as an object of discernment (or not), a word that I like a lot is 'adumbration'. There is the following dictionary entry: **************************** Main Entry: ad·um·brate Pronunciation: 'a-d&m-"brAt, a-'d&m- Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -brat·ed; -brat·ing Etymology: Latin adumbratus, past participle of adumbrare, from ad- + umbra shadow —more at UMBRAGE Date: 1581 1 : to foreshadow vaguely : INTIMATE 2 a : to give a sketchy representation or outline of b : to suggest or disclose partially 3 : OVERSHADOW, OBSCURE - ad·um·bra·tion /"a-(")d&m-'brA-sh&n/ noun - ad·um·bra·tive /a-'d&m-br&-tiv/ adjective - ad·um·bra·tive·ly adverb Pronunciation Key © 2001 by Merriam-Webster, Incorporated Merriam-Webster Privacy Policy ************************** I think that it is possible to obtain, even via our flawed, conditioned consciousness, an adumbration of nibbana, a kind of foreshadowing, seeing-from-a-distance of the unconditioned, and it may be this which is the content of path and fruit consciousnesses at least at levels lower than the arahant level. I have had two (differing) experiences which possibly, just possibly, are (quite low-level, quite mediocre) instances of kindergarten versions of this, and so I don't find the idea preposterous. The ultimate level of nibbanic discernment, it would seem to me, would be radically different from this, however, in that there would be no element of seeing from a distance. The ultimate apprehension of nibbana, it would seem to me, would be a nondual, timeless, being-event which falls beyond any possibility of real description. With metta, Howard P.S. Sarah isn't likely to be one who forgets the heart. Sometimes a dispassionate, analytical discussion might suggest that, but that would be a mistaken interpretation. /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) 18354 From: Robert Eddison Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:54am Subject: Re: Yasodhara I've deleted the post to which I'm replying, but it's the one from Peter where he asked for a translation of the song sung by Yasodharaa upon the Buddha's return to Kapilavatthu. It consists of ten verses called the Narasiihagaathaa (Verses on the Lion of Men). It is found in the Apadaana Commentary (no English translation) and in the Jaatakanidaana, the introductory section of the Jaataka Commentary. There are two PTS translations of this: T.W. & C.A.F. Rhys Davids: _Buddhist Birth Stories, The Commentarial Introduction Entitled Nidaanakathaa_. London 1925. N.A. Jayawickrama: _The Story of Gotama Buddha (Jaatakanidaana)_. Oxford 1990. Note: Cowell's translation of the Jaataka will not be of any use here as it leaves out the Nidaanakathaa and gives only the birth stories and their verses. Below I append the Pali verses, though I regret I don't have time to provide a new translation, being presently up to my neck in more pedestrian translation work (mostly end-of-year financial reports of Icelandic fishing companies). NARASIIHAGAATHAA Siniddhaniilamuduku~ncitakeso, suuriyanimmalatalaabhinalaa.to. Yuttatun.gamudukaayatanaaso, ra.msijaalavitato narasiiho. Cakkavaran.kitarattasupaado, lakkha.nama.n.ditaaayatapa.nhi. Caamarihatthavibhuusitapa.nho, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. Sakyakumaaro varado sukhumaalo, lakkha.navicittapasannasariiro. Lokahitaaya aagato naraviiro, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. Aayatayuttasusa.n.thitasoto, gopakhumo abhiniilanetto. Indadhanuabhiniilabhamuko, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. Pu.n.nacandanibho mukhava.n.no, devanaraana.m piyo naranaago. Mattagajindavilaasitagaamii, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. Siniddhasugambhiirama~njusaghoso, hin.gulava.n.narattasujivho. Viisativiisatisetasudanto, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. Khattiyasambhavaaggakulindo, devamanussanamassitapaado. Siilasamaadhipati.t.thitacitto, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. Va.t.tasuva.t.tasusa.n.thitagiivo, siihahanumigaraajasariiro. Ka~ncanasucchaviuttamava.n.no, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. A~njanasamava.n.nasuniilakeso, ka~ncanapa.t.tavisuddhanalaa.to. Osadhipa.n.darasuddhasuu.n.no, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. Gacchantonilapathe viya cando, taaraaga.napariva.d.dhitaruupo. Saavakamajjhagato sama.nindo, esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho ti. Happy new year to all! Robert 18355 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 31, Comm, some remarks Hi Larry and all, op 30-12-2002 01:07 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera > The Section of the Synopsis p.42 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > If, in the meditator's body, called the world, covetousness and grief > are abandoned, in the worlds of his feelings and so forth too, these are > abandoned owing to the earlier abandoning of these by the yogi > [kamañcettha kayasankhate loke abhijjha domanassam pahinam vedanadi > lokesu pi tam pahinameva pubbe pahinatta]. N: We have to return to a former part which I like: the body is the world because it crumbles. What is the world? What arises and falls away, sankhara dhammas. And see also the last line of this excerpt. As to: "owing to the earlier abandoning of these by the yogi", I was wondering. Is this, as we read earlier, vikkhambhana pahaana, abandoning by suppression in Samatha, by the jhana? Different from tadanga pahaana, abandoning by the opposites, by vipassana. Soma: Still, everywhere, the abandoning of the defilements has been stated by > way of the different types of persons and by way of the diversity of the > thought-unit, in which the development of the different subjects of the > Arousing of Mindfulness takes place [nana puggalavasena pana nana > cittakkhana satipatthana bhavanavasena ca sabbattha vuttam]. > [T] That is due to the fact that only the defilements which can arise in > the future are capable of being abandoned through the scorching out of > the causes by the attainment of the Path or through measures that make > the causes temporarily impotent, because of the observance of virtue and > the development of absorption. Past defilements and those arising in the > present are beyond the scope of abandoning. N: This is clear. Past is past already, the present has already arisen and then gone, so fast. Through the Path the latent tendencies are eradicated, so that defilements cannot arise in the future. Thus, I can understand that past or present defilements are not abandoned. Nina. 18356 From: James Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:08am Subject: Dukkha and Illusion Sarah, Howard, NEO, all, Okay, Sarah, first of all, I am not in need of `rest'. Could you please stop writing that? I sleep at least six hours a day, everyday. Sometimes I sleep for long stretches; sometimes I break up the sleep into several sessions. I don't need a whole lot of sleep because the quality of my sleep is very good. I go to sleep immediately and rarely dream. Let's talk a little bit about `agitation'. Yes, I show a lot of agitation at times. Why? Because my very existence is agitation, so is everyone's who is unenlightened. That is the first Noble Truth: Life, all of it, is agitation, stress, and suffering. Now, I believe anyone who acts calm all of the time is simply keeping this agitation bottled up inside and being insincere. They may appear wise, but I think they are being `artificial' for the most part. I could go more into this but I won't right now. I am sure many people are pulling out a lot of sutta references to argue me. I am very agitated about that as well. Can't anyone think for himself or herself? The Buddha said many different things many different ways. He didn't proclaim `holy scripture'. And he wanted us all to think for ourselves. If the result is wrong thinking, so be it. A genuine wrong is better than a fake, forced right anytime; at least I believe so. Howard, you are quite correct. And I now see that at least one other person in this group truly follows the path (at least at some point) rather than just researches it or writes about it. You will understand what I write here. During deep meditation we discover our samsara existence: Which is a collection of `Vibrations'. We are all composed of vibrations of energy. One can experience a momentary `stop' of those vibrations, which isn't full nibbana, but a weak taste of it. The vibrations of thoughts, feels, consciousness, perception, and forms only knows that, for an instant, they ceased to exist because they stopped vibrating. It is a very unsettling, and very wonderful, experience. But, the vibrations don't `know' what happened during that cessation, they just know that it did happen. It is like this: these vibrations create a constant `film' that is taken as reality. Suddenly the mind `knows' that part of the film is missing! What was on that film? The mind has no clue of that; they only know that part is missing. To say that `supramundane' (a word far, too overused) cittas arise to `know' this cessation is ridiculous. Cittas are vibrations; Nibbana is the cessation of those vibrations. Cittas cannot possibly know nibbana. Keeping this in mind, the Buddha was Nibbana. He was not a collection of aggregates that were vibrating any longer. They had completely stopped. He had become his true nature, Nibbana. There was no difference between the Buddha and Nibbana. People who were around him knew this. Why did he appear the same way to most people? Why did his body exist in the same way but his mind was completely different? This was one of those things, I believe, he didn't want to teach directly (but he did indirectly). There is a strong possibility that our pile of aggregates not only create the illusion of self, they also create the illusion of samsara. In other words, the Buddha could be seen because he was part of the `film'. He had been born and had to live out a life according to the `script'. But he knew that none of it was real. He could have stepped out at any time. Metta, James 18357 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:43am Subject: Re: Yasodhara Hi Robert Thanks for locating these verses. At least I am half way there to towards completion. Maybe I'll learn enough Pali at some opportune future time and have a go at it myself. Happy New Year Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Robert Eddison wrote: > I've deleted the post to which I'm replying, but it's the one from Peter > where he asked for a translation of the song sung by Yasodharaa upon the > Buddha's return to Kapilavatthu. > > It consists of ten verses called the Narasiihagaathaa (Verses on the Lion > of Men). It is found in the Apadaana Commentary (no English translation) > and in the Jaatakanidaana, the introductory section of the Jaataka > Commentary. There are two PTS translations of this: > > T.W. & C.A.F. Rhys Davids: _Buddhist Birth Stories, The Commentarial > Introduction Entitled Nidaanakathaa_. London 1925. > > N.A. Jayawickrama: _The Story of Gotama Buddha (Jaatakanidaana)_. Oxford 1990. > > Note: Cowell's translation of the Jaataka will not be of any use here as it > leaves out the Nidaanakathaa and gives only the birth stories and their verses. > > Below I append the Pali verses, though I regret I don't have time to > provide a new translation, being presently up to my neck in more pedestrian > translation work (mostly end-of-year financial reports of Icelandic fishing > companies). > > NARASIIHAGAATHAA > > Siniddhaniilamuduku~ncitakeso, > suuriyanimmalatalaabhinalaa.to. > Yuttatun.gamudukaayatanaaso, > ra.msijaalavitato narasiiho. > > Cakkavaran.kitarattasupaado, > lakkha.nama.n.ditaaayatapa.nhi. > Caamarihatthavibhuusitapa.nho, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > Sakyakumaaro varado sukhumaalo, > lakkha.navicittapasannasariiro. > Lokahitaaya aagato naraviiro, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > Aayatayuttasusa.n.thitasoto, > gopakhumo abhiniilanetto. > Indadhanuabhiniilabhamuko, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > Pu.n.nacandanibho mukhava.n.no, > devanaraana.m piyo naranaago. > Mattagajindavilaasitagaamii, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > Siniddhasugambhiirama~njusaghoso, > hin.gulava.n.narattasujivho. > Viisativiisatisetasudanto, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > Khattiyasambhavaaggakulindo, > devamanussanamassitapaado. > Siilasamaadhipati.t.thitacitto, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > Va.t.tasuva.t.tasusa.n.thitagiivo, > siihahanumigaraajasariiro. > Ka~ncanasucchaviuttamava.n.no, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > A~njanasamava.n.nasuniilakeso, > ka~ncanapa.t.tavisuddhanalaa.to. > Osadhipa.n.darasuddhasuu.n.no, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho. > > Gacchantonilapathe viya cando, > taaraaga.napariva.d.dhitaruupo. > Saavakamajjhagato sama.nindo, > esa hi tuyha.m pitaa narasiiho ti. > > > Happy new year to all! > > Robert 18358 From: nidive Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:41am Subject: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James (if you care to listen - warning - contains Abhidhamma stuff), Sarah and Others who are interested, Earlier on, I said that I was convinced that nibbana cannot be described. After re-reading and re-ponderance, I regret to say that I remain unconvinced that nibbana cannot be described. I have considered Sutta Nipata V.6. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp5- 06.html Upasiva: If he stays there, O All-around Eye, unaffected for many years, right there would he be cooled & released? Would his consciousness be like that? The Buddha: As a flame overthrown by the force of the wind goes to an end that cannot be classified, so the sage free from naming activity goes to an end that cannot be classified. The phrase "cannot be classified" was used as evidence that nibbana cannot be described or known. However, that very phrase was also attributed to a flame that has been snuffed out by the wind. The question arises as to whether a flame that has been snuffed out is equivalent to nibbana. Surely that is not the case. Therefore, as I understand it, the Buddha was not speaking about nibbana here. He was merely saying that something which does not exist anymore cannot be classified. Surely, a thing can only be classified only if it exists. If it does not exist, there is no way we can classify it. Thus, a flame that has gone out cannot be classified. Thus, an arahant cannot be classified simply because the arahant does not exist anymore (after passing away, death being unavoidable). It is simply impossible for a flame that has gone out to regain its brilliance. The flame does not exist anymore. Upasiva: He who has reached the end: Does he not exist, or is he for eternity free from dis-ease? Please, sage, declare this to me as this phenomenon has been known by you. The Buddha: One who has reached the end has no criterion by which anyone would say that -- for him it doesn't exist. When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well. It is impossible for that which is non-existent to ask or to think: 'Do I exist?' or 'Do I not exist'?. It is complicating that which is non-complicated. Therefore, it is impossible to describe something which does not exist anymore. It is impossible that a flame which does not exist anymore could be described. Even so, it is impossible to describe the Tathagata or an arahant. However, nibbana can be described. The reason being that nibbana exists; as compared to the Tathagata who no longer exists anymore, just like a flame which is snuffed out and no longer existing cannot be described. "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is the Enlightened One, mighty, deep unfathomable as the great ocean." Indeed, the above sutta quote says directly that the Tathagata cannot be described. This concurs with my understanding. I have also considered Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye & forms, ear & sounds, nose & aromas, tongue & flavors, body & tactile sensations, intellect & ideas. This, monks, is called the All. Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." The note accompanying the HTML link says: ... the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of the All described here -- as a dhamma, or object of the intellect ... As I understand it, the Commentary is correct to say that the All includes nibbana as the object of the intellect. The four ultimate dhammas in the Abhidhamma are: rupa, citta, cetasika and nibbana. Each citta always takes an object and nibbana can be the object of a citta. Therefore, 'intellect & ideas' would include nibbana. For it is by means of cittas that nibbana is known. As I understand it, what the Buddha was driving at here was this: Is there anything beyond the four 'ultimate realities' of rupa, citta, cetasika and nibbana? Clearly, if there is anything beyond the four 'ultimate realities', it would lie beyond range. There is therefore no ground for the statement "Repudiating this All, I will describe another.". A person who says so will be unable to explain what lies beyond the four 'ultimate realities' and would be put to grief. This brings us to AN III.32 "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." As I understand it, AN III.32 was clearly an attempt by the Buddha to describe nibbana. (Some may disagree. But my counter-question would be: Even if a pseudo-description by the Buddha was made, is that not an attempt at describing? For if describing nibbana would put the Buddha to grief, would he even attempt to describe nibbana?) As I understand it, the Buddha was able to explain what was described (nibbana) and he was not put to grief. Now, let's turn our attention to the standard descriptions given by the Buddha about arahants and about nibbana. The standard description given about arahants is: "Released from clinging to form, feeling, perception, mental formations and consciousness is the Enlightened One, mighty, deep unfathomable as the great ocean." An elaborate and standard description comparing an arahant with that of fire or flame is given: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html "And suppose someone were to ask you, Vaccha, 'This fire burning in front of you, dependent on what is it burning?' Thus asked, how would you reply?" "...I would reply, 'This fire burning in front of me is burning dependent on grass & timber as its sustenance.'" "If the fire burning in front of you were to go out, would you know that, 'This fire burning in front of me has gone out'?" "...yes..." "And suppose someone were to ask you, 'This fire that has gone out in front of you, in which direction from here has it gone? East? West? North? Or south?' Thus asked, how would you reply?" "That doesn't apply, Master Gotama. Any fire burning dependent on a sustenance of grass and timber, being unnourished -- from having consumed that sustenance and not being offered any other -- is classified simply as 'out' (unbound)." "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply. "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." The standard descriptions given about nibbana is: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 "There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither dimension of the infinitude of space, nor dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, nor dimension of nothingness, nor dimension of neither perception nor non-perception; neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support [mental object]. This, just this, is the end of stress." -- Ud VIII.1 "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 These descriptions which I pointed out makes it very clear that an arahant and nibbana are separate entities. The Buddha had never described nibbana as "mighty, deep unfathomable as the great ocean". Such a description only applies to an arahant. Similarly, the Buddha had never described arahants as "peace, exquisite or the dimension where there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis, etc...". Such a description only applies to nibbana. The Buddha made it very clear that arahants and nibbana are different entities. Arahants are indescribable by virtue of their non-existence (after passing away). Nibbana is describable by virtue of its existence as an 'ultimate reality'. The Buddha would not expound a teaching that is confusing. Arahants are arahants. Nibbana is nibbana. As I understand it, confusion is clearly not the style of teaching of the Buddha. I have also considered Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.24 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-024.html "Monks, I will teach you the All as a phenomenon for abandoning. Listen & pay close attention. I will speak." "As you say, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "And which All is a phenomenon for abandoning? to be abandoned? The eye is to be abandoned. Forms are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the eye is to be abandoned. Contact at the eye is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the eye -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too is to be abandoned. "The ear is to be abandoned. Sounds are to be abandoned... "The nose is to be abandoned. Aromas are to be abandoned... "The tongue is to be abandoned. Flavors are to be abandoned... "The body is to be abandoned. Tactile sensations are to be abandoned... "The intellect is to be abandoned. Ideas are to be abandoned. Consciousness at the intellect is to be abandoned. Contact at the intellect is to be abandoned. And whatever there is that arises in dependence on contact at the intellect -- experienced as pleasure, pain or neither-pleasure-nor-pain -- that too is to be abandoned. "This is called the All as a phenomenon for abandoning." Earlier on I have said that the All includes nibbana. But why should one abandon nibbana? Indeed, why should one not abandon nibbana? Would one who has laid down the burden (arahant) say: "I would not let go of nibbana."? Clearly not, for that is a burden in itself. One who has laid down the burden would have seen the four 'ultimate realities' as they are. He knows what is Conditioned and what is Unconditioned. Having rightly penetrated what is Conditioned and what is Unconditioned, at death, he goes to an end that cannot be classified by virtue of being non-existent. As I understand it, an arahant who had died does not 'enter nibbana', nor is the five aggregates 'replaced' with nibbana. An arahant is not nibbana. Nibbana remains as it is. But as for the arahant, by virtue of being non-existent (five aggregates extinguished), there can be no classification. When all phenomena are done away with, all means of speaking are done away with as well. Indeed, for an arahant who had passed away, even the 'ultimate reality' of nibbana is done away with. For all has been seen as they are. This stanza also shows that the Buddha was able to describe nibbana by virtue of nibbana being a phenomena (which is unconditioned yet an 'ultimate reality'). If nibbana were not a phenomena, there would be no case for the Buddha to provide a description of it (or even attempt to provide a pseudo-description). http://www.abhidhamma.org/abhid18.html 'Might there be another way also, revered sir, according to which it suffices to say, 'The monk is skilled in the elements'?' 'There might be, Ananda. There are these two elements, Ananda: the element that is constructed and the element that is unconstructed. When, Ananda, he knows and sees these two elements, it is at this stage that it suffices to say, 'The monk is skilled in the element. My conclusion is that nibbana is to be known and seen as it is. When nibbana is known and seen as it is, at death, the arahant goes to an end that cannot be classified by virtue of being non-existent. An arahant is not nibbana. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18359 From: James Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 10:42am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James (if you care to listen - warning - contains Abhidhamma > stuff), Sarah and Others who are interested, Hi NEO, Okay, this is a much better analysis with understandable support. I see where you are coming from, to some extent. I am not going to go into all the details of this post; I just want to look at your main argument. Your main argument is that an arahant can't be described, but Nibbana can be described to some extent. Therefore, an arahant isn't nibbana. The main sticking point we have is the death of the arahant. What happens at that point? What is the difference between an arahant alive and an arahant dead? What is the difference between nibbana and parinibbana (total unbinding)? If an arahant is free from the five aggregates, what could the arahant be still bound to? I believe that the arahant is still bound by samsara, but is actually nibbana. To explain, let's look at the last moments of the Buddha's death. It is described as such: Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." Those were the Tathagata's last words. Then the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Emerging from that he entered the second jhana. Emerging from that, he entered the third... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the cessation of perception & feeling. Then Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Anuruddha, "Ven. Anuruddha,[8] the Blessed One is totally unbound." "No, friend Ananda. The Blessed One isn't totally unbound. He has entered the cessation of perception & feeling." Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor non- perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound." NEO, I won't presume to know what all of these stages are. They are really only knowable to the arahant. But, I want you to look particularly at the last part of this selection, before the Buddha was totally Unbound. First he goes through the jhanas in the order of highest release, 1 to 4, then he enters `dimensions' of neither percpection, non-perception, etc. At this point, Ven. Ananda thinks he must be totally unbound, but that is not the case. From this highest level, he then goes back through the Jhanas from the highest to the lowest, from 4 to 1, then he immediately goes back from the lowest to the highest, from 1 to 4…..then he is totally unbound. Why did he do this? I believe it is because he needed to release the `illusion of samsara'; the illusion that others project onto him as `a self'. Then, and only then, he could completely leave the samsara existence. Why this order of jhana? Think of samsara as like gravity. First he has to get to the point outside of the effect of gravity, then he re-enters gravity with the quality of having no-gravity, this negates the law of gravity as he goes to the highest level of release again without the effect of gravity (samsara). Then he is finally, completely unbound. The Buddha was Nibbana, but `he' (which really isn't `he') was subsisting in a non-nibbana realm. He was an anomaly. He had to leave the effect of that realm, re-enter it to negate that existence, and then he would be completely unbound. Samsara is also referred to as the `Jeweled Net of Indra'. We are each like jewels connected to each other, but we are separated by a net or web. When the Buddha achieved enlightenment, he wasn't a part of the web any longer, but the web still had his `spot' existing. He had to close this `spot' by showing to all that he really didn't exist any longer. Then he was completely unbound because `his spot' was closed. Of course I could be mistaken about this interpretation. The sutta provides no explanation and there aren't footnotes either. My explanation could be plausible, or it couldn't. We are more connected than we often assume. Metta, James 18360 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/31/02 12:43:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > I have also considered Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html > > "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen &pay close attention. I > will speak." > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > > The Blessed One said, "What is the All? Simply the eye &forms, ear > &sounds, nose &aromas, tongue &flavors, body &tactile > sensations, intellect &ideas. This, monks, is called the All. > Anyone who would say, 'Repudiating this All, I will describe > another,' if questioned on what exactly might be the grounds for his > statement, would be unable to explain, and furthermore, would be put > to grief. Why? Because it lies beyond range." > > The note accompanying the HTML link says: > > ... the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of > the All described here -- as a dhamma, or object of the intellect ... > > As I understand it, the Commentary is correct to say that the All > includes nibbana as the object of the intellect. > > The four ultimate dhammas in the Abhidhamma are: rupa, citta, > cetasika and nibbana. Each citta always takes an object and nibbana > can be the object of a citta. Therefore, 'intellect &ideas' would > include nibbana. For it is by means of cittas that nibbana is known. > > As I understand it, what the Buddha was driving at here was this: Is > there anything beyond the four 'ultimate realities' of rupa, citta, > cetasika and nibbana? > =========================== I find the foregoing to be not only a stretch, but a contortion. ;-) It seems to me that both the commentary and you are making Herculean efforts on behalf of Abhidhamma here, but it just does not fit. The sutta, The All, it seems to me is very clear, and it does *not* include nibbana within its purview. Nibbana is not to be found within any of the items listed, including "intellect & ideas." Nibbana is not an idea. There may well be idea(s) of nibbana, but not one of them *is* nibbana. Nibbana is that absence which is the end of dukkha, the end of the three poisons. Included within nibbana is the end of thinking or feeling or suspecting that there is anything beyond the all. It is a complete and total giving up, throwing back, and release. (And none of what I write here is anything more than an inadequate "pointing to", and not a definition.) 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) 18361 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:51am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: < snip > To explain, let's look at the last moments of the Buddha's death. It is described as such: Then the Blessed One addressed the monks, "Now, then, monks, I exhort you: All fabrications are subject to decay. Bring about completion by being heedful." Those were the Tathagata's last words. Then the Blessed One entered the first jhana. Emerging from that he entered the second jhana. Emerging from that, he entered the third... the fourth jhana... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception. Emerging from that, he entered the cessation of perception & feeling. Then Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Anuruddha, "Ven. Anuruddha,[8] the Blessed One is totally unbound." "No, friend Ananda. The Blessed One isn't totally unbound. He has entered the cessation of perception & feeling." Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor non- perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound." KKT: I always question this story about the last moment of the Buddha. Because the Buddha didn't describe His inner states at that moment, how did others know that He had passed by such and such states of Jhana? KKT 18362 From: James Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 0:21pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > KKT: I always question this story > about the last moment of the Buddha. > > Because the Buddha didn't describe > His inner states at that moment, > how did others know that He had passed > by such and such states of Jhana? > > > KKT Hi KKT, Good issue to bring up because it further supports my point. ;-) Ananda, at the time of the death of the Buddha, was still stuck in Samsara as an unenlightened being; he was connected to all of the `jewels' in the `Jeweled Net of Indra', and Ven. Ananda could see a lot, but not much past that `web of connection'. What he saw as reality wasn't really reality. That is why Ven. Anuruddha, who was enlightened at the time, had to set him straight at this momentous moment. Ven. Ananda knew some things, but not everything. For example, I am not enlightened, like Ven. Ananda was at that time; but because I know that I am connected to everyone, I often know many things about others… usually to their surprise…but not everything. (Actually, sometimes I am connected so much I wish I wasn't connected! The connections are hard to break for one who rushes the process like I am doing presently. Many people in this group, practically everyone actually, is connecting to me in a way that is overwhelming for me. Please stop. Give me some time. You all know what I mean. ;-). Love, James ps. KKT, you already know this and are like this. You just wanted confirmation. This post may get me in trouble with 'the powers that be.' ;-) I don't care, it won't be the first time!! ;-) 18363 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 0:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy New Year and No Need to Agree..... Happy New Year Sarah. Thanks very much for the great link in your 'NUM-looking at the moon on a cloudy night' message above. I hope you keep us posted on when the book comes out. I also wanted to thank all those on the list for their great posts. And I especially want to thank Sarah and Jon for all the work you put into the list. Happy New Year everyone............................... Gassho Ray "And what is meant by admirable friendship? There is the case where a lay person, in whatever town or village he may dwell, spends time with householders or householders' sons, young or old, who are advanced in virtue. He talks with them, engages them in discussions. He emulates consummate conviction in those who are consummate in conviction, consummate virtue in those who are consummate in virtue, consummate generosity in those who are consummate in generosity, and consummate discernment in those who are consummate in discernment. This is called admirable friendship. " "When a monk has admirable friends, admirable companions, admirable comrades, it is to be expected that he will get to hear at will, easily & without difficulty, talk that is truly sobering and conducive to the opening of awareness, i.e., talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, on discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release" ----- Original Message ----- From: "Sarah" To: Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 12:45 AM Subject: [dsg] Happy New Year and No Need to Agree..... > Hi James, > > --- "James " wrote: > > > Hi Sarah, > > > > I absolutely, 100% disagree with this. > ..... > No problem....we don't need to agree and I probably came in with the wrong > words at the wrong time, even though I meant well. There will be plenty of > others who also agree with your points in this regard and be glad to hear > your spirited defence of them anytime. > > I apologise for any offence caused with any 'unfeeling' comments. Get some > rest so that you can enjoy the New Year tonight;-)Must be pretty close for > Rob K in New Zealand.... > > Happy New Year to everyone else too. > > metta, > > Sarah > ====== 18364 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Howard, Sorry for butting in, but I am puzzled by your post in regard to this particular sutta (perhaps the response was more in the context of Swee Boon's entire post in general). > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > > (Swee Boon:) > > I have also considered Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html > > > > "Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen &pay close attention. I > > will speak." > > > > "As you say, lord," the monks responded. > > > > ... > > > > The note accompanying the HTML link says: > > > > ... the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of > > the All described here -- as a dhamma, or object of the intellect ... > > > > As I understand it, the Commentary is correct to say that the All > > includes nibbana as the object of the intellect. > > > > The four ultimate dhammas in the Abhidhamma are: rupa, citta, > > cetasika and nibbana. Each citta always takes an object and nibbana > > can be the object of a citta. Therefore, 'intellect &ideas' would > > include nibbana. For it is by means of cittas that nibbana is known. > > > > As I understand it, what the Buddha was driving at here was this: Is > > there anything beyond the four 'ultimate realities' of rupa, citta, > > cetasika and nibbana? > > > =========================== > I find the foregoing to be not only a stretch, but a > contortion. ;-) > It seems to me that both the commentary and you are making > Herculean > efforts on behalf of Abhidhamma here, but it just does not fit. > The sutta, > The All, it seems to me is very clear, and it does *not* include nibbana > within its purview. Nibbana is not to be found within any of the items > listed, including "intellect & ideas." Nibbana is not an idea. As far as I understand it, the Buddha simply says in this sutta that if somebody is calling/referring to (naming, making pannatti) something that is real, it must refer to one of the 12 things he enumerated. For someone to come up with something else (that doesn't refer to the 12 things), the person will have nothing to back it up with. The commentaries simply says that in this sutta, the Sabba (the All) refers to the Ayatana 12, which is corroborated by the typical enumeration that refers to the Ayatana 12. It also explains that because there is no realities that the Buddha doesn't penetrate, it is impossible for anybody to come up with something that is real that the Buddha doesn't already know and teach. I personally think the use of the words "intellect & ideas" are misleading translations. Intellect in this case refers to Manayatana => (Abhidhamma) all the cittas except the previous 5. Ideas => Dhammayatana => (Abhidhamma) all other types of rupas not included in the previous 7, the cetasikas, and nibbana On what ground (in this sutta) do you object including Nibbana as part of the all? Is it because of the words, the contexts, or is it because what you understand the 12 ayatanas to be (that doesn't include nibbana), or is it something else? kom 18365 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 8:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi again, Swee Boon - In a message dated 12/31/02 2:05:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I find the foregoing to be not only a stretch, but a contortion. ;-) > It seems to me that both the commentary and you are making Herculean > efforts on behalf of Abhidhamma here, but it just does not fit. The sutta, > The All, it seems to me is very clear, and it does *not* include nibbana > within its purview. Nibbana is not to be found within any of the items > listed, including "intellect &ideas." Nibbana is not an idea. There may > well > be idea(s) of nibbana, but not one of them *is* nibbana. Nibbana is that > absence which is the end of dukkha, the end of the three poisons. Included > within nibbana is the end of thinking or feeling or suspecting that there > is > anything beyond the all. It is a complete and total giving up, throwing > back, > and release. (And none of what I write here is anything more than an > inadequate "pointing to", and not a definition.) > ========================== An additional thought has occurred to me which I'd like to mention. The great hero of Mahayana, Nagarjuna, whom David Kalupahana, the Theravadin scholar actually suggests might well have been Theravadin, taught that nibbana is not different from samsara, that fundamentally there isn't an iota of difference between them. Most Theravadins and many Mahayanists are perplexed by this cryptic claim. If the 12 pairs, together, are, indeed, as the sutta "The All" states, all that there is, yet they are all conditioned and nibbana is the unconditioned (so that nibbana cannot, as I said, be among them) then there would appear to be an outright contradiction. The solution, it would seem to me, is Nagarjuna's solution. Nibbana is the way things actually are, and it is the way they appear when the three poisons are fully uprooted and there is no distortion. Samsara is the way things appear under the yoke of afflictions, under the spell of ignorance and the slavery of craving and aversion. My sense of what the what the dawning of enlightenment must be like is that of an incredibly astounding "aha! moment" in which blinders are removed and the reality seen is so surprising, so marvelous, so completely inexpressible, and the deliverance obtained so complete, that one doesn't know whether to laugh or cry, and typically does both! 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) 18366 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Kom - With regard to the following, I just sent off a follow-up post to my previous one that may go a long way in answering what you ask here. BTW, let me take the opportunity here to correct something I wrote in that follow-up post: I wrote of "the 12 pairs", but, of course, I should have said either "the 12 ayatanas" or the "6 pairs". (And I call myself a mathematician!! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 12/31/02 4:31:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > Dear Howard, > > Sorry for butting in, but I am puzzled by your post in regard to this > particular sutta (perhaps the response was more in the context of Swee > Boon's entire post in general). > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > > > >>(Swee Boon:) > >>I have also considered Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.23 > >> > >>http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-023.html > >> > >>"Monks, I will teach you the All. Listen &pay close attention. I > >>will speak." > >> > >>"As you say, lord," the monks responded. > >> > >>... > >> > >>The note accompanying the HTML link says: > >> > >>... the Commentary includes nibbana (unbinding) within the scope of > >>the All described here -- as a dhamma, or object of the intellect ... > >> > >>As I understand it, the Commentary is correct to say that the All > >>includes nibbana as the object of the intellect. > >> > >>The four ultimate dhammas in the Abhidhamma are: rupa, citta, > >>cetasika and nibbana. Each citta always takes an object and nibbana > >>can be the object of a citta. Therefore, 'intellect &ideas' would > >>include nibbana. For it is by means of cittas that nibbana is known. > >> > >>As I understand it, what the Buddha was driving at here was this: Is > >>there anything beyond the four 'ultimate realities' of rupa, citta, > >>cetasika and nibbana? > >> > >=========================== > > I find the foregoing to be not only a stretch, but a > >contortion. ;-) > > It seems to me that both the commentary and you are making > >Herculean > >efforts on behalf of Abhidhamma here, but it just does not fit. > >The sutta, > >The All, it seems to me is very clear, and it does *not* include nibbana > >within its purview. Nibbana is not to be found within any of the items > >listed, including "intellect &ideas." Nibbana is not an idea. > > As far as I understand it, the Buddha simply says in this sutta that if > somebody is calling/referring to (naming, making pannatti) something that > is > real, it must refer to one of the 12 things he enumerated. For someone to > come up with something else (that doesn't refer to the 12 things), the > person will have nothing to back it up with. > > The commentaries simply says that in this sutta, the Sabba (the All) refers > to the Ayatana 12, which is corroborated by the typical enumeration that > refers to the Ayatana 12. It also explains that because there is no > realities that the Buddha doesn't penetrate, it is impossible for anybody > to > come up with something that is real that the Buddha doesn't already know > and > teach. > > I personally think the use of the words "intellect &ideas" are misleading > translations. > Intellect in this case refers to Manayatana => (Abhidhamma) all the cittas > except the previous 5. > Ideas => Dhammayatana => (Abhidhamma) all other types of rupas not included > in the previous 7, the cetasikas, and nibbana > > On what ground (in this sutta) do you object including Nibbana as part of > the all? Is it because of the words, the contexts, or is it because what > you understand the 12 ayatanas to be (that doesn't include nibbana), or is > it something else? > > kom > > /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) 18367 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:13pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT,and all, The Buddha had previously mentioned that Ven. Anuruddha (foremost among many others) possessed an abhinna called the divine eye. The divine eye is a mundane (lokiya) power and does not need the attainment of Arahatship. In Chapter III 14. Dhatusamyutta 'Connected Discourses on Elements' II. The Second Subchapter (Seven Elements) 15 (5) Walking Back and Forth p638-9 (Bhikkhu Bodhi) excerpt: 'Do you see Anuruddha walking back and forth with a number of bhikkhus?' 'Yes, venerable sir.' 'All those bhikkhus possess the divine eye.' In "Great Disciples of the Buddha" (Nyanaponika Thera and Hellmuth Hecker) chapter on "Anuruddha: Master of the Divine Eye", p.191 on Anuruddha's Spiritual Path, it says: 'The divine eye (dibbacakkhu) is so called because it is similar to the vision of the devas, which is capable of seeing objects at remote distances, behind barriers, and in different dimensions of existence. The divine eye is developed by meditative power. It is not a distinct sense organ but a type of knowledge, yet a knowledge that exercises an ocular function. This faculty is aroused on the basis of the fourth jhana, and specifically through one of the meditative supports called the light kasina or the fire kasina, a visualized circle of light or fire. <> The characteristic function of the divine eye, according to the texts, is the knowledge of the passing away and rebirth of beings (cutupapata-nana). This knowledge was achieved by the Buddha on the night of his own Enlightenment and was always included by him in the complex step-by-step gradual training, where it appears as the second of the three true knowledges (tevijja, see, for example, MN 27) and the fourth of the six superknowledges (challabhinna, see MN 6).' http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic_idx.htm See entry under 'abhiññá' metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > KKT: I always question this story > about the last moment of the Buddha. > > Because the Buddha didn't describe > His inner states at that moment, > how did others know that He had passed > by such and such states of Jhana? > > > KKT 18368 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:25pm Subject: RE: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Howard, Thanks for replying. You objected on the ground that Ayatana 12 don't include any unconditioned reality (nibbana). This is definitely a position that Abhiddhamma doesn't take. I guess we will have to find other evidence in the sutta / vinaya. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Tuesday, December 31, 2002 2:00 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) > > > > > > On what ground (in this sutta) do you object including Nibbana > as part of > > the all? Is it because of the words, the contexts, or is it > because what > > you understand the 12 ayatanas to be (that doesn't include > nibbana), or is > > it something else? > > > > kom > > 18369 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:35pm Subject: Re: Way 31, Comm, some remarks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi Larry and all, > N: This is clear. Past is past already, the present has already arisen and > then gone, so fast. Through the Path the latent tendencies are eradicated, > so that defilements cannot arise in the future. Thus, I can understand that > past or present defilements are not abandoned. > Nina. Hi Nina So, presumably, the goal of the holy life is to realize this with total clarity, at all times, without any trace of doubt or confusion? Cheers Peter 18370 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 2:51pm Subject: RE: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Kom, You wrote: "On the other hand, if I were to come from a point where I think nibbana is an unconditioned consciousness, then it would be easy for me to think that with all the conditioned consciousness stripped out, what remains is the true self, even if it might not be a distinct self. Don't you think?" L: Yes, I agree. Someone asked the Buddha if consciousness is the self and he said no. As far as I know, no one asked about an unconditioned consciousness. Perhaps someone could argue from a position of yogic insight that there is an unconditioned consciousness and because it is unconditioned it satisfies the basic requirements of "self" in being not impermanent, reliable and good (sat, chit, ananda). However, even though this yogin would argue there is an unconditioned consciousness and it is self, I don't think he would say this unconditioned consciousness is nibbana. IMO nibbana is the end of belief in a self. Saying "the end of belief in a self" is the "true self" or is not self doesn't make sense, either way. Incidentally, since the Buddha divided reality into khandhas and nibbana, I think it is reasonable to assume he didn't see an unconditioned consciousness. However, I think the idea of such a thing could be used in such a way as to end the belief in a self and this would not be incompatible with satipatthana. But it would take some very high level experimentation to test such a theory. Larry 18371 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:06pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 <> > > KKT: I always question this story > about the last moment of the Buddha. > > Because the Buddha didn't describe > His inner states at that moment, > how did others know that He had passed > by such and such states of Jhana? >______________ Dear KKT, As Christine mentioned according to the texts it was venerable Anuruddha who narrated the last moments. He was chief among those monks who have such powers but there were also many others who could have known this matter. According to commentaries such types of arahants, existed for about 1000 years after the Buddhas parinibbana. Robertk 18372 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:27pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Christine & Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > > > KKT: I always question this story > about the last moment of the Buddha. > > Because the Buddha didn't describe > His inner states at that moment, > how did others know that He had passed > by such and such states of Jhana? >______________ Dear KKT, As Christine mentioned according to the texts it was venerable Anuruddha who narrated the last moments. He was chief among those monks who have such powers but there were also many others who could have known this matter. According to commentaries such types of arahants, existed for about 1000 years after the Buddhas parinibbana. Robertk KKT: Thank you for this info. BTW, do you think that an Arahat should master (and experience) all the Jhanas or is there exception which means that Arahathood would be achieved only by Insight for example? KKT 18373 From: vehapphala Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] New Member --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Norm, > > Let me join Christine in welcoming you here and also to thank you for > introducing yourself;-) Thank you and Happy New Year to you, yours and all. > It sounds like you have some Thai and Pali knowledge - look forward to hearing more. Er, I am of the type that knows little so I may well be dangerous. >There are quite a few Thais here as well. Sure hope they have the patience that my American Thai friends have with me. .> Look f/w to more..let us know if you have any questions or problems making yourself at home here.... > > Sarah Thank you. Feel right home. Aaahhhhh... Norm 18374 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:37pm Subject: Way 32, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.44 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The Contemplation of the Body The Section on Breathing Now the Blessed One, desirous of bringing about diverse kinds of attainments of distinction in beings by the Discourse on the Arousing of Mindfulness, began to teach the analytically explanatory portion [niddesavara] with the word "And how o bhikkhus." He did that after dividing into four the one mindfulness that is right [ekameva sammasatim] by way of the contemplation on the body, on feelings, on consciousness, and on mental objects. The Blessed One's exposition of the Arousing of Mindfulness is similar to the action of a worker in mat and basket weaving who wishing to make coarse and fine mats, boxes, cases, and the like, should make those goods after getting a mammoth bamboo, splitting it into four, and reducing each of the parts to strips. Idha bhikkhave bhikkhu = "Here, o bhikkhus, a bhikkhu." "Here": In this Dispensation of the Buddha which provides the basis for the person producing body-contemplation in all modes. By the word "here", dispensations other than the Buddha's are excluded as they do not teach body-contemplation in the complete way it is taught in the Buddhadhamma. For this is said: "Here is the recluse; untenanted by recluses are the other, opposing ways of thought." [Tika] "The person producing body-contemplation in all modes." As sects outside the Buddha's Dispensation also produce a part of this contemplation, by their words, the Buddha's disciple's complete knowledge or all-round grasp of this contemplation, when it is practiced by him, is told. Araññagato va... suññagaragato va = "Gone to the forest... or to an empty place." By this, here is the making clear of the getting of an abode appropriate to the meditator for the culture of mindfulness. The mind of the meditator which for a long time (before he became a recluse) had dwelt on visual and other objects, does not like to enter the road of meditation and just like a wild young bull yoked to a cart, runs off the road. A cowherd wishing to tame a wild calf nourished entirely on the milk of a wild cow, ties that calf, after leading it away from the cow, to a stout post firmly sunk in the ground, at a spot set apart for it. That calf, having jumped hither and thither, and finding it impossible to run away from here, will crouch down or lie down at that very post. Even so, must the bhikkhu who is desirous of taming the wild mind nourished long on the tasty drink of visible and other objects tie that mind to the post of the object of mindfulness-arousing with the rope of remembrance, after leading the mind from visible and other objects and ushering it into a forest, to the foot of a tree or into an empty place. The mind of the bhikkhu will also jump hither and thither. Not obtaining the objects it had long grown used to, and finding it impossible to break the rope of remembrance and run away, it will finally sit or lie down at that very object by way of partial and full absorption. Therefore, the men of old said: As one who wants to break a wild young calf Would tether it to stout stake firmly, here, In the same way the yogi should tie fast To meditation's object his own mind. In this way this abode becomes appropriate in the meditator. Therefore, it is said, "This (namely, the passage beginning with the words, 'Gone to the forest...') is the making clear of an abode appropriate to the meditator for the culture of mindfulness." 18375 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:56pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, Good question. I personally have no experience of arahatship either way. What do you think? And do you have any knowledge of what the Buddha said about this? metta, Christine > > KKT: Thank you for this info. > > BTW, do you think that an Arahat > should master (and experience) > all the Jhanas or is there exception > which means that Arahathood would > be achieved only by Insight for example? > > > KKT 18376 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 4:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy New Year and No Need to Agree..... Happy New Year everyone. And may we all remember to notice the passing of whatever the present moment may bring. Larry 18377 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 5:40pm Subject: RE: RE: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry, > -----Original Message----- > From: LBIDD@w... [mailto:LBIDD@w...] > IMO nibbana is the end of belief in a self. Saying "the end of > belief in a self" is the "true self" or is not self doesn't make sense, > either way. From paramatha perspective, because Nibbana has its own (unconditioned) characteristics which is uncontrollable, it too is non-self. > However, I think the idea of such a thing > could be used in such a way as to end the belief in a self and this > would not be incompatible with satipatthana. But it would take some very > high level experimentation to test such a theory. > Not to mention high level of wisdom and long accumulation!!!, since only an ariyan directly knows if Nibbana is self or not! Thanks for the interesting thread, Larry: a very good New Year gift for me! kom 18378 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 1:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) The possible problem with trying to interpret this translation and putting too much significance on the term "unbounded" is that in other translations Ananda is simply saying that -- "the lord has passed away." So, if the question is merely the death moment of the Buddha, Ananda merely thinks the Buddha has died at a point that he hasn't yet. The "spiritual attainment" of the Buddha is not the issue in this case. Then Ven. Ananda said to Ven. Anuruddha, "Ven. Anuruddha,[8] the Blessed One is totally unbound." "No, friend Ananda. The Blessed One isn't totally unbound. He has entered the cessation of perception & feeling." Then the Blessed One, emerging from the cessation of perception & feeling, entered the dimension of neither perception nor non- perception. Emerging from that, he entered the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the fourth jhana... the third... the second... the first jhana. Emerging from the first jhana he entered the second... the third... the fourth jhana. Emerging from the fourth jhana, he immediately was totally Unbound." TG 18379 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 7:27pm Subject: Re: Way 32, Comm, Breathing Hello to the Way corner study group, (I finally found my Way of Mindfulness book, which is much easier to carry than the reams I had printed off the internet.) Intending to become more conscientious, I may ask what has already been answered, so please don't banish me to read over all the old posts again Larry. :-) I won't go! The portion posted is explaining "And how, o bhikkus, does a bhikkhu live contemplating the body in the body?" "Here, o bhikkhus, a bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty place ..." This seems to be about a bhikkhu (I am presuming we are all covered in this sutta under the term bhikkhu?) who has gone someplace for a special purpose. It doesn't seem to be a bhikkhu who is wandering about the countryside in a pre-occupied way, or is going about his daily business. He hasn't gone to join ten or fifteen or twenty others sitting in a circle on their cushions, with the hour long session culminating in tea, biscuits and chat. I don't believe from what the sutta says that the Buddha is encouraging a congregational performance of the satipatthana, or communal meditation, or even mindfulness amid the distractions of ordinary daily life. The bhikkhu is specifically described as having gone to a private place to remain alone, to meditate. I understand only too well that we cannot live the lives of recluses when we have family obligations, accommodation and food to provide, and particularly when we live in a culture that doesn't support people who would follow such inclinations. But the feeling I get from this teaching thus far, is that this practice of satipatthana is a serious undertaking, not an interest or pastime. To whatever degree we are capable of, we should simplify our lives and relationships, and conscientiously strengthen our Sila, while practicing it. What do you reckon? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.44 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > The Contemplation of the Body > > The Section on Breathing 18380 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 3:05pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello Howard, all What do you mean by "unconditioned" in the context of the below? Not bound to "The All" by the three poisons? Something more/else? >If the 12 pairs, together, are, indeed, as the sutta "The All" states, >all that there is, yet they are all conditioned and nibbana is the >unconditioned (so that nibbana cannot, as I said, be among them) then there >would appear to be an outright contradiction. The solution, it would seem to >me, is Nagarjuna's solution. Nibbana is the way things actually are, and it >is the way they appear when the three poisons are fully uprooted and there is >no distortion. Samsara is the way things appear under the yoke of >afflictions, under the spell of ignorance and the slavery of craving and >aversion. I agree with your post. Here's a passage from Winston King The existential nature of Buddhist ultimates where he gives very similar (I think) definitions of other Mahayana terms more or less synonymous with nibbana, or aspects of nibbana: Here we may observe that this same experiential unitive emptiness informs many another Mahaayaana term of the more basic sort. "No-mind'' is the experience of an instant, almost-instinctive alertness and response to the flowing situational currents about one, freed from the constraints of the idee fixe or intellectual constructs. "The Buddha Mind'' is universal-mind or universalmindedness which has overcome the limits of merely individual mind--positive-anattaa we might call it. "All is Mind" is the experience of experiencing in one's own private awareness the infinity of the universe with no sense of mental versus material essences incommunicably separated, and without the confinement or obstruction of individual-minded finitude... "Suchness" is the world of entities experienced immediately in their own intrinsic quality without the P.270 interposition of culturally conditioned thought-frames and personal value-references--the Mahaayaana form of "bare attention." The Hua-yen doctrine of "Totality" is a mystical sense of organic involvement in, and oneness with, the totality of reality, of the limitless extension of the self. In a word, all of these at least semiontological-metaphysical, or seemingly ontological-metaphysical terms, also and perhaps primarily, indicate experiences of the bursting open of confined subjective (subject-object) consciousness of the universe, of the underlying organic oneness of self and that universe, and of the emptiness of those distinctions which ordinarily set one entity apart from another. With the absence of self the subject-object duality ceases (moha), as does dosa and lobha, which are the self's way of relating to the world. (BTW, all the experiences described are actually experienced by people; I don't think they're even that uncommon. Apparently unlike nibbana. Stabilizing the perception and actualizing it, realizing it in one's life is something else again. That sort of perfect and unfailing awareness is my definition of nibbana.) metta, stephen 18381 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:27pm Subject: Re: Way 32, Comm, Breathing In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: The portion posted is explaining "And how, o bhikkus, does a bhikkhu > live contemplating the body in the body?" "Here, o bhikkhus, a > bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty > place ..." > This seems to be about a bhikkhu (I am presuming we are all covered > in this sutta under the term bhikkhu?) ______________________ Dear Christine, In the Abhidhamma the commentary to the Vibhanga (p273 Dispeller of delusion) indicates that although the Buddha often specifies the Bhikkhus with such words as "here a bhikkhu" (because they are the senior community, the most fertile field) the discourse are also addressed to the Bhikkhuni , and laypeople. "Or, alternatively he also spoke thus to show that state of the Bhikkhu through practice. For he who has entered upon this way is called a Bhikkhu, whether he be diety or human, is counted as a Bhikkhu according as it is said: "although adorned (as a layman/woman) yet if he walks in calm, In peace and tamed....A monk is he, a brahman and a bhikkhu(Dhammapada 142) _________________________________________ who has gone someplace for a > special purpose. It doesn't seem to be a bhikkhu who is wandering > about the countryside in a pre-occupied way, or is going about his > daily business. .... I don't believe from > what the sutta says that the Buddha is encouraging a congregational > performance of the satipatthana, or communal meditation, or even > mindfulness amid the distractions of ordinary daily life. _____________________ I think whatever we read is interpreted according to our views. I read this differently. The Buddha said in another place to the monks that he had given them the roots of trees to live at; and that any other place should be seen as an extra –but still allowable. Thus for monks it is their place of dwelling. We can think about going to live in the forest and believe that by that act we will be closer to Dhamma. But what is closer than right now? Bhikkhu Dhammadharo said: "Wisdom, panna, gets beyond words, beyond thinking about states, positions, ideas about a self or a whole, and it sees reality without thinking. Because the function of panna is not thinking, its function is to see clearly, to penetrate that which we mistake for "sitting". We mistakenly think that a person is sitting. We have the wrong idea of "I am sitting". Anatta is the core of the Buddha's teaching, not atta, self." http://www.abhidhamma.org/be%20here% 20now.htm > The bhikkhu is specifically described as having gone to a private > place to remain alone, to meditate. > .... But the feeling I get > from this teaching thus far, is that this practice of satipatthana is > a serious undertaking, not an interest or pastime. --------------------- What does it mean to be serious? Usually we make efforts to make things different from what they are, try to improve the situation or ourselves. I think it is what we have always done, the heart of samsara vatta. But isn't effort of the eightfold path something different than that? I think it is about seeing whatever is, as it is - however pleasant or unpleasant or neutral that may be. RobertK To whatever degree > we are capable of, we should simplify our lives and relationships, > and conscientiously strengthen our Sila, while practicing it. > What do you reckon? > > metta, > Christine 18382 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 9:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Way 32, Comm, Breathing Hi Christine, Yes "bhikkhu" includes us. See Way 20: Further, when that highest kind of person, the bhikkhu, is reckoned, the rest too are reckoned, as in regard to a royal procession and the like, when the king is reckoned, by the reckoning of the king, the retinue is reckoned. Also the word "bhikkhu" was used by the Buddha to point out the bhikkhu-state through practice of the teaching in this way: "He who practices this practice of the Arousing of Mindfulness is called a bhikkhu." He who follows the teaching, be he a shining one [deva] or a human, is indeed called a bhikkhu. Accordingly it is said: "Well-dressed one may be, but if one is calm, Tamed, humble, pure, a man who does no harm To aught that lives, that one's a brahman true. An ascetic and mendicant too." L: I think this quote addresses the tenor of the rest of your characterization as well. In this section we are being advised to seclude ourself away from worldly distractions for the purpose of taming the mind by tieing that mind "to the post of the object of mindfulness-arousing with the rope of remembrance." I think the general flavour of the commentary, so far, has been one of accomodating different kinds of people with different kinds of practice. Although the practice is always only satipatthana. So I think it is up to us to see what fits and to see the common thread. Happy New Year, Larry 18383 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 10:06pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Hi KKT, Good question. I personally have no experience of arahatship either way. What do you think? And do you have any knowledge of what the Buddha said about this? metta, Christine KKT: From the books I read, it's possible to achieve Arahathood << exclusively >> with Insight (i.e. without Jhanas) But I don't know whether this way is more difficult than the other? Metta, KKT ============ > > KKT: Thank you for this info. > > BTW, do you think that an Arahat > should master (and experience) > all the Jhanas or is there exception > which means that Arahathood would > be achieved only by Insight for example? 18384 From: Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 6:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Stephen - In a message dated 12/31/02 11:06:35 PM Eastern Standard Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > Hello Howard, all > > What do you mean by "unconditioned" in the context of the below? Not bound > to > "The All" by the three poisons? Something more/else? > ========================= Mainly that - free of any self/essence/core, and free of all craving, aversion, and attachment, but a bit more as well. Also unconditioned in the sense of not arising from conditions, volitional or other, nor comprised of conditions - uncompounded, unmade. 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) 18385 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:42pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Way 32, Comm, Breathing Thanks for this Larry, :-) Happy New Year to you and yours, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > I think the general flavour of the commentary, so far, has been one of > accomodating different kinds of people with different kinds of practice. > Although the practice is always only satipatthana. So I think it is up > to us to see what fits and to see the common thread. > > Happy New Year, Larry 18386 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Dec 31, 2002 11:45pm Subject: Re: Way 32, Comm, Breathing Dear Robert, You write: "I think whatever we read is interpreted according to our views. I read this differently. The Buddha said in another place to the monks that he had given them the roots of trees to live at; and that any other place should be seen as an extra –but still allowable. Thus for monks it is their place of dwelling. We can think about going to live in the forest and believe that by that act we will be closer to Dhamma. But what is closer than right now?" ---------------------- CF: I agree that we interpret what we read according to our view - but, having happily been a formal meditator for some years, and having happily not been a formal meditator for this past year and a bit, I don't think that I have any fixed view on this other than the words of the Sutta and the explanation of the Commentator. He says "In this way this abode becomes appropriate to the meditator. Therefore, it is said, "This (namely, the passage beginning with the words, 'Gone to the forest ...') is the making clear of an abode appropriate to the meditator for the culture of mindfulness." And further along - not to pre-empt the next portion to be posted, it says - "Because the subject of meditation of mindfulness on in-and- out-breathing is not easy to accomplish without leaving the neighbourhood of a village, owing to sound, which is a thorn to absorption; and because in a place not become a township it is easy for the meditator to lay hold of this subject of meditation, the Blessed One, pointing out the abode suitable for that, spoke the words, "Gone to the forest," and so forth." ---------------------- RK: What does it mean to be serious? Usually we make efforts to make things different from what they are, try to improve the situation or ourselves. I think it is what we have always done, the heart of samsara vatta. But isn't effort of the eightfold path something different than that? I think it is about seeing whatever is, as it is - however pleasant or unpleasant or neutral that may be. --------------------- CF: 'To be serious' means to me that the Dhamma becomes purposely integrated in the whole of one's life. That attempting to follow the Buddha's teachings means just that, for every minute. The right meaning of the Suttas is of paramount importance to developing Right View don't you think? Which is why we are studying the Satipatthana Sutta with its commentary by Soma Thera. I am very willing to see whatever is, as it is - whether pleasant or unpleasant or neutral. It is the search for truth and reality that brings people to Buddhism. To me living as a Buddhist MUST be different from the way a person lives who hasn't known the Dhamma, what point is there to go on in just the same way as before? Why did the Buddha teach Sila if we were not expected to change our behaviour to conform to a minimum standard? My understanding is that Right Effort comes after the purification of conduct by R. Speech, R. Action and R. Livelihood. Right Effort, I think, means whatever it takes to prevent new unwholesome states from arising and to eradicate existing unwholesome mental states, and to encourage not yet existing wholesome mental states and to maintain current wholesome mental states. But as I'm no longer sure what R. Livelihood is after the posts of the last week so I could be wrong about right effort. Many things no longer seem to be straight-forward, just what the Buddha's words say. There seems to be hidden meanings, so I guess I'm confused. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > The portion posted is explaining "And how, o bhikkus, does a > bhikkhu > > live contemplating the body in the body?" "Here, o bhikkhus, a > > bhikkhu, gone to the forest, to the foot of a tree, or to an empty > > place ..." 18387 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:21am Subject: Re: Way 32, Comm, Breathing --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Robert, > > > CF: I agree that we interpret what we read according to our view - > but, having happily been a formal meditator for some years, and > having happily not been a formal meditator for this past year and a > bit, I don't think that I have any fixed view on this other than > the words of the Sutta and the explanation of the Commentator. He > says "In this way this abode becomes appropriate to the meditator. > Therefore, it is said, "This (namely, the passage beginning with the > words, 'Gone to the forest ...') is the making clear of an abode > appropriate to the meditator for the culture of mindfulness." And > further along - not to pre-empt the next portion to be posted, it > says - "Because the subject of meditation of mindfulness on in- and- > out-breathing is not easy to accomplish without leaving the > neighbourhood of a village, owing to sound, which is a thorn to > absorption; and because in a place not become a township it is easy > for the meditator to lay hold of this subject of meditation, the > Blessed One, pointing out the abode suitable for that, spoke the > words, "Gone to the forest," and so forth." > ---------------------- Dear Christine, Thanks for pointing this out. I didn't realise that it was specifically for those who are developing anapanasati. In that case it is certain that one must be secluded for it to succeed. This object is suitable only for those who have special accumulations according to the commentaries. _________ > RK: What does it mean to be serious? Usually we make efforts to make > things different from what they are, try to improve the situation or > ourselves. I think it is what we have always done, the heart of > samsara vatta. But isn't effort of the eightfold path something > different than that? I think it is about seeing whatever is, as it > is - however pleasant or unpleasant or neutral that may be. > --------------------- > CF: 'To be serious' means to me that the Dhamma becomes purposely > integrated in the whole of one's life. That attempting to follow the > Buddha's teachings means just that, for every minute. The right > meaning of the Suttas is of paramount importance to developing Right > View don't you think? Which is why we are studying the Satipatthana > Sutta with its commentary by Soma Thera. > I am very willing to see whatever is, as it is - whether pleasant or > unpleasant or neutral. It is the search for truth and reality that > brings people to Buddhism. > To me living as a Buddhist MUST be different from the way a person > lives who hasn't known the Dhamma, what point is there to go on in > just the same way as before? ________________ This is different from how I see it. To me the life of a person who is interested in Dhamma is just like anyone else. It is just seeing, hearing, tasting, touching, thinking with lobha(attachment) , dosa (aversion) and ignorance. But because of hearing Dhamma there may be a touch more understanding of these realities. ___________________ Why did the Buddha teach Sila if we were > not expected to change our behaviour to conform to a minimum standard? > My understanding is that Right Effort comes after the purification of > conduct by R. Speech, R. Action and R. Livelihood. Right Effort, I > think, means whatever it takes to prevent new unwholesome states > from arising and to eradicate existing unwholesome mental states, > and to encourage not yet existing wholesome mental states and to > maintain current wholesome mental states. > _____________________ I think there is right effort when there is the knowing of the characteristic of a dhamma in the present moment. This can occur to anyone who has considered wisely, whether they are soldier or butcher, living in the forest, or at home with children and wives. When we have an ideal that we must follow the Buddha's teaching at every minute this sounds sincere but first we have to be clear what the path is. Otherwise something out of the ordinary, some type of forcing may be what we are doing. We may be overlooking subtle clinging that has to be known. I think the way of Dhamma is so natural that we can't tell anyone else how to live and no one can know who has understanding by looking at their lifestyle. RobertK 18388 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 2:07am Subject: Arahathood without Jhana? was (Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, and all, Here are some articles on Vipassana and discussing the place of Jhana: Access & Fixed Concentration Ven. Sujiva http://mail.metta.lk/mirror/www.quantrum.com.my/bwc/vtribune/vt4n2p6.h tml Attaining Jhana before one does Vipassana? Ven. Visuddhacara http://mail.metta.lk/mirror/www.quantrum.com.my/bwc/vtribune/vt3n2p4.h tml Vipassana & Jhana: What The Masters say Ven Visuddhacara http://mail.metta.lk/mirror/www.quantrum.com.my/bwc/vtribune/vt4n2p14. html You may have to cut and paste the links into Google if they are too long to link directly from this post. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > KKT: From the books I read, > it's possible to achieve > Arahathood << exclusively >> > with Insight (i.e. without Jhanas) > > But I don't know whether this way > is more difficult than the other? > > > Metta, > > > KKT 18389 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 2:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Kom, > > You wrote: > > "On the other hand, if I were to come from a point where I think nibbana > is an unconditioned consciousness, then it would be easy for me to think > that with all the conditioned consciousness stripped out, what remains > is the true self, even if it might not be a distinct self. Don't you > think?" > > L: Yes, I agree. Someone asked the Buddha if consciousness is the self > and he said no. As far as I know, no one asked about an unconditioned > consciousness. Perhaps someone could argue from a position of yogic > insight that there is an unconditioned consciousness and because it is > unconditioned it satisfies the basic requirements of "self" in being not > impermanent, reliable and good (sat, chit, ananda). However, even though > this yogin would argue there is an unconditioned consciousness and it is > self, I don't think he would say this unconditioned consciousness is > nibbana. IMO nibbana is the end of belief in a self. Saying "the end of > belief in a self" is the "true self" or is not self doesn't make sense, > either way. > > Incidentally, since the Buddha divided reality into khandhas and > nibbana, I think it is reasonable to assume he didn't see an > unconditioned consciousness. However, I think the idea of such a thing > could be used in such a way as to end the belief in a self and this > would not be incompatible with satipatthana. But it would take some very > high level experimentation to test such a theory. > > Larry Hi Kom, Larry, and Howard, I have often written that I believe `Nibbana' is to abandon conditioned mind and become pure mind. In other words, ultimate reality is consciousness without the conditioning of duality; or unconditioned consciousness…also called `store consciousness' (alaya- vijana). This puts many people up-in-arms; especially Suan (who I haven't seen posting lately) because it runs counter to the Abhidhamma and is elucidated in a sutta contained within the Mahayana school of Buddhism; however terms such as `self' and `non- self' or `individual' and `universal' don't apply to this state because those are ideas stemming from dualistic thinking. Howard, I believe the thinking that Nibbana and Samsara are exactly the same thing stem from this sutta as well. Hard to explain with dualistic thinking, but Nibbana and Samsara are the same thing, but ignorance, karma, and craving, through sensory input, makes the unenlightened not experience reality properly. Since this if off-topic for this list, I won't go into it a great deal. You can download the entire sutta, The Lankavatara Sutta, which is several chapters long, in pdf format at this link: http://www.darkzen.com/downloads/The%20Lankavatara%20Sutra.pdf Here is an interesting excerpt from it; along the lines that we have been discussing: "With thy perfect intelligence and compassion which are beyond all limit, thou comprehendest the ego-lessness of things and persons, and art free and clear from the hindrances of passion and learning and egoism. Thou doest not vanish into Nirvana, nor does Nirvana abide in thee, for Nirvana transcends all duality of knowing and known, of being and non-being." Metta, James Ps. Sarah and Jon, I only bring up this Mahayana source because it is related to the topic we have been discussing. I hope that is okay. p.p.s Happy New Year to All 18390 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara Hi Peter, (Chris, Rob Edd & all), Rather jumbled comments below: --- "peterdac4298 " CF:> > As well, I think I might try to obtain "Dictionary of Pali Proper > > Names", G.P.Malalasekera, Pali Text Society, 1974, Vol II - Sarah > > mentioned it once before as well. Thank you. P:> You may as well get both volumes while you are at it, as they are > quite cheep, maybe ukp15 each or so. Unless of course you are > restricted for shelf space, they are quite large! ..... Peter, I have to tell you - you're out of date on this point;-) I used to have the dict in 2 volumes (from a 2nd hand book-shop in London in the 1970s and loved dearly). One of the vols quite disintegrated with the help of some insects and we tried to replace it a couple of yrs ago. It is now produced in 3 volumes and wonderful as they are, they are NOT cheap. Just checked, 101pounds to be exact in the latest catalogue. A wonderful investment and Christine would get very good use from them. Just don’t let the bugs get a taste;-) ..... I’ve just read your article and notes on Rahulamata/Yasodhara and I think it’s a really well-researched and beautiful piece of work. I checked a few details and it all seems very accurate as far as I know. I note that the comment about Rahulamata's death at 78 and that of the 18,000 arahat nuns given, comes from the Apadana. I'm not sure that this has ever been translated into English and in the PTS catalogue it mentions the Pali version is no longer available there, although it seems the Pali commentary on the first 3 sections is. I’m very interested in the notes and references that Rob Edd gives. We don’t have either of the books he mentions for the translation of the verses, but perhaps someone else has. (Robert - v.glad to hear from you and hope the Icelandic fishing companies can spare you from time to time for brief comments - I’d be v.interested to hear any of yr comments on the ‘Dhamma Issues’ series Nina is translating and adding notes to, for example). ***** OK, I've just checked the entry for the Apadana in the dictionary too. It is the 13th division of the Khuddakanikaya and contains 547 biographies of monks and 40 of nuns at the time of the Buddha. It says that most the stories are found in the Paramatthadipani, the commentary to the Thera and Therigatha. The Apadana and its commentary (Visuddhajanavilaasinii) may have been translated into Thai and is probably available in Burmese and Pali elsewhere. Perhaps Kom, Suan or others know more. There seem to be other (Theravada) sources substantiating the details of her going forth and becoming an arahant and so on. As I said, I think your (Peter’s) research with extra notes and details is really great. Any comments I make are mere nit-picking. In note (8) you mentioned her powers ‘...were more like the psychic gifts that some people even to day might have’. I don’t think so.In the commentary note to AN Bk of Ones, Women disciples (1-25), where she is identified with Bhaddakaccana as chief among the nuns who attained supernormal powers (mahaabhi~n~nappattaana.m), the PTS translation gives: "Of one Buddha four disciples only have great abnormal powers. The remainder can recall 100,000 kalpas, not beyond that: but those who have attained great abnormal powers can recall incalculable eras. Under our Teacher's rule the two Great Disciples and the elder Bakkula and Bhaddakaccana, just these four had this power". You had mentioned this note and these four disciples. I think these powers are a rather more than ‘quite impressive’;-) ***** In the MrsRhys Davids transl of the Thera-Theri-gatha (as opposed to the Norman version) it gives a transl of the commentary before the verses. For Sundari-Nanda, after aeons and aeons after hearing Pudumuttara Buddha preaching, she was also reborn in the same family as Yasodhara, her sister. We read that as the Buddha (her half-brother), Rahula, his son, her brother, King Nanda, her mother, Mahapajapati and her sister, Rahula’s mother had all gone forth, she followed from ‘love of her kin’. However, she was intoxicated by her own beauty. After listening to the Buddha talk on the foul and the impermanent, she eventually became an arahant too. Anyway, the point was that here is another indication that Rahulamata had gone forth and so on. No suggestions of having died young. One or two other small comments: “In those mysogynistic days” (in note 14) - within the Sangha...?? In a post to Chris, you wrote: “I think this may indicate the depth of anguish that the Boddhisatva must have been suffering in that moment. It may provide some indication of the motivational power that would drive him through all the trials that were to follow. Maybe Yasodhara understood this?” ..... Have you any support to show any ‘depth of anguish’ he suffered or for this comment? Just curious. Thanks again. What other pieces do you have up your sleeve and I’m also curious about why your non-buddhist musical friend was so interested in the details of Rahulamata????? What did he do with it? (sorry if I’ve missed the explanation). I was also curious about your comment about their being no reference to the bhikkhunis after the Buddha's parinibbana. I'm wondering whether references to bhikkhus before the 1st council. When we read about the buddha's body first being honoured by women because they were weeping (which Ananda was chastised for allowing), would this not have included bhikkhunis I wonder. Maybe also some of the references to the large numbers of bhikkhus present?? Sarah ===== 18391 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:26am Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: When we read about the > buddha's body first being honoured by women because they were weeping > (which Ananda was chastised for allowing) Hi Sarah (and All), Ven. Ananda was the most chastised, ridiculed, and un-respected bhikkhu of the Buddha's monks; and yet the Buddha and him were inseparable, he had a respect/understanding for women beyond his time and culture, and he is responsible for passing along almost the entirety of the Buddha's teachings. He was a paradox and a greatly misunderstood individual. For some reason, I feel an affinity for him ;-). Do you know of any good books or articles written about him? Metta, James 18392 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara Hi James, The wheel publication "Ananda" by Hellmuth Hecker includes lots of useful sutta quotes. I expect it's on line. Christine will be able to give you a comprehensive list of links/references in addition, I know;-). Was he misunderstood.....not at all sure. I think he was very highly respected and venerated, but will leave this to other 'misunderstoods' to consider further;-). Sarah ====== > Ven. Ananda was the most chastised, ridiculed, and un-respected > bhikkhu of the Buddha's monks; and yet the Buddha and him were > inseparable, he had a respect/understanding for women beyond his > time and culture, and he is responsible for passing along almost the > entirety of the Buddha's teachings. He was a paradox and a greatly > misunderstood individual. For some reason, I feel an affinity for > him ;-). Do you know of any good books or articles written about > him? > > Metta, James > 18393 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:53am Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > The wheel publication "Ananda" by Hellmuth Hecker includes lots of useful > sutta quotes. I expect it's on line. Christine will be able to give you a > comprehensive list of links/references in addition, I know;-). > > Was he misunderstood.....not at all sure. I think he was very highly > respected and venerated, but will leave this to other 'misunderstoods' to > consider further;-). > > Sarah > ====== Hi Sarah, :-) :-) Thanks for the information. And yes, he was highly misunderstood and chastised. I identify with him highly; as I am feeling more and more I should. Lookie here this instance...the hand that gives me something, also slaps me royally ;-) But don't worry about it, regardless of what the Abhidhamma states, none of this yahoo is real ;-). Metta, James 18394 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:54am Subject: One Nibbana, But Countless Buddhas Dear Dhamma friends, Happy New Year! There is exactly one and only one nibbana. But, there had been countless Buddhas and Arahants who had realized nibbana, and later achieved extinguishment. There will be countless Buddhas and Arahants in future as well, including me and many of you eithers as Buddhas or Arahants. While nibbana remains at all time, Buddhas and Arahants are time- bound sentient beings before they achieved extinguishment. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 18395 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Swee Boon (James & All), You wrote another 'Wow' post with lots of helpful references, all snipped for now: --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi James (if you care to listen - warning - contains Abhidhamma > stuff), Sarah and Others who are interested, > > Earlier on, I said that I was convinced that nibbana cannot be > described. After re-reading and re-ponderance, I regret to say that > I remain unconvinced that nibbana cannot be described. ..... I think if you look at your references, those which suggest nibbana cannot be defined or described in anyway are referring to parinibbana and the final cessation of the khandhas. ..... > My conclusion is that nibbana is to be known and seen as it is. When > nibbana is known and seen as it is, at death, the arahant goes to an > end that cannot be classified by virtue of being non-existent. An > arahant is not nibbana. ..... I agree with this. I think the distinctions made in the sutta references, however, are between nibbana and parinibbana, rather than nibbana and the arahant. This may be just a small quibble and I may have missed a point, but I think it explains why in some references (eg the Udana and AN ones you gave) there is plenty of detail and in others, like the ones about the fire going out, nothing further can be defined. Thanks to you both for these stimulating and helpful discussions and the many great sutta references you both provide. Sarah ======= 18396 From: abhidhammika Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 5:28am Subject: Nibbana Is One Thing, And Samsara Is Another Thing Dear Dhamma friends Happy New Year! There are exactly Four Realities. They are matter, mind, mental associates and nibbana. Samsara is made up of matter, mind and mental associates. At another level, there are exactly Four Noble Truths. Samsara is made up of misery, attachment as the cause of misery, and the way leading to cessation of attachment and misery, which are called the Three Noble Truths while nibbana as the final cessation of misery is the other remaining Noble Truth, to make the Four Noble Truths. If one were to equate nibbana with samsara, one's action amounted to equating cessation of misery with misery, with attachment, and with the way leading to eradication of attachment and of misery. That type of confusing and attempting to confuse nibbana with samsara is the hallmark of intellectual backwardness typical of pre-Buddhist thinkers and modern un-Buddhist thinkers. Therefore, anyone who equated samsara with nibbana misunderstood the original teachings of Gotama the Historical Buddha at best, and misrepresented them at worst. Please keep in mind that Buddha called himself "Vibhajjavaadii", the one who teaches by analysis. In ancient India, Buddhists were called and known as Vibhajjavaadiis, the Analysts. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 18397 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 5:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy New Year and No Need to Agree..... Hi Ray, Happy New Year too and many thanks for your kind comments and great reminders about 'admirable friends'....I find it helpful to be reminded over and over again: ..... > "When a monk has admirable friends, admirable companions, admirable > comrades, it is to be expected that he will get to hear at will, easily > & > without difficulty, talk that is truly sobering and conducive to the > opening > of awareness, i.e., talk on modesty, on contentment, on seclusion, on > non-entanglement, on arousing persistence, on virtue, on concentration, > on > discernment, on release, and on the knowledge & vision of release"--- ..... We'll keep you posted about the book,'Survey...'too. thanks again for all your support and helpful posts, Sarah ===== 18398 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 6:48am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James, > What is the difference between an arahant alive and an arahant dead? The difference is in the presence and absence of the five aggregates. Where the five aggregates are present, an arahant is said to be alive. Where the five aggregates are absent, an arahant is said to be dead. The five aggregates that are present are the result of old kamma. Though an arahant does not generate any new kamma, old kammas accumulated from the infinite past still continue to play themselves out for the rest of the life of the arahant. It is only at death that all old kamma are 'destroyed', ie. becomes no more. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html "What is old kamma? The eye is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. The ear... The nose... The tongue... The body... The intellect is to be seen as old kamma, fabricated & willed, capable of being felt. This is called old kamma. "And what is new kamma? Whatever kamma one does now with the body, with speech, or with the intellect. This is called new kamma." [SN XXXV.145] The story of the Last Days and Death of one of the Buddha's Chief Disciple, Maha-Moggallana, serves as an example of old kammas playing themselves out while the arahant is still alive. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel263.html > What is the difference between nibbana and parinibbana > (total unbinding)? As it is to my understanding, there is a difference between nibbana and parinibbana. Nibbana is an 'ultimate reality' (as in Abhidhamma). Parinibbana is used to describe the similarity in properties (thinking-wise) that a dead arahant has with the 'ultimate reality' nibbana. Just as the 'ultimate reality' nibbana has the property of being free from the five aggregates (of rupa, citta and cetasika), so too the arahant who had died is finally free from the five aggregates (of rupa, citta and cetasika). Yet this does not mean that the dead arahant is or has become nibbana. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/iti/iti2.html#44 This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Monks, there are these two forms of the Unbinding property. Which two? The Unbinding property with fuel remaining, & the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining. And what is the Unbinding property with fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an Arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. His five sense faculties still remain and, owing to their being intact, he is cognizant of the pleasant & the unpleasant, and is sensitive to pleasure & pain. His ending of passion, aversion, & delusion is termed the Unbinding property with fuel remaining.[1] And what is the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining? There is the case where a monk is an Arahant whose fermentations have ended, who has reached fulfillment, finished the task, laid down the burden, attained the true goal, destroyed the fetter of becoming, and is released through right gnosis. For him, all that is sensed, being unrelished, will grow cold right here. This is termed the Unbinding property with no fuel remaining."[2] Notes: 1, 2. With fuel remaining (sa-upadisesa) and with no fuel remaining (anupadisesa): The analogy here is to a fire. In the first case, the flames are out, but the embers are still glowing. In the second, the fire is so thoroughly out that the embers have grown cold. The "fuel" here is the five aggregates (see the Glossary). While the arahant is still alive, he/she still experiences the five aggregates, but they do not burn with the fires of passion, aversion, or delusion. When the arahant passes away, there is no longer any experience of aggregates here or anywhere else. The phrase "Unbinding property" suggests that it refers to the property of Unbinding and not Unbinding itself. "Unbinding property with no fuel remaining" refers to parinibbana. > If an arahant is free from the five aggregates, what could the > arahant be still bound to? I believe that the arahant is still > bound by samsara, but is actually nibbana. An arahant being nothing more than the five aggregates, when the five aggregates are put to rest and becomes no more, is there still any arahant to be bound to? Just as a flame that is snuffed out by the wind, can the flame which no longer exists anymore be bound to anything? To say that the flame can be bound to anything at all is superfluous. The flame doesn't exist anymore. > Why did he do this? I believe it is because he needed to release > the `illusion of samsara'; the illusion that others project onto > him as `a self'. Then, and only then, he could completely leave > the samsara existence. I believe he did this for two purposes: (1) to relief his physical pain (2) to demonstrate to the devas and brahmas who are sceptical that he indeed was the Buddha. For the cessation of perception and feeling cannot be attained by those who are not ariyans. And to attain the cessation of perception and feeling, one must go from Jhana 1 to 4, then the four immaterial jhanas. To emerge from the cessation of perception and feeling, the process is reversed. It should be noted that the cessation of perception and feeling is not nibbana and it does not experience anything, not even nibbana. For nibbana can only be experienced by means of cittas; in the cessation of perception and feeling, even cittas (consciousness) is stopped, though temporarily. (This is an explanation from Abhidhamma perspective.) http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html There is the case, Sandha, where for an excellent thorough-bred of a man the perception of earth with regard to earth has ceased to exist; the perception of liquid with regard to liquid... the perception of heat with regard to heat... the perception of wind with regard to wind... the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of space with regard to the dimension of the infinitude of space... the perception of the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness with regard to the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the perception of the dimension of nothingness with regard to the dimension of nothingness... the perception of the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception with regard to the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... the perception of this world with regard to this world... the next world with regard to the next world... and whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after, pondered by the intellect: the perception with regard even to that has ceased to exist. Absorbed in this way, the excellent thoroughbred of a man is absorbed dependent neither on earth, liquid, heat, wind, the dimension of the infinitude of space, the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness, the dimension of nothingness, the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception, this world, the next world; nor on whatever is seen, heard, sensed, cognized, attained, sought after or pondered by the intellect -- and yet he is absorbed. And to this excellent thoroughbred of a man, absorbed in this way, the gods, together with Indra, the Brahmas & their chief queens, pay homage even from afar: Homage to you, O thoroughbred man. Homage to you, O superlative man -- of whom we have no direct knowledge even by means of that with which you are absorbed. A XI.10 This sutta clearly shows that the Buddha attained the cessation of perception and feeling for the sake of the Brahmas who came to visit him from afar. In any case, the Buddha did EMERGE from the fourth jhana before he was unbound; meaning that when he was unbound, he was not absorbed in any jhana at all. Regards, NEO Swee Boon PS: An arahant is said to even transcend dispassion; nibbana. Why is that so? Because (at death), he is neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika, nor nibbana. 'He' simply doesn't exist anymore, just like the flame which was snuffed out does not exist anymore. 18399 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 7:10am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Neo, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: < snip > PS: An arahant is said to even transcend dispassion; nibbana. Why is that so? Because (at death), he is neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika, nor nibbana. 'He' simply doesn't exist anymore, just like the flame which was snuffed out does not exist anymore. KKT: What is the difference between your interpretation and the << annihilationism, nothingness >> ? Is it the << craving for non-existence >> (vibhava-tanha) mentioned in the 2nd Noble Truth? Metta, KKT 18400 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 7:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, > If the 12 pairs, together, are, indeed, as the sutta "The All" > states, all that there is, yet they are all conditioned and > nibbana is the unconditioned (so that nibbana cannot, as I said, > be among them) then there would appear to be an outright > contradiction. It is not to my understanding that the Buddha was teaching about conditionality in this sutta. There is no talk of conditionality here. And I agree with Kom that the translation "intellect and ideas" is a misfit. Kom has provided a very good explanation. In any case, if nibbana is not included in the "All", how do you explain the statement "would be unable to explain" from the sutta? Clearly, the Buddha was able to explain what nibbana is. He even taught the way to know or realize the Unconditioned. He was able to explain why there is the Unconditioned. "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 To me, if nibbana is not included in the "All', the statement "would be unable to explain" would be an even 'greater contradiction' than the one you pointed out. Also, it is not to my understanding that the Buddha was griefed whenever he says: "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 Is there any grounds for the Buddha to give the above description? Yes, by direct knowledge: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html Ananda: In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient? The Buddha: There is the case, Ananda, where he would be percipient of this: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all mental processes; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbana.' -- A X.6 It is to my understanding that whatever 'ultimate reality' that is neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika, nor nibbana cannot be described by virtue of it being non-existent (beyond range). So too, an arahant (who had gone parinibbana) cannot be described. Being neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika nor nibbana, such an arahant does not exist anymore, just like the flame that has been snuffed out does not exist anymore. Such an arahant cannot be described by virtue of being non-existent (beyond range). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18401 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:00am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, > KKT: What is the difference between your interpretation and > the << annihilationism, nothingness >> ? > Is it the << craving for non-existence >> (vibhava-tanha) > mentioned in the 2nd Noble Truth? Does an arahant has any craving for existence or for non-existence? Does an arahant has any self-view? Would it be the case that the arahant would have this thought: "I would not exist anymore after my parinibbana."? For the arahant, such a view does not arise. For the worldlings (and lower ariyans?), such a view arises because of defilements still uneradicated. It is a difference in perspective based on whether defilements are eradicated or not. So, it is not annihilation (annihilation being a form of self-view) or nothingness (nothingness being merely a concept or mind object). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18402 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Nibbana as a non-cognitive realities / pure-mind Dear James & All, > -----Original Message----- > From: James > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > I have often written that I believe `Nibbana' is > to abandon > conditioned mind and become pure mind. In other > words, ultimate > reality is consciousness without the conditioning > of duality; or > unconditioned consciousness…also called `store > consciousness' (alaya- > vijana). This puts many people up-in-arms; > especially Suan (who I > haven't seen posting lately) because it runs > counter to the > Abhidhamma and is elucidated in a sutta contained > within the This belief is definitely not supported in the Theravadan texts. Under the Theravadan texts, nibbana is an unconditioned non-cognitive reality. In Patthana, anything that is cognitive (including citta and cetasikas, i.e., all consciousness and its concomitants) are conditioned by their objects. The sutta rendering of the conditioning of the cognitive elements are in the form: based on the visible object and eye base, the eye consciousness comes to be. The Patthana (Abhidhamma) explains that visible object conditions the eye consciousness by way of being its object (aramana) condition. The eye base conditions the eye consciousness by way of being its support (upanissaya) condition. For path attainment and fruition (magga and phala), Nibbana conditions the path consciousness by way of being its object (aramana) condition. Nibbana is not conditioned by anything (including the path consciousness), but the Theravadan text clearly states that it conditions the path consciousness. We can see in our own daily life how the object conditions the consciousness. Without the object appearing, there is no consciousness, nor feelings, nor attachment, nor anger, nor delusion. Even at the thinking level, it is pretty evident to me how different objects condition different kinds of consciousness. Pleasant objects condition attachment, unpleasant objects condition anger. Very pleasant object conditions pleasant mental feelings and happiness. The consciousness and its concomitants are bound by their objects, the accumulated kilesa, and the latent kilesa. We can prove to ourselves that their is no consciousness in our daily life (including Jhana cittas) not conditioned by its object. kom 18403 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nibbana Is One Thing, And Samsara Is Another Thing Hi, Suan - In a message dated 1/1/03 8:29:51 AM Eastern Standard Time, suanluzaw@b... writes: > Dear Dhamma friends > > Happy New Year! > > There are exactly Four Realities. > > They are matter, mind, mental associates and nibbana. > > Samsara is made up of matter, mind and mental associates. > > At another level, there are exactly Four Noble Truths. > > Samsara is made up of misery, attachment as the cause of misery, and > the way leading to cessation of attachment and misery, which are > called the Three Noble Truths while nibbana as the final cessation of > misery is the other remaining Noble Truth, to make the Four Noble > Truths. > > If one were to equate nibbana with samsara, one's action amounted to > equating cessation of misery with misery, with attachment, and with > the way leading to eradication of attachment and of misery. > > That type of confusing and attempting to confuse nibbana with samsara > is the hallmark of intellectual backwardness typical of pre-Buddhist > thinkers and modern un-Buddhist thinkers. > > Therefore, anyone who equated samsara with nibbana misunderstood the > original teachings of Gotama the Historical Buddha at best, and > misrepresented them at worst. > > Please keep in mind that Buddha called himself "Vibhajjavaadii", the > one who teaches by analysis. In ancient India, Buddhists were called > and known as Vibhajjavaadiis, the Analysts. > > > With kind regards, > > > Suan Lu Zaw > > > http://www.bodhiology.org > ========================== If "matter", mind, and mental associates are three realities constituting samsara, and if nibbana is a completely separate reality, opposite in at least the respects of being unconditioned (and thus unrelated to any conditions to be found in samsara), not anicca, and not dukkha, how in the world is there escape from the conditioned realm of samsara. If nibbana is a total "other": self-existent, encapsulated, an island with no connecting causeways, how is the crossing over possible? This formulation of nibbana as "the fourth reality" strikes me as substantialist. Nibbana, unlike the conditioned dhammas, comes across as being a self-existing entity, with essence/core - it becomes a kind of "absolute" which stands opposed and unrelated to the dual world of relative conditions, so that one ends up with a scheme not unlike some of the dualistic schools of Vedanta. Or so it seems to 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) 18404 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, KKT - In a message dated 1/1/03 10:11:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > Dear Neo, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: > > > > > PS: An arahant is said to even transcend dispassion; nibbana. Why is > that so? Because (at death), he is neither rupa, nor citta, nor > cetasika, nor nibbana. 'He' simply doesn't exist anymore, just like > the flame which was snuffed out does not exist anymore. > > > > > KKT: What is the difference > between your interpretation and > the <>? > > Is it the <> > (vibhava-tanha) mentioned in the 2nd Noble Truth? > > > Metta, > > > KKT > > =============================== Thank you for this! It seems to me that precisely because we cannot really grasp the middle-way nature of reality, we always cling to the extremes - the extreme of eternalism and substantialism or the opposite extreme of annihilationism and nihilism. (And, with a little effort, we can generally manage to come up with chapter and verse to back up the choice to which we are predisposed, and, at the same time, couch our perspective in terms suggesting that it really isn't an extreme at all.) 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) 18405 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/1/03 10:46:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >If the 12 pairs, together, are, indeed, as the sutta "The All" > >states, all that there is, yet they are all conditioned and > >nibbana is the unconditioned (so that nibbana cannot, as I said, > >be among them) then there would appear to be an outright > >contradiction. > > It is not to my understanding that the Buddha was teaching about > conditionality in this sutta. There is no talk of conditionality > here. > --------------------------------------------- Howard: Conditions per se were not mentioned nor was nibbana per se. So? -------------------------------------------- And I agree with Kom that the translation "intellect and > > ideas" is a misfit. Kom has provided a very good explanation. ------------------------------------------- Howard: We disagree here. ------------------------------------------ > > In any case, if nibbana is not included in the "All", how do you > explain the statement "would be unable to explain" from the sutta? > Clearly, the Buddha was able to explain what nibbana is. He even > taught the way to know or realize the Unconditioned. He was able to > explain why there is the Unconditioned. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I have never denied, nor do I deny, nibbana. My follow-up post explained my understanding pretty much as well as I can put it forward at this time. I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that. -------------------------------------------------- > > "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. > If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- > become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely > because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is > discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 > > To me, if nibbana is not included in the "All', the statement "would > be unable to explain" would be an even 'greater contradiction' than > the one you pointed out. > > Also, it is not to my understanding that the Buddha was griefed > whenever he says: > > "This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all > fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of > craving; dispassion; cessation; Nibbana." -- AN III.32 > > Is there any grounds for the Buddha to give the above description? > Yes, by direct knowledge: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- > 1.html > > Ananda: In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain > concentration of such a form that he would have neither the > perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard > to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of > space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the > dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor > non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to > the next world, and yet he would still be percipient? > > The Buddha: There is the case, Ananda, where he would be percipient > of this: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all > mental processes; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending > of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbana.' > > -- A X.6 > > > It is to my understanding that whatever 'ultimate reality' that is > neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika, nor nibbana cannot be > described by virtue of it being non-existent (beyond range). So too, > an arahant (who had gone parinibbana) cannot be described. Being > neither rupa, nor citta, nor cetasika nor nibbana, such an arahant > does not exist anymore, just like the flame that has been snuffed > out does not exist anymore. Such an arahant cannot be described by > virtue of being non-existent (beyond range). > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > ================================== 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) 18406 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi James, With a little tweeking most of these mahayana ideas are supported by theravada. An arahant's mind could be regarded as a pure and nondualistic mind in the sense that it is free from defilements. As Kom said, it is not an unconditioned consciousness, but in the sense that all identity is conceptual, empty of "itself", a mere name, and in so far as experience is the ultimate authority and all experience is only consciousness and consciousness is a process of identifying, in just this way we could say consciousness is non-arising because of being ultimately conceptual and therefore unconditioned, somewhat. Happy New Year, Larry 18407 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:21am Subject: Re: Nibbana as a non-cognitive realities / pure-mind --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Dear James & All, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: James > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > > > I have often written that I believe `Nibbana' is > > to abandon > > conditioned mind and become pure mind. In other > > words, ultimate > > reality is consciousness without the conditioning > > of duality; or > > unconditioned consciousness…also called `store > > consciousness' (alaya- > > vijana). This puts many people up-in-arms; > > especially Suan (who I > > haven't seen posting lately) because it runs > > counter to the > > Abhidhamma and is elucidated in a sutta contained > > within the > > This belief is definitely not supported in the Theravadan > texts. Under the Theravadan texts, nibbana is an > unconditioned non-cognitive reality. In Patthana, anything > that is cognitive (including citta and cetasikas, i.e., all > consciousness and its concomitants) are conditioned by their > objects. > > The sutta rendering of the conditioning of the cognitive > elements are in the form: > based on the visible object and eye base, the eye > consciousness comes to be. > The Patthana (Abhidhamma) explains that visible object > conditions the eye consciousness by way of being its object > (aramana) condition. The eye base conditions the eye > consciousness by way of being its support (upanissaya) > condition. > > For path attainment and fruition (magga and phala), Nibbana > conditions the path consciousness by way of being its object > (aramana) condition. Nibbana is not conditioned by anything > (including the path consciousness), but the Theravadan text > clearly states that it conditions the path consciousness. > > We can see in our own daily life how the object conditions > the consciousness. Without the object appearing, there is > no consciousness, nor feelings, nor attachment, nor anger, > nor delusion. Even at the thinking level, it is pretty > evident to me how different objects condition different > kinds of consciousness. Pleasant objects condition > attachment, unpleasant objects condition anger. Very > pleasant object conditions pleasant mental feelings and > happiness. The consciousness and its concomitants are bound > by their objects, the accumulated kilesa, and the latent > kilesa. We can prove to ourselves that their is no > consciousness in our daily life (including Jhana cittas) not > conditioned by its object. > > kom Hi Kom, Uh, yea, I know that this thinking is not Theravada. I think I wrote that already. So? I try not to cling to Theravada Buddhism anymore than I try to not to cling to anything else. As I stated in my introduction to this group, I am a Zen Buddhist trapped in the body of Theravada Buddhist. I believe in the path teachings of the Buddha, but most of the ontology of Mahayana Buddhism. The Buddha pretty much refused to discuss or establish an ontology or cosmology, but he did indirectly several times. Upon his death, this was the sticking point that caused the schisms in the sangha that formed the different schools of thought. The Mahayana Buddhists broke away and established their own ontology and own suttas. I believe the Theravadas wrote the Abhidhamma Pitaka to establish an ontological and axiological view of the world in direct opposition to those `heretics'. I joined this group to find out about this work and found that I don't believe it. If taken literally, the Abhidhamma cannot possibly be true. It establishes a dualistic view of the world, calls this view `ultimate reality', and encourages practitioners to embrace the very things the Buddha said to reject as unreal and unsatisfactory. For example, calling Nibbana an `ultimate reality' is wacko. Where is it? What does it look like? Can I get tickets there? ;-) The idea of `Rupa' is also wacko…but I have gone into that enough already. The Abhidhamma appeals to those who cling to the world and like to `think' about impermanence rather than directly experience it. Those who meditate extensively and deeply should immediately see the theories of the Abhidhamma as incorrect. Why do some agree with it and some don't? Those who have really experienced the unreality of supposed reality know that it cannot and is not correct. However, on the reverse side, Mahayana Buddhism often results in practitioners who depend on `mind games' and `platitudes' instead of developing true insight. The Buddha was correct after all, these questions shouldn't be pondered, discussed, analyzed, categorized, or dissected with the mind. They should be simply experienced. But the human thirst to `know' is too strong. Just look at how much we continue to go round-and-round these issues and get nowhere. But it's better than watching TV! ;-) Metta, James 18408 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, Swee Boon, & Howard, The Buddha's objection to the annihilation view was because it denied kamma, but nibbana is certainly the end of kamma. I agree with Swee Boon. When fire exhausts its fuel it ceases forever. When water is thrown on a fire, the fire is annihilated but the fuel remains and will burn again. Happy New Year, Larry 18409 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:59am Subject: chicken and eggs Dear Sarah, As you remember, A. Sujin referred to the Sutta on chicken and eggs, S III, Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101 (Adze handle). The eggshell the chickens have to break through is ignorance. I looked up the Pali Co and just glanced through it. Most interesting: the bhikkhu lacks in vipassana. The right conditions are climate, food, people, listening to dhamma, dhamma savana sappaaya.m. Because of his former gradual training his panna ripens and he can attin arahatship in one session. My question: what are B.B.'s notes? It would facilitate my reading of it. But if it is too much, I alsmost tackled the Pali, it is not one of the most difficult texts. I shall try to enclose it in my Thailand report later on. Nina. 18410 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 9:59am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 9 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 9 King Bimbisåra received from King Pukkusåti as a gift eight precious garments, of which he offered four to the Exalted one and used four in his palace. To him occurred the following thought: ³When I shall send a present in return it should be better than the one King Pukkusåti has sent to me before. My friend sent me a priceless present, and what should I send to him? In the city of Råjagaha there is no object that is more precious than that, it is not to be found. King Bimbisåra had excellent qualities and also, since the time he had become a sotåpanna, nothing else but the Triple Gem could arouse joy. He uttered his wish to select the ³Gems² he would offer as a present to King Pukkusåti. Usually there are two kinds of jewels (5 . The jewel without consciousness is gold, silver, etc. The jewel with consciousness is bound up with the faculties (6 . The jewels without consciousness are used for decoration of those with consciousness. Of these two kinds of jewels, the jewel with consciousness is accounted the foremost. The Jewel with consciousness is twofold as the animal jewel and the human jewel. The animal Jewel which includes the Elephant-Jewel and the Horse-Jewel is used for the conveyance of humans. Therefore, the human Jewel is accounted the foremost. The human jewel is twofold as the woman jewel and the man jewel. The woman jewel performs service for the Wheel-Turning Monarch (7. Therefore, the man jewel is accounted the foremost of these two jewels. The man jewel is twofold as the house-living jewel and the homeless jewel. A Wheel-turning Monarch is the foremost among the house-living jewels, but since he pays homage with the fivefold prostration even to a novice (såmanera) who has gone forth on that day, the homeless jewel is accounted the foremost. The homeless jewel is twofold as the ³learner² and the ³non-learner² (8 . Of the two homeless jewels the value of the jewels of even hundred thousand learners does not equal the value of the jewel of one non-learner, and therefore, the non-learner is accounted the foremost. The learner, sekkha, is the ariyan of the stage of the sotåpanna, streamwinner, up to the stage of the anågåmí, non-returner. The non-learner, asekkha, does not need anymore to train himself and follow the practice leading to the eradication of defilements, because he has eradicated all defilements completely. The non-learner is the arahat. We read: The jewel of the non-learner is twofold: the jewel of the Buddha and the jewel of the disciple. Of the non-learner jewels, the value of the jewels of even hundred thousand disciples does not equal the value of the jewel of the Buddha. Therefore, the jewel of the Buddha is accounted the foremost. The Buddha jewel is twofold: the jewel of the Silent Buddha (Paccheka Buddha) and the jewel of the Fully Enlightened One. As to the Buddha jewel, the value of the jewels of hundred thousand Solitary Buddhas does not equal the value of the jewel of the Fully Enlightened One. Therefore, the jewel of the Fully Enlightened One is accounted the foremost. Thus, as it is well known, there is no jewel equal to the jewel of the Buddha, not in this world nor in the worlds of devas. Footnotes: (4 belongs to no 8) 4. The P.T.S. English translation has ³It is not convenient to me, revered sir. For there is here...² I follow the Pali text here. 5. See also the Commentary to the ³Minor Readings², the ³Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning², Ch VI, The Jewel Discourse. 6. Living beings with faculties, indriyas, such as eyesense, etc. 7. A Universal King ruling over the four continents, who possesses the jewels of the wheel, the elephant, the horse, the gem, the woman, the treasurer and the advisor. 8. The sekkha, learner, has attained enlightenment but not of the degree of arahatship, whereas the asekkha, non-learner, has attained arahatship. 18411 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:23am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: > > > > > PS: An arahant is said to even transcend dispassion; nibbana. Why > is that so? Because (at death), he is neither rupa, nor citta, nor > cetasika, nor nibbana. 'He' simply doesn't exist anymore, just like > the flame which was snuffed out does not exist anymore. > > > > > KKT: What is the difference > between your interpretation and > the <>? > > Is it the <> > (vibhava-tanha) mentioned in the 2nd Noble Truth? =============================== Thank you for this! It seems to me that precisely because we cannot really grasp the middle-way nature of reality, we always cling to the extremes - the extreme of eternalism and substantialism or the opposite extreme of annihilationism and nihilism. (And, with a little effort, we can generally manage to come up with chapter and verse to back up the choice to which we are predisposed, and, at the same time, couch our perspective in terms suggesting that it really isn't an extreme at all.) With metta, Howard KKT: I'd like to give my 2 cents here :-)) Maybe the reason why the << middle-way >> is difficult to grasp is that it is to experience and not to speculate? Remember among the 10 << un-answered >> questions by the Buddha, there are two: __Does Tathagata << exist >> after death? __Does Tathagata << not exist >> after death? Metta, KKT 18412 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:26pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > all experience is only > consciousness and consciousness is a process of identifying, in just > this way we could say consciousness is non-arising because of being > ultimately conceptual and therefore unconditioned, somewhat. > > ________________________ Dear Larry, What is the pali term for consciousness? Is it citta? If so I haven't seen anywhere in the texts where any citta(mano, vinnana) is said to be non-arising or ultimately conceptual or unconditioned(somewhat). Robert 18413 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 1:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Robert, I was reading between the lines. Happy New Year, Larry ----------------------------- Robert: Dear Larry, What is the pali term for consciousness? Is it citta? If so I haven't seen anywhere in the texts where any citta(mano, vinnana) is said to be non-arising or ultimately conceptual or unconditioned(somewhat). Robert 18414 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 1:31pm Subject: Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Dear Larry, Happy new year. Do you mean that if we read between the lines of the texts - i.e. uncover the real meaning- that we will find that the Buddha really explained that cittas are nonarising and ultimately conceptual and unconditioned(somewhat) . How do we do that? Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I was reading between the lines. > > Happy New Year, Larry > ----------------------------- > Robert: Dear Larry, > What is the pali term for consciousness? Is it citta? If so I haven't > seen anywhere in the texts where any citta(mano, > vinnana) is said to be non-arising or ultimately conceptual or > unconditioned(somewhat). > Robert 18415 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi Robert, You may find that 1+1=3 or 1+1=1. It depends on how you look at it. The important thing is that you do have a happy new year. Larry ---------------------------- Robert: Dear Larry, Happy new year. Do you mean that if we read between the lines of the texts - i.e. uncover the real meaning- that we will find that the Buddha really explained that cittas are nonarising and ultimately conceptual and unconditioned(somewhat) . How do we do that? Robert 18416 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:52pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 < > > Maybe the reason why the << middle-way >> > is difficult to grasp is that it is > to experience and not to speculate? > > > Remember among the 10 << un-answered >> > questions by the Buddha, there are two: > > __Does Tathagata << exist >> after death? > __Does Tathagata << not exist >> after death? > > >_____________ Dear KKT, Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? RobertK 18417 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 3:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " <> Ven. Ananda was the most chastised, ridiculed, and un-respected > bhikkhu of the Buddha's monks; and yet the Buddha and him were > inseparable, he had a respect/understanding for women beyond his > time and culture, and he is responsible for passing along almost the > entirety of the Buddha's teachings. He was a paradox and a greatly > misunderstood individual. For some reason, I feel an affinity for > him ;-). Do you know of any good books or articles written about > him? > > Metta, James _________ Dear James, I don't think Ananda was unrespected by other monks. According to the commentaries(recorded by the sangha) at his parinibbana the tears shed were even more than at teh Buddhas death. He was also given the great responsibilty of reciting the Dhamma at the First council held after the Buddhas death. An indication of the veneration in which he was held by the sangha. ) RobertK 18418 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:12pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi James and Andrew, Thanks for these two great posts. I found them on my return from a two-day stay in Brisbane. Just as I was preparing my replies, a neighbour informed me the surf at Double Island Point is "goin' off!" So we're headed up there in his 4-wheel drive for what will be my first good surf in months. I'll be composing my replies between sets. See you later, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " > wrote: > Do you want to > 18419 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) > Conditions per se were not mentioned nor was nibbana per se. So? Which means that the Buddha was talking about both the Conditioned and the Unconditioned. He didn't qualify. Both the Conditioned and the Unconditioned constitutes the All. If the Buddha was not talking about the Conditioned and he was not talking about the Unconditioned, what can he be talking about? > I have never denied, nor do I deny, nibbana. My follow-up post > explained my understanding pretty much as well as I can put it > forward at this time. I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that. Neither do I deny that the 'ultimate reality' nibbana exists. You would have to explain the statements "would be unable to explain" and "put to grief". Anyway, for now, just leave it at that. If there is any insight, please share. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18420 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, I am sorry to have forgotten to address you in my last reply. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18421 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 4:41pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Robert, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: Dear KKT, Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? RobertK KKT: My answer is: Yes, the Tathagata does exist before death. The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. Whatever this << existence >> means the Tathagata does exist before death. Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> Tathagata exists after death. This is what I think (but just a view :-)) Peace, KKT 18422 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, KKT - Point well made .. and well taken. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/1/03 2:24:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > KKT: I'd like to give my 2 cents here :-)) > > Maybe the reason why the <> > is difficult to grasp is that it is > to experience and not to speculate? > > > Remember among the 10 <> > questions by the Buddha, there are two: > > __Does Tathagata <>after death? > __Does Tathagata <>after death? > > /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) 18423 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta - View of some scholars Hi, Larry, and Robert, and all - In a message dated 1/1/03 6:11:32 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > > Hi Robert, > > You may find that 1+1=3 or 1+1=1. It depends on how you look at it. The > important thing is that you do have a happy new year. > > Larry > ======================= Larry, with regard to "1+1", are you saying that reading between the lines is a plus? ;-)) Let me use this as an opportunity to wish both of you and everybody else on this wonderful list a delightful, healthy, fruitful, and, most of all, peaceful new year! 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) 18424 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/1/03 7:23:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > > >Conditions per se were not mentioned nor was nibbana per se. So? > > Which means that the Buddha was talking about both the Conditioned > and the Unconditioned. He didn't qualify. Both the Conditioned and > the Unconditioned constitutes the All. > > If the Buddha was not talking about the Conditioned and he was not > talking about the Unconditioned, what can he be talking about? > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: Everything mentioned in that sutta is conditioned. ----------------------------------------------- > > > >I have never denied, nor do I deny, nibbana. My follow-up post > >explained my understanding pretty much as well as I can put it > >forward at this time. I'm afraid I'll have to leave it at that. > > Neither do I deny that the 'ultimate reality' nibbana exists. > > You would have to explain the statements "would be unable to > explain" and "put to grief". Anyway, for now, just leave it at that. > If there is any insight, please share. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Whose statements are these? Who would have to explain them? And to what end? ------------------------------------------------ > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > ========================= 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) 18425 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 0:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hey you! ;-)) In a message dated 1/1/03 7:25:20 PM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > I am sorry to have forgotten to address you in my last reply. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ========================== I didn't even notice, but now that you point it out, I'm really fuming!! ;-)) Have a wonderful new year, Swee Boon! With much 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) 18426 From: peterdac4298 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 6:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Peter, (Chris, Rob Edd & all), Hi Sarah > > Rather jumbled comments below: > > --- "peterdac4298 " > CF:> > As well, I think I might try to obtain "Dictionary of Pali Proper > > > Names", G.P.Malalasekera, Pali Text Society, 1974, Vol II - Sarah > > > mentioned it once before as well. Thank you. > > P:> You may as well get both volumes while you are at it, as they are > > quite cheep, maybe ukp15 each or so. Unless of course you are > > restricted for shelf space, they are quite large! > ..... > Peter, I have to tell you - you're out of date on this point;-) I used to > have the dict in 2 volumes (from a 2nd hand book-shop in London in the > 1970s and loved dearly). One of the vols quite disintegrated with the help > of some insects and we tried to replace it a couple of yrs ago. It is now > produced in 3 volumes and wonderful as they are, they are NOT cheap. Just > checked, 101pounds to be exact in the latest catalogue. A wonderful > investment and Christine would get very good use from them. Just don't let > the bugs get a taste;-) In 1994 I obtained my 2vol copy direct from PTS for just ukp35+vat. I wouldn't have bothered since I am not scholastic by inclination, (being both dyslexic and anaemic, i.e. it is hard work and I don't have the staying power for really worthwhile research, i.e. 'A' level and beyond). I first encountered them in the library at Amaravati during my monastic period, and found them fun to use, (it was almost like cheating!). So when a few years latter, I saw them going (relatively) cheep I snapped them up. From what you tell us above, I am rather glad I did. > ..... > I've just read your article and notes on Rahulamata/Yasodhara and I think > it's a really well-researched and beautiful piece of work. I checked a few > details and it all seems very accurate as far as I know. It's kind of you to say so, but all I did, having cracked the Pali alphabet, was lift the article directly off the page. My interlocutor, a non Buddhist musician working on a CD project inspired by the Buddha's wife, knew nothing of Buddhism, nor could find anything re Yasodhara: (she picked my name from a UseNet discussion group and hoped I might be able to help). So looking at the raw transposition, I decided that it needed some filling out so as to be comprehensible to the enquirer, and all the extra stuff was straight off the top of my head. Hence my interest in some feed back, and much appreciated it is too. > > I note that the comment about Rahulamata's death at 78 and that of the > 18,000 arahat nuns given, comes from the Apadana. I'm not sure that this > has ever been translated into English and in the PTS catalogue it mentions > the Pali version is no longer available there, although it seems the Pali > commentary on the first 3 sections is. I can only assume that the text was available prior to 1937 when the dictionary was first published. This is on the basis that Dr Malalasekera refers to it and gives a page reference too: note #18, Ap.ii.584ff. The common practice seems to be to use PTS page numbering as a standard proceedure. > I'm very interested in the notes > and references that Rob Edd gives. We don't have either of the books he > mentions for the translation of the verses, but perhaps someone else has. I shall start to hunt down these too. It would be rather nice to fill in this final detail. > > (Robert - v.glad to hear from you and hope the Icelandic fishing companies > can spare you from time to time for brief comments - I'd be v.interested > to hear any of yr comments on the `Dhamma Issues' series Nina is > translating and adding notes to, for example). > ***** > OK, I've just checked the entry for the Apadana in the dictionary too. It > is the 13th division of the Khuddakanikaya and contains 547 biographies of > monks and 40 of nuns at the time of the Buddha. It says that most the > stories are found in the Paramatthadipani, the commentary to the Thera and > Therigatha. > > The Apadana and its commentary (Visuddhajanavilaasinii) may have been > translated into Thai and is probably available in Burmese and Pali > elsewhere. Perhaps Kom, Suan or others know more. > > There seem to be other (Theravada) sources substantiating the details of > her going forth and becoming an arahant and so on. As I said, I think your > (Peter's) research with extra notes and details is really great. Any > comments I make are mere nit-picking. Not so, Ma'am! I feel both highly flattered and totally out of my depth:-) > > In note (8) you mentioned her powers `...were more like the psychic gifts > that some people even to day might have'. I don't think so.In the > commentary note to AN Bk of Ones, Women disciples (1-25), where she is > identified with Bhaddakaccana as chief among the nuns who attained > supernormal powers (mahaabhi~n~nappattaana.m), the PTS translation gives: > > "Of one Buddha four disciples only have great abnormal powers. The > remainder can recall 100,000 kalpas, not beyond that: but those who have > attained great abnormal powers can recall incalculable eras. Under our > Teacher's rule the two Great Disciples and the elder Bakkula and > Bhaddakaccana, just these four had this power". > > You had mentioned this note and these four disciples. I think these powers > are a rather more than `quite impressive';-) I agree entirely with this. My intention for putting in that comment was so as to point out to my non Buddhist enquirer that these powers where 'natural' (i.e. a combination of both personal development, and inherent qualities) rather than the result of 'divine intervention'. Furthermore, in my original e-mail I actually used the word 'spectacular' but toned it down for this list with 'impressive'. From what you tell us it looks like I should have left well alone!) > ***** > In the MrsRhys Davids transl of the Thera-Theri-gatha (as opposed to the > Norman version) it gives a transl of the commentary before the verses. For > Sundari-Nanda, after aeons and aeons after hearing Pudumuttara Buddha > preaching, she was also reborn in the same family as Yasodhara, her > sister. > > We read that as the Buddha (her half-brother), Rahula, his son, her > brother, King Nanda, her mother, Mahapajapati and her sister, Rahula's > mother had all gone forth, she followed from `love of her kin'. However, > she was intoxicated by her own beauty. After listening to the Buddha talk > on the foul and the impermanent, she eventually became an arahant too. > Anyway, the point was that here is another indication that Rahulamata had > gone forth and so on. No suggestions of having died young. > > One or two other small comments: > "In those mysogynistic days" (in note 14) - within the Sangha...?? Sorry, this was a relative reference to the Zeitgeist of that time and probably unnecessary. > > In a post to Chris, you wrote: > > "I think this may indicate the depth of anguish that the Boddhisatva > must have been suffering in that moment. It may provide some > indication of the motivational power that would drive him through > all the trials that were to follow. Maybe Yasodhara understood this?" > ..... > Have you any support to show any `depth of anguish' he suffered or for > this comment? Just curious. Well I'd be hard pushed to quote references, but generally trying to keep within what is generally known, though maybe looking at it in a slightly different way. To my mind the Boddhisatva would have either had to be irresponsible and reckless, or acting with extreme regret, there could be no middle way, he was to discover that latter. The former is inconsistent with the remainder of his entire career, whilst the latter is fully consistent with it. The Buddha mentions in Suttas that whilst still the Bodhisatta he was deeply moved by the encounter with a sick person, an old person and a dead person. He said he was inspired by the encounter with a yogi deep in meditation. He resolves to leave his family at night whilst no one will try to stop him, so as to live the life of a Yogi and find the escape from this anguish. He takes a last look at his new born son in the arms of his wife, but is afraid to awaken them. To me this all suggests that the Bodhisatta experienced at least some of the anguish that had previously been awoken in him by three of those earlier encounters. The anguish that he spent the next six years earnestly struggling to transcend. It seems highly probable that Yasodhara understood this, if not immediately, then at least soon after. It is quite common for wives to understand their husbands better than the husbands to know themselves. It brings to mind the image of countless women throughout the ages, who allowed their husbands to go off to war, with the distinct possibility that they wouldn't see them again. The way Yasodhara both lived her life and finally greeted the Buddha on his return suggests this depth of feeling quite clearly, to my mind, and is the reflection intended in what was offered above. I do hope it was OK. > > Thanks again. What other pieces do you have up your sleeve and I'm also > curious about why your non-buddhist musical friend was so interested in > the details of Rahulamata????? What did he do with it? (sorry if I've > missed the explanation). I don't think I gave an explanation. But she was composing a musicle project of CD proportions on the theme of the Buddha's wife. Judging from her web site: http://homebakedmusic.com/contact.html it would seem that the project never quite came to completion. Not supprising realy. Maybe a 78rpm or even a 45rpm, but a CD is rather pushing it for a Dhamma based storey that is going to appeal to the mass market. The only other piece that I have "up my sleeve" is an end note to the above corresponence. In my penultimate letter I put... "Hi Claire "Pali was a language that evolved at a time when people memorised everything, so it lent itself to spontaneous poems etc. which facilitated memorisation. Writing was strictly for merchants etc and thus thought to be too gross for such things as spiritual matters. "A sentence in Pali may be rearranged in any order and the sense would not be changed at all. All that mattered was having the grammatical prefixes and suffixes correct for the intended meaning. Hence it required little effort to spontaneously compose stanzas on any occasion or for any situation...." To which she wrote... "Would this mean, then, given the social and cultural conventions of the time, that Princess Yasodhara probably would not have been able to read and write in Pali at all? ..." To which I replied... "Hi Claire "The social conventions of the time would have encouraged her to develop all the skills, crafts and arts of a high born woman, as in any age. Whilst Gotama's education would have included the marshal arts, so that they would both no doubt impress and entertain one an other with their various skill sets, folk lore etc. But there would have been no written literature for anyone to read or write. The earliest Vedas would have been in existence long before the Buddha appeared and G and Y would both be versed in them, though being warrior cast, probably not as thoroughly as a Brahmin. But it was all done by memorising, hence the poetic nature of these documents. For example the Vedas are spoken of as being 'hymns', implying that they were chanted. While the Pali suttas are highly repetitive for a prose style, and often interspersed with stanzas too: and I do know that they are chanted, having often done so myself whilst a monk. "So what Yasodhara lacked in literary skills, she more than made up for with memorising by rote, and in my view was probably all the better off for it too, since this facilitates contemplation of the sacred passages at any time rather than when seated in front of their written form. This is certainly the way we are encouraged to practice Buddhism today, memorising all sorts of lists of Buddhist terminology and such like. The *big* thing for a monk or nun is to memorise the entire code of discipline [Patimokha] since this has the advantage of contemplating its purpose and function during the normal workday and hence bring clarity and skill to its real-time application. "Further more, this memorizing directly contributes to the practice of mindfulness or alertness: in Pali the same word means both mindfulness and memory, ie 'sati'. So the people of that time would have found meditation quite natural, making very rapid progress with relative ease. It was probably as commonplace as their prodigious memories. So, perhaps the discovery of the path to Awakening or Enlightenment could only have happened in such a highly evolved society just prior to the general acceptance of writing, and would perhaps explain the relative lack of such cultivation by the time of Christ, when writing was much more widespread and portable...." And her final reply befor closing, included the following remark: "I had never quite looked at the origins of Buddhism in this way, but what you suggest is absolutely reasonable..." If I were writing this now, I'd probably be a little more careful. I have already inserted 'Patimoka' into the above to replace 'Vinaya'. But I often do wonder what Western Buddhism would be like today if Rhys Davids had chosen 'recollectedness' instead of 'mindfulness' when translating 'sati'. > > I was also curious about your comment about their being no reference to > the bhikkhunis after the Buddha's parinibbana. I'm wondering whether > references to bhikkhus before the 1st council. When we read about the > buddha's body first being honoured by women because they were weeping > (which Ananda was chastised for allowing), would this not have included > bhikkhunis I wonder. Maybe also some of the references to the large > numbers of bhikkhus present?? In 1982, whilst at Wat Pa Nanachat, Ajahn Brahmavamso related this possibility to us, and being the practical man that I am, took his word for it. In the Parinibbana Sutta of the Digha Nikaya, there seems to be no mention of Bhikkhunis at all, and apparently non in any other texts relating to the Parinibbana and First Council. Ajahn Brom, at that time, simply pointed to the possibility that the order could have died out during the Buddha's lifetime. But this is inconsistent with the story of Ashoka's daughter founding the lineage in Sri Lanka: (and also with Aj Brom's current views!) See http://www.watthai.net/ for his audio tapes, one of which relates to this issue in a very possitive way. I have my own speculative view on this too, hope it's not too off topic. In time of crisis or emergency, e.g. war etc, not too much note is made of the activities of women and children, even though they may be mobile in very large numbers, whilst massive attention is directed at the activities of the adult males. The Parinibbana and the period up to and including the First Council could be seen as a similar episode in the history of Buddhism. Thus, in this context and the then social norms, the non mention of Bhikkhunis may seem less unexpected. > > Sarah > ===== > Peter 18427 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 7:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " > <> Ven. Ananda was the most chastised, ridiculed, and un-respected > > bhikkhu of the Buddha's monks > Dear James, > I don't think Ananda was unrespected by other monks. According to > the commentaries(recorded by the sangha) at his parinibbana the > tears shed were even more than at teh Buddhas death. He was also > given the great responsibilty of reciting the Dhamma at the First > council held after the Buddhas death. An indication of the > veneration in which he was held by the sangha. > ) > RobertK Hi Robert K: When you have read as many suttas as I have, you begin to get the big picture of things. You cannot go on a few isolated incidents; you have to look at the whole history. Yes, Ven. Ananda was respected after the Buddha's death, but prior to that, he wasn't respected at all and many of the sangha did not understand him or his closeness to the Buddha. Actually, other monks were downright nasty to him at times and if they were civil, it was often in a patronizing way (hmmmm...deja vu...) I am not going to do a big, research project on this to prove it; believe me, I know what I know. But, for simplicity and speed sake, let me quote a Jataka Tale that the Buddha told about Ven. Ananda so that the sangha would try to understand Ven. Ananda and begin to give him the respect he deserved (which he was not receiving prior to that): Kalakanni Jataka (Jataka No. 83) What's in a Name? The Buddha told this story while at Jetavana, about one of Anathapindika's friends, a man named "Curse." The two had played together as children and had gone to the same school. As the years passed, however, the friend became extremely poor and could not make a living for himself no matter what he did. In desperation, he approached Anathapindika, who welcomed him kindly and employed him to look after his property and to manage all of his business for him. From that time on, it was a common thing to hear someone shouting, "Curse!" each time a member of the household spoke to him. One day some of Anathapindika's friends and acquaintances came and said, "Treasurer, don't let this sort of thing go on in your house! It's enough to scare an ogre to hear such inauspicious speech as 'Come here, Curse,' 'Sit down, Curse,' or 'Have your dinner, Curse.' The man is a miserable wretch, dogged by misfortune. He's not your social equal. Why do you have anything to do with him?" "Nonsense," replied Anathapindika, firmly rejecting their advice. "A name only denotes a man. The wise do not measure a man by his name. It is useless to be superstitious about mere sounds. I will never abandon the friend with whom I made mud-pies as a child, simply because of his name." Not long after that, Anathapindika went with many of his servants to visit a village of which he was headman. He left his old friend in charge. Hearing of his departure, a band of robbers decided to break into the house. That night, they armed themselves to the teeth and surrounded it. Curse had suspected that burglars might try something so he stayed awake. As soon as he knew that the robbers were outside, he ran about noisily as though he were rousing the entire household. He shouted for one person to sound the conch and for another to beat the drum. Soon it seemed that the house contained a whole army of servants. When the robbers heard the din, they said to one another, "The house is not as empty as we thought it would be. The master must still be at home after all." They threw down their clubs and other weapons and fled. In the morning, the discarded weapons were found lying scattered outside the house. When the townspeople realized what had happened, they lauded Curse to the skies. "If such a wise man hadn't been guarding the house," they said, "those robbers would have walked in and plundered as they pleased. Anathapindika owes this good luck to his staunch friend, Curse." As soon as Anathapindika returned from his trip, they told him the whole story. "My friends," Anathapindika answered, "this is the trusty guardian I was urged to get rid of. If I had taken your advice and sent him away, I would be a poorer man today. It's not the name but the heart within that makes the man!" In appreciation of his friend's services, he even raised his wages. Thinking that this was a good story to tell the Buddha, Anathapindika went to the Master and gave him a complete account. "This is not the first time, sir," the Buddha said, "that a man named Curse has saved his friend's wealth from robbers. The same thing happened in bygone days as well." Then, at Anathapindika's request, the Buddha told this story of the past. Long, long ago, when Brahmadatta was reigning in Baranasi, the Bodhisatta was the treasurer. He was very famous and had a friend named Curse. At that time everything was the same as in the story of Anathapindika. When the treasurer returned from the village and heard the news, he said to his friends, "If I had taken your advice and had gotten rid of my trusty friend, I would have been a beggar today. A friend is one who goes seven steps to help. He who goes twelve can be called a comrade. Loyalty for a fortnight or a month makes one a relative; long and steady dependability, a second self. How could I forsake my friend Curse who has always been so true?" His lesson ended, the Buddha identified the Birth by saying, "At that time Ananda was Curse, and I myself was the treasurer of Baranasi." Metta, James 18428 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 7:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Robert, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " > wrote: > > > > Dear KKT, > Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? > RobertK > > > KKT: My answer is: Yes, > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. > > Whatever this << existence >> means > the Tathagata does exist before death. > Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> > Tathagata exists after death. > > This is what I think (but just a view :-)) __________ Dear KKT Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, But here there is no human being to be found, For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII 31) The Buddha (Tathagatha)and arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without any misconceptions that they refer to something real. "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. I think that it is key to investigate the difference between concepts and realities, in both theory and practice. I would say it is what the path involves. I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. RobertK > > > 18429 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 8:53pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 > " wrote: > > > > Dear Robert, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Dear KKT, > > Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? > > RobertK > > > > > > KKT: My answer is: Yes, > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > > > The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. > > > > Whatever this << existence >> means > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> > > Tathagata exists after death. > > > > This is what I think (but just a view :-)) > __________ > Dear KKT > Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? I > think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were only > the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > But here there is no human being to be found, > For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII > 31) > > The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without > any misconceptions that they refer to > something real. > "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata > makes > use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > I think that it is key to investigate the difference between > concepts and realities, in both theory and practice. I would say it > is what the path involves. > > I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > RobertK Robert K, You missed KKT's point, which corresponds with what I have been writing. Because life and death are illusion, the same Tathagatha that existed before death (which we can't comprehend what that is), exists after death. This is what KKT wrote, but you missed the idea. `A fortiori' means `For a still stronger reason; all the more.' If you stop thinking in dualistic terms like `with aggregates' and `without aggregates', you will get it. As I said, the Buddha still exists. He is alive and well (in a certain sense). We are the ones who are the `walking dead' (in another sense). Metta, James 18430 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs Hi Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > As you remember, A. Sujin referred to the Sutta on chicken and eggs, S > III, > Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101 (Adze handle). The eggshell the chickens have > to > break through is ignorance. I looked up the Pali Co and just glanced > through > it. Most interesting: the bhikkhu lacks in vipassana. The right > conditions > are climate, food, people, listening to dhamma, dhamma savana > sappaaya.m. > Because of his former gradual training his panna ripens and he can attin > arahatship in one session. My question: what are B.B.'s notes? ..... I remember. The sutta has also been discussed before, but I don’t remember the commentary notes, so here goes (For others, note Spk refers to the commentary to SN): note 212 “The simile of the chicks is applied differently at MN 1 104, 3-13 and MN 1 357, 6-358,2 See too Vin 111 3-5. Spk elaborates on the comparison of the bhikkhu’s enlightenment to the hatching of the chicks: the hen’s preparatory work is like the bhikkhu’s devotion to development. The nonrotting of the eggs is like the bhikkhu’s devotion to development. the nonrotting of the eggs is like th bhikkhu’s not falling away from insight knowledge; the drying up of the moisture in the eggs is like the drying up of attachment to the three realms of existence; the thinning of the egg shells is like th thinning of ignorance; the maturation of the chicks is like the maturation of insight knowledge. The time when the chicks break the shells and merge safely is like the time when the bhikkhu breaks the shell of ignorance and attains arahantship. And as the chicks go about adorning the village field, so the great arahant enters into fruition attainment which takes Nibana as its object, and thus adorns his monastery.” note 214 “Spk develops this simile even more minutely than the simile of the chicks. In brief: Like the wearing away of the rigging by the ocean water is the wearing away of the bhikkhu’s fetters by his going forth (into homelessness), study, and questioning. Like the time the ship is hauled onto dry land is the time the bhikkhu takes up a meditation subject and dwells in the forest. Like the drying up of the rigging by wind and sun during the day is the drying up of craving by insight knowledge. Like the wetting by snow at night is the wetting of the mind by gladness and joy arisen from meditation. Like the rain cloud pouring down is the knowledge of the path of arahantship. Like the decay of the rigging is the attainment of the fruit of arahantship. Like the persistence of the rigging in a decrepit state is the persistence of the arahant as he lives on benefitting the multitude. Like the collapse of the decrepit rigging is the arahant’s attainment of the Nibbana element without residue.” ..... >It would > facilitate my reading of it. But if it is too much, I alsmost tackled > the > Pali, it is not one of the most difficult texts. I shall try to enclose > it > in my Thailand report later on. .... I’ll look forward to it. They are wonderfully graphic similes. Any typos are mine (I don’t have access to a scanner). Sarah ===== 18431 From: James Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Nina, > .... > I'll look forward to it. They are wonderfully graphic similes. Any typos > are mine (I don't have access to a scanner). > > Sarah > ===== Hi Sarah, Yes, it is 12:36 am right now in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona and I am still awake. I had dinner, played with my niece (played `Harry Potter'…she was Harry and I was a Grand Wizard! I can levitate don't you know! ;-). Then I meditated (15 minutes only ), and I am now on this computer. I will probably be awake for a few more hours. ;-) Maybe many members want to know these details...maybe not. Truthfully, I think we all want to know more about each other. With this recent line of discussion, I really appreciate this post! I actually like both sets of analogies; but I like the ocean/sailing one more. I have a problem with the chicken and the egg one because of the last parallelism, "And as the chicks go about adorning the village field, so the great arahant enters into fruition attainment which takes Nibana as its object, and thus adorns his monastery." Huh? Nibbana is supposed to be taken as some sort of decoration now? Like `Nibbana Holiday Lights' outlining a Buddhist temple to twinkle a greeting to the un-cheery? ;-))(i.e. Dukkha enslaved) But the last set is absolutely beautiful and perfect! I want to quote it again for all to enjoy: Like the wearing away of the rigging by the ocean water is the wearing away of the bhikkhu's fetters by his going forth (into homelessness), study, and questioning. Like the time the ship is hauled onto dry land is the time the bhikkhu takes up a meditation subject and dwells in the forest. Like the drying up of the rigging by wind and sun during the day is the drying up of craving by insight knowledge. Like the wetting by snow at night is the wetting of the mind by gladness and joy arisen from meditation. Like the rain cloud pouring down is the knowledge of the path of arahantship. Like the decay of the rigging is the attainment of the fruit of arahantship. Like the persistence of the rigging in a decrepit state is the persistence of the arahant as he lives on benefitting the multitude. Like the collapse of the decrepit rigging is the arahant's attainment of the Nibbana element without residue." WOW!! Thank you Sarah for your efforts on our behalf to provide the full commentary. It is beautiful and breathtaking. Metta, James 18432 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 0:00am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Robert, > > Dear KKT, > > Did the Tathagata exist before death or not exist before death? > > RobertK > > > > > > KKT: My answer is: Yes, > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > > > The proof: this is a << historical >> fact. > > > > Whatever this << existence >> means > > the Tathagata does exist before death. > > Therefore a` fortiori the << same >> > > Tathagata exists after death. > > > > This is what I think (but just a view :-)) > __________ > Dear KKT > Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? > I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were > only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > But here there is no human being to be found, > For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII 31) > > The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without > any misconceptions that they refer to something real. > "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata > makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > I think that it is key to investigate the difference between > concepts and realities, in both theory and practice. I would say > it is what the path involves. > > I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > RobertK Robert K, You missed KKT's point, which corresponds with what I have been writing. Because life and death are illusion, the same Tathagatha that existed before death (which we can't comprehend what that is), exists after death. This is what KKT wrote, but you missed the idea. `A fortiori' means `For a still stronger reason; all the more.' If you stop thinking in dualistic terms like `with aggregates' and `without aggregates', you will get it. As I said, the Buddha still exists. He is alive and well (in a certain sense). We are the ones who are the `walking dead' (in another sense). Metta, James KKT: I think James understands perfectly my point :-)) And I understand also perfectly your point, Robert, which I classify as a nihilistic view (I really mean it :-)) First we must have this in mind: The Buddha kept silent and did not answer to the following 4 questions: __Does the Tathagata << exist >> after death? __Does the Tathagata << not exist >> after death? __Does the Tathagata either << exist >> or << not exist >> after death? __Does the Tathagata neither << exist >> nor << not exist >> after death? My interpretation of His silence is that He let wide open the door for His disciples to probe more deeply into this problem. I think we must thank Him for that because otherwise we would have a Buddhism with << fixed >> credos and dogmas (very boring indeed :-)) Now I show you how I may say that the Buddha << does exist >> before death. It's very simple :-)) Take the Buddha and a common worldling and put them next to each other. Do you agree with me that we have two << bags of 5 khandhas >> not really different from each other in the general sense of << khandhas >>, OK? So what is the difference between them? On one hand we have an << omniscient >> Tathagata and on the other hand we have an << ignorant >> worldling. And for sure if ever this << difference >> exists, it should not be found in the 5 khandhas because those are subject to conditions, OK? Do you see the << DIFFERENCE >> ? :-)) The difference is this << OMNISCIENCE >> ! This Omniscience is the proof of the existence of the Buddha! This Omniscience << IS >> the existence of the Buddha! This Omniscience << exists >> before death and a` fortiori << does exist >> after death. Maybe one can call it << the Source of All Wisdom >> ? :-)) Therefore I agree with this statement of James << the Buddha still exists. He is alive and well (in a certain sense) >> Metta, KKT 18433 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Hi Peter, Thanks for getting back with the extra notes. wrote: > > I can only assume that the text was available prior to 1937 when the > dictionary was first published. This is on the basis that Dr > Malalasekera refers to it and gives a page reference too: note #18, > Ap.ii.584ff. The common practice seems to be to use PTS page > numbering as a standard proceedure. ..... I think this is right - in the catalogue it shows it was published in 1925 and 1927 but is no longer available. ..... > Not so, Ma'am! I feel both highly flattered and totally out of my > depth:-) .... Hey Peter, it’s only me! (This is the problem when 2 Brits start talking together - we become sooo polite that no one else understands us;-)). ..... > I agree entirely with this. My intention for putting in that > comment was so as to point out to my non Buddhist enquirer that > these powers where 'natural' (i.e. a combination of both personal > development, and inherent qualities) rather than the result > of 'divine intervention'. Furthermore, in my original e-mail I > actually used the word 'spectacular' but toned it down for this list > with 'impressive'. From what you tell us it looks like I should > have left well alone!) ..... Maybe ‘extraordinary’? ..... > > Have you any support to show any `depth of anguish' he > suffered or > for > > this comment? Just curious. > > Well I'd be hard pushed to quote references, but generally trying to > keep within what is generally known, though maybe looking at it in a > slightly different way. To my mind the Boddhisatva would have > either had to be irresponsible and reckless, or acting with extreme > regret, there could be no middle way, he was to discover that > latter. The former is inconsistent with the remainder of his entire > career, whilst the latter is fully consistent with it. ..... The reason I asked is because I think we tend to read the brief details given in the texts according to how we imagine anyone might feel during such acts. So we read about the long pregnancy of the Bodhisatta’s mother and consider her distress, assume the angst that the Bodhisatta must have felt by the 3 encounters and anguish/regret at leaving all that was dear to him and the even greater distress Yasodhara must have experienced at being deserted as her new baby was born. Some of the books we read when we first encounter Buddhism possibly contribute to the ‘wallpaper decoration’ that we are only too ready to believe. When we strip back the wallpaper to the bare textual references, I’m not sure that there is any evidence of all this anguish. Why should the Bodhisatta, having over countless lifetimes perfected the paramis, be ‘acting with extreme regret’? ..... >The Buddha > mentions in Suttas that whilst still the Bodhisatta he was deeply > moved by the encounter with a sick person, an old person and a dead > person. He said he was inspired by the encounter with a yogi deep > in meditation. He resolves to leave his family at night whilst no > one will try to stop him, so as to live the life of a Yogi and find > the escape from this anguish. He takes a last look at his new born > son in the arms of his wife, but is afraid to awaken them. To me > this all suggests that the Bodhisatta experienced at least some of > the anguish that had previously been awoken in him by three of those > earlier encounters. The anguish that he spent the next six years > earnestly struggling to transcend. ..... Let me give a few quotes from texts used in Nanamoli’s ‘the Life of the Buddha’ (p4f) which you referred us to recently which don’t, I think, suggest any anguish: ***** “When the Bodhisatta had descended into his mother’s womb, no kind of affliction arose in her: she was blissful in the absence of all bodily fatigue......etc” ..... “...she gave birth to him after carryig him in her womb for exactly ten months. other women give birth seated or lying down; but not so the Bodhisatta’s mother. She gave birth to him standing up. When the Bodhisatta came forth from his mother’s womb, he did not touch the earth. The four deities received him and set him before his mother, saying “Rejoice, O Queen, a son of great power has been born to you”. When the Bodhisatta came forth from his mother’s womb, just as, if a gem were placed on Benares cloth, the gem would not smear the cloth or the cloth the gem - why not? - because both are pure, so too the Bodhisatta came forth frm his mother’s womb unsullied, unsmeared.......” (Ananda’s words, M123). ***** “Whilst I had such power and good fortune, yet I thought: When an untaught ordinary man, who is subject to ageing, not safe from ageing, sees another who is aged, he is shocked, humiliated and disgusted; for he forgets that he himself is no exception. but I too am subject to ageing, not safe from ageing, and so it cannot befit me to be shocked, humiliated and disgusted on seeing another who is aged. When I considered this, the vanity of youth entirely left me..........vanity of health....vanity of life entirely left me.” (A.111,38) ***** “Before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta, I thought: House life is crowded and dusty; life gone forth is wide open. It is not easy, living in a household, to lead a Holy Life as utterly perfect and pure as a polished shell.....”(M. 36,100) ..... “Later, while still young, a black-haried boy blessed with youth, in the first phase of life I shaved off my hair and beard - though my mother and father wished otherwise and grieved with tearful faces -, and I put on the yellow cloth.......” (M.26, 36. 85, 100) ***** “But I have not gone forth to seek sense pleasures. I have gone out to strive, seeing danger in them, And seeing safe refuge from them in renouncing. That is my heart’s desire.” (Sn. 111,1) ..... “Now before my enlightenment, while I was still only an unenlightened Bodhisatta...........I resort to a remote jungle-thicket abode in the forest as one of the Noble Ones, who are free from these defects (all mentioned above). Seeing in myself this freedom from such defects, I find great solace in living in the forest.” (M.4) ********** > It seems highly probable that Yasodhara understood this, if not > immediately, then at least soon after. It is quite common for wives > to understand their husbands better than the husbands to know > themselves. ..... Certainly not common for wives to be married to the Bodhisatta who had attained to the first jhana as a child and understood his mind states very clearly. ..... >It brings to mind the image of countless women > throughout the ages, who allowed their husbands to go off to war, > with the distinct possibility that they wouldn't see them again. > The way Yasodhara both lived her life and finally greeted the Buddha > on his return suggests this depth of feeling quite clearly, to my > mind, and is the reflection intended in what was offered above. I > do hope it was OK. ..... We read about the father’s sadness. I haven’t read anything to suggest any anguish on Yasodhara’s part as yet. On the contrary, the little I’ve read suggests to me she was inspired to follow his example and lead and for Rahula to do the same. As we know, she became a bhikkhuni later and an arahant. ..... This has already got rather long, so I’ll look at the other comments later. I just wished to ‘suggest’ that perhaps we always underestimate the ‘extraordinary’ qualities (the paramis in particular) developed by the Bodhisatta over lifetimes and also perhaps of those who were his close associates. How me would feel or imagine anyone would feel is not necessarily how it would have been. What do you think? Thanks again for your contributions on this topic and to Chris for prompting it . Sarah ====== 18434 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:01am Subject: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear KKT > > Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from them? > > I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were > > only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > > "The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > > But here there is no human being to be found, > > For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > > Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga XVIII > 31) The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > > arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but without > > any misconceptions that they refer to something real. > > "These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > > designations in common use in the world. And of these a Tathagata > > makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > > extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > > cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > > RobertK > +++++++++++++ KKT: I understand perfectly > your point, Robert, which I classify > as a nihilistic view (I really mean it :-)) > First we must have this in mind: > The Buddha kept silent and did not > answer to the following 4 questions: > __Does the Tathagata << exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata either << exist >> > or << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata neither << exist >> > nor << not exist >> after death? > Now I show you how I may say that > the Buddha << does exist >> before death. > It's very simple :-)) > Take the Buddha and a common worldling > and put them next to each other. > Do you agree with me that we have > two << bags of 5 khandhas >> > not really different from each other > in the general sense of << khandhas >>, OK? > So what is the difference between them? > On one hand we have an << omniscient >> Tathagata > and on the other hand we have an << ignorant >> worldling. > And for sure if ever this << difference >> exists, > it should not be found in the 5 khandhas > because those are subject to conditions, OK? > The difference is this << OMNISCIENCE >> ! > This Omniscience is the proof > of the existence of the Buddha! > This Omniscience << IS >> the existence of the Buddha! > This Omniscience << exists >> before death > and a` fortiori << does exist >> after death. > Maybe one can call it << the Source of All Wisdom >> ? :-)) > Therefore I agree with this statement of James > << the Buddha still exists. > He is alive and well (in a certain sense) >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dear KKT (and James), I know James doesn't like sutta quotes to be used but I hope you don't mind if I add some as I think they are relevant. In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN. IV 385), Sariputta says to a bhikkhu named Kotthita : "To hold, friend, that the Tathagata exists or does not exist after death, is to view the Tathagata as rupa [and the other khandhas]. That, friend, is the reason why this [question] has not been answered by the Blessed One."" You see the reason for the unanswered questions is that they invariably are rooted in selfview based on not understanding the khandhas . The people who asked them believed in a self somewhere either in the khandhas or apart from them. In another sutta the Budha explains to Anuruddha about these 4 questions: "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life " and shows how such ideas about a Tathagata existing or not existing etc after death are quite beside the point. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.86 Anuradha Sutta "How do you construe this, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" "No, lord." ""Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without consciousness?" "No, lord." "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata exists after death, does not exist after death, both does & does not exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" "No, lord." "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly & now, it is only stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-086.html RobertK 18435 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs Hi James , --- "James " wrote: > > Yes, it is 12:36 am right now in beautiful Phoenix, Arizona and I am > still awake. I had dinner, played with my niece (played `Harry > Potter'…she was Harry and I was a Grand Wizard! I can levitate > don't you know! ;-). Then I meditated (15 minutes only ), > and I am now on this computer. I will probably be awake for a few > more hours. ;-) Maybe many members want to know these > details...maybe not. Truthfully, I think we all want to know more > about each other. .... I’m like you.....I like a little background colour. It certainly sounds like you and your niece are having a lot of fun;-) Do you have snow in Phoenix? Watch out, Larry is a Harry Potter expert (or was) - I think it’s why he’s so good at talking in riddles;-) He could even live somewhere not too far from you and leviate your way...... Stay awake as long as you like as long as you’re having fun - certainly your niece is having a non-stop party with her personal entertainer;-) ..... > With this recent line of discussion, I really appreciate this post! > I actually like both sets of analogies; but I like the ocean/sailing > one more. .... I thought the same as I was typing. Very beautiful as you say. “Like the rain cloud pouring down is the knowledge of the path of arahantship.” ..... In Chinese culture, rain pouring down is considered very auspicious....We sat outside in the heaviest rain storms during the Handover ceremonies in 1997 and this was meant to be a wonderful start.....hmmm.....takes a little cultural adjustment if you come from England. ..... >I have a problem with the chicken and the egg one because > of the last parallelism, "And as the chicks go about adorning the > village field, so the great arahant enters into fruition attainment > which takes Nibana as its object, and thus adorns his monastery." > Huh? Nibbana is supposed to be taken as some sort of decoration > now? Like `Nibbana Holiday Lights' outlining a Buddhist temple to > twinkle a greeting to the un-cheery? ;-))(i.e. Dukkha enslaved) ..... LOL ....I’ll leave it for others to comment on further....though I wish to take up the phrasing “arahant enters into fruition attainment which takes Nibana as its object” that is commonly used and discuss it in another thread. ..... > WOW!! Thank you Sarah for your efforts on our behalf to provide the > full commentary. It is beautiful and breathtaking. .... I think this is a summary of the commentary. I’m actually hoping that if Nina is translating the complete commentary anyway to these passages that she’ll kindly give us the Pali with English as a ‘walk through’ and also with any other passages she does if it’s no extra trouble (and no hurry). I realize it may only be parts that she intends to use in her article. Thanks James...nice to be in agreement from time to time too;-) Sarah (AKA Heartless in Hong Kong) =========================== 18436 From: James Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:43am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > > Dear KKT (and James), > I know James doesn't like sutta quotes to be used but I hope you > don't mind if I add some as I think they are relevant. Robert K, Well!! ;-) I have never been so insulted! ;-) Sir, this calls for a duel!! ;-) Just Kidding. I know that you hold KKT in much higher regard than myself (as you probably should…showing deference for one's elders is the proper way… karma stream and otherwise) but please don't speak of me in the third person…it's not very polite. I also know, quite distinctly, don't ask my how, that this quote is a forgery or a misappropriation of the true thing: In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN. IV 385), Sariputta says to a bhikkhu named Kotthita : "To hold, friend, that the Tathagata exists or does not exist after death, is to view the Tathagata as rupa [and the other khandhas]. That, friend, is the reason why this [question] has not been answered by the Blessed One." I feel that no such wording of the suttas exists. However, since I am unavailable with a copy of the Samyutta Nikaya hardbound (Santa wasn't so good to me this year ;-) and I cannot find this sutta on the blessed Internet, I am at a loss in this duel. I challenge you to provide more of this sutta and the publishing company from which it is found…if you so desire. As far as the other sutta quotes you present, quite accurately, they further support my point; you just cannot see it yet. But you are very close! ;-) Metta, James Ps. I don't have a problem with people using sutta quotes. Heck, I probably use them more than anyone!! ;-) I have a problem with people who use them without their own analysis or explanation. In other words, I don't respect pseudo-Buddhas. Why should I? 18437 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Significant Event/s Chris I'm glad you reminded me of this anniversary, otherwise it may have gone unnoticed (by me, that is). Many thanks for your kind words, and also for the kind words and end-of -year messages of everyone. I, too, am a beneficiary of the sharing and discussion that takes place on this list, and I would like to thank you all for your contributions. The quality of the discussion lately has been especially good, and I am sorry that my work commitments have kept me from joining in more. If it's any consolation, Chris, many people have gone through similar exasperations in coming to understand the teachings. Being one of those myself, I've come to realise that there's a very simple explanation for this -- the teachings are counter-intuitive to wrong view! Jon PS I have uploaded to the Photos section 2 pics of Bhikkhu Bodhi taken during his recent visit to Hong Kong. After extensive travels (China, Singapore, Sri Lanka and Germany), Ven Bodhi is now back at the Bodhi Monastery (New Jersey), where there has been thick snow over Christmas. --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Sarah and Jon, and fellow dsg-ers, > > Just wanted to draw your attention to a significant event happening > > on 28 December. Dhamma Study Group will have its third birthday. > Walking, talking, and out of nappies now! > > Thank you for the camaraderie, the sharing and teaching, the metta > > and karuna, the humour and patience, the expounding and > clarifying, > and the hair-tearing exasperation some of your posts have > caused.:-) > > Cheers, > Chris 18438 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:20am Subject: RE: [dsg] Significant Event Sumane --- "Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya)" wrote: > Dear Sarah, Jon, Christine & the Group, > Congrats & thanks for opportunities offered! > It is Great to be in the shade of those with prag~na; > Yet struggling to find direction, > Sumane Nice to hear from you, Sumane We are all struggling to find direction. I would say those who were born in a Buddhist country and have been exposed to the teachings from a young age are indeed fortunate! I think what we all share in common is an appreciation of the wonderful opportunity that this life has given us to study the teachings in detail. Please don't hesitate to join in at any time. Everyone benefits (and not least the person contributing). Jon 18439 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? James, (and Robert), It is in the Samyutta Nikaya Volume II Chapter X 44. Abyakatasamutta 'Connected Discourses on the Undeclared' 3. Sariputta and Kotthita suttas(1) - (4) on pps. 1383 to 1388 Translation by Bhikkhu Bodhi. Wisdom Publications 2000. 6 Sariputta and Kotthita (4) (i) Delight in the aggregates (excerpt) "Friend, it is one who delights in form, who takes delight in form, who rejoices in form, and who does not know and see the cessation of form as it really is, that thinks: 'The Tathagata exists after death' ... or 'The Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist after death.' (note 378) This section of the sutta then goes on to say the same about one who takes delight in feeling, perception, volitional formations, and consciousness. The other sections of the sutta explain further by using: (ii) Delight in existence (iii) Delight in clinging (iv) Delight in craving (v) Another method? note 378 says Rupagatam etam. Spk: This is mere form. He shows: "No other being is found here apart from form, but when there is form there is merely this name." Spk-pt: What is being rejected here? The self posited by the outside thinkers, spoken of here as "Tathagata." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: 18440 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:48am Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Charles and Andrew, It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive. You say: ------------- > To dedicate entire energies to `nama/rupa', `existence/non-existence', and `nibbana/samsara' is wrong. Such focusing will perpetuate the very thing we endeavor to cease; it will not end it. Do you want to become selfless? How do you do that in this mundane existence? Focus everything you have on the benefit of others; and do that with wisdom and patience. > ------------- What you have said is fine and just about anyone could agree with it. However, do you mean it in a way that is descriptive or in a way that is prescriptive? If we are to understand it in a way that accords with the Buddha's teaching, then we have to recognise that there is no self who `dedicates energy,' and no self who `wants to become selfless' or who `focuses with wisdom and patience.' Why would anyone prescribe a course of action, knowing that there is only this present trilli-second of a moment? Ultimately, there are no courses of action, no prescribers, no prescribees. It is beyond my ability to explain this point half as well as is done on a regular basis by other dsg members. I tend to repeat stock phrases like; "there is only nama and rupa!" This wears thin very quickly with people who are not already enamoured with the descriptive-not-prescriptive hypothesis. So, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know what you both think of it. Kind regards Ken H PS Charles, I think your comment; "though I feel you don't hold me in high regard, never mind," is quite brilliant -- because of the `never mind' at the end. People like myself don't always take the time to reassure everyone that what they write should not be taken the wrong way. Writing is very difficult -- for some more than others -- I just have to bumble along in my imperfect fashion or not post anything at all. Let's never mind other peoples' failings. KH 18441 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:52am Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman In the previous message, for 'Charles,' please read 'James.' It's been a long day (not that the surf was all that brilliant). Ken H 18442 From: Date: Wed Jan 1, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Tathagatha exists after death? Hi, Robert (and KKT and James) - In a message dated 1/2/03 4:03:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 > " wrote: > >>Dear KKT > >>Was the Tathagatha while alive in the khandhas or apart from > them? > >>I think in the deepest sense there was no Tathagatha, there were > >>only the elements, namas and rupas arising and ceasing. > >>"The mental (nama) and material (rupa) are really here, > >>But here there is no human being to be found, > >>For it is void and merely fashioned like a doll > >>Just suffering piled up like grass and sticks" (visuddhimagga > XVIII > >31) > The Buddha (Tathagatha)and > >>arahants use terms such as self and person and being ; but > without > >>any misconceptions that they refer to something real. > >>"These, Citta, are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, > >>designations in common use in the world. And of these a > Tathagata > >>makes use indeed, but he does not misapprehend them" Digha 9. > > >>I believe that once the fuel of ignorance and craving was > >>extinguished, as Swee Boon said, then the fire of samsara became > >>cool and eventually , at khandha parinibbina, ceased forever. > >>RobertK > > > +++++++++++++ > KKT: > I understand perfectly > >your point, Robert, which I classify > >as a nihilistic view (I really mean it :-)) > >First we must have this in mind: > >The Buddha kept silent and did not > >answer to the following 4 questions: > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata either <> > >or <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata neither <> > >nor <>after death? > > > Now I show you how I may say that > >the Buddha <>before death. > >It's very simple :-)) > >Take the Buddha and a common worldling > >and put them next to each other. > >Do you agree with me that we have > >two <> > >not really different from each other > >in the general sense of <>, OK? > > So what is the difference between them? > >On one hand we have an <>Tathagata > >and on the other hand we have an <>worldling. > >And for sure if ever this <>exists, > >it should not be found in the 5 khandhas > >because those are subject to conditions, OK? > >The difference is this <>! > > This Omniscience is the proof > >of the existence of the Buddha! > >This Omniscience <>the existence of the Buddha! > >This Omniscience <>before death > >and a` fortiori <>after death. > > Maybe one can call it <>? :-)) > >Therefore I agree with this statement of James > >< >He is alive and well (in a certain sense) >> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > Dear KKT (and James), > I know James doesn't like sutta quotes to be used but I hope you > don't mind if I add some as I think they are relevant. > > In the Samyutta Nikaya (SN. IV 385), Sariputta says to a bhikkhu > named Kotthita : > "To hold, friend, that the Tathagata exists or does not exist after > death, is to view the Tathagata as rupa [and the other khandhas]. > That, friend, is the reason why this [question] has not been > answered by the Blessed One."" > > You see the reason for the unanswered questions is that they > invariably are rooted in selfview based on not understanding the > khandhas . The people who asked them believed in a self somewhere > either in the khandhas or apart from them. > > In another sutta the Budha explains to Anuruddha about these 4 > questions: "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the > Tathagata as a truth or reality even in the present life " and shows > how such ideas about a Tathagata existing or not existing etc after > death are quite beside the point. > Samyutta Nikaya XXII.86 > Anuradha Sutta > > > "How do you construe this, Anuradha: Do you regard form as the > Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard feeling as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard perception as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard fabrications as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > "Do you regard consciousness as the Tathagata?" > "No, lord." > ""Do you regard the Tathagata as that which is without form, without > feeling, without perception, without fabrications, without > consciousness?" > "No, lord." > "And so, Anuradha -- when you can't pin down the Tathagata as a > truth or reality even in the present life -- is it proper for you to > declare, 'Friends, the Tathagata -- the supreme man, the superlative > man, attainer of the superlative attainment -- being described, is > described otherwise than with these four positions: The Tathagata > exists after death, does not exist after death, both does &does not > exist after death, neither exists nor does not exist after death'?" > "No, lord." > "Very good, Anuradha. Very good. Both formerly &now, it is only > stress that I describe, and the cessation of stress." > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-086.html > RobertK > > > =============================== I very much like the assortment of sutta quotes you provide, Robert. To me they all roll right down the middle way. It is possible that some people could look at them and conclude that the Tathagata (and nibbana as well), is some mysterious something that is other than any of the khandhic elements, and still others will infer that that the Tathagata is nothing at all. I strongly suspect that the Tathagata, or, better, the reality corresponding to the person we conventionally call "the Tathagata", is neither of these, and is neither properly described as existent or nonexistent. From the perspective of samsara, the perpective of afflicted cognition, the things which exist in any sense at all are separate but related conditions, true but fleeting existents. Samsara is a world of extremes - of true existences counterposed to absolute nonexistences. I believe that as we practice the Buddha's way and we meet with some progress, developing insight begins to let us see through these extremities. I see the realization of nibbana as amounting to a full dissolving of our avijja-hardened cognition, leaving a perspective that is not truly describable, because the means by which description is possible, separate conditions, has been seen through and left behind. All our discussions of the Buddha before and after death, and all our conversations about nibbana, are rooted in our samsaric perspective, regardless of how well we intellectually understand the Dhamma, and that, it seems to me, is the core reason for the Buddha's cautionings against conjecturing in these areas. What he really urged us to do, I believe, is to assiduously practice the three trainings, to follow the his program and let it lead us to truth and liberation. And with the advent of full enlightenment, the meaning of the Buddha's statement that to see him and to see the Dhamma are the same will be clear. Reality is what it is, no matter how we may grasp it, and no matter whether Buddhas should arise in the world or not. 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) 18443 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:51am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi KKT, > __Does the Tathagata << exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata either << exist >> > or << not exist >> after death? > __Does the Tathagata neither << exist >> > nor << not exist >> after death? > My interpretation of His silence > is that He let wide open the door > for His disciples to probe more > deeply into this problem. Consider Majjhima Nikaya 72: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply. "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." Is there a difference between being silent and saying "doesn't apply"? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18444 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon (and KKT) - In a message dated 1/2/03 8:53:13 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi KKT, > > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata either <> > >or <>after death? > >__Does the Tathagata neither <> > >nor <>after death? > > >My interpretation of His silence > >is that He let wide open the door > >for His disciples to probe more > >deeply into this problem. > > > Consider Majjhima Nikaya 72: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html > > "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the > Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its > root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the > conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. Freed from > the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, > boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't > apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does &does not > reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' > doesn't apply. > > "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... > > "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would > describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, > like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, > not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of > consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to > fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' > doesn't apply. 'Both does &does not reappear' doesn't > apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." > > > Is there a difference between being silent and saying "doesn't > apply"? > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > =============================== Neither existing nor yet not existing. Neither of those extremes - rather as in the Kaccayangotta Sutta. That by which the Tathagata might be described has been abandoned. The Tathagata is beyond description - beyond reification, yet also beyond nullification. The real cannot be seen from here, from this realm of ignorance and illusion, and where it can be seen there is no means of describing it, circumscribing it, defining it, or grasping it. "Freed from the classification of form [etc], Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does &does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply" is what is said. What is deep, boundless, and hard to fathom is not nothing. 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) 18445 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 7:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, > The real cannot be seen from here, > from this realm of ignorance and illusion, > and where it can be seen there is no means of describing it, > circumscribing it, defining it, or grasping it. I disagree. Samsara is REAL. Nibbana is REAL. That which is UNREAL does not exist at all. The Tathagata, unbound, gone parinibbana, is UNREAL. You and I, still bound to samsara, are REAL. The other REAL, nibbana, is to be realized! The path of the Tathagata is from the REAL to the UNREAL. > What is deep, boundless, and hard to fathom is not nothing. What is deep, boundless and hard to fathom is simply 'out'. It is simply 'kicked out' of the REAL to the UNREAL. The UNREAL is not Nothingness. It simply doesn't exist. That which doesn't exist, can we say it is Nothingness? Nothingness is an activity in naming. That which doesn't exist at all can't be named. It can't even be named Nothingness. Nothingness doesn't apply. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18446 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 7:09am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, Just to add another point ... > That which doesn't exist at all can't be named. It can't even be > named Nothingness. That which doesn't exist at all also can't even be named 'non- existent', for 'non-existent' is also an activity in naming. That which doesn't exist at all simply can't be described, simply can't be named. Deep, boundless and hard to fathom indeed is the Tathagata. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18447 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Swee Boon - You write below in part: "Samsara is REAL. Nibbana is REAL. That which is UNREAL does not exist at all. The Tathagata, unbound, gone parinibbana, is UNREAL. You and I, still bound to samsara, are REAL. The other REAL, nibbana, is to be realized! ----------------------------------------------- Howard: And what exactly is that? What is it to "realize" nibbana except to drop all illusion? (And you and I are REAL???) ------------------------------------------------ The path of the Tathagata is from the REAL to the UNREAL. ----------------------------------------------- Howard: Now that's an interesting path: a path from the REAL to the UNREAL I can hardly think of a better definition of annihilationism than that. ======================== With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/2/03 10:04:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >The real cannot be seen from here, > >from this realm of ignorance and illusion, > >and where it can be seen there is no means of describing it, > >circumscribing it, defining it, or grasping it. > > I disagree. > > Samsara is REAL. Nibbana is REAL. > > That which is UNREAL does not exist at all. > > The Tathagata, unbound, gone parinibbana, is UNREAL. > > You and I, still bound to samsara, are REAL. > > The other REAL, nibbana, is to be realized! > > The path of the Tathagata is from the REAL to the UNREAL. > > > >What is deep, boundless, and hard to fathom is not nothing. > > What is deep, boundless and hard to fathom is simply 'out'. > > It is simply 'kicked out' of the REAL to the UNREAL. > > The UNREAL is not Nothingness. It simply doesn't exist. > > That which doesn't exist, can we say it is Nothingness? > > Nothingness is an activity in naming. > > That which doesn't exist at all can't be named. It can't even be > named Nothingness. > > Nothingness doesn't apply. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > > /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) 18448 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Howard, > What is it to "realize" nibbana except to drop all illusion? Samsara is not an illusion. It is REAL. If it were an illusion, we can all continue in our fantasies. Why bother about nibbana? > (And you and I are REAL???) You and I are Samsara. And Samsara is REAL. You and I are "rupa, citta and cetasika". These three dhammas are REAL. They do exist. > Now that's an interesting path: a path from the REAL to the UNREAL. > I can hardly think of a better definition of annihilationism than that. Friend, deep, boundless and hard to fathom is the Tathagata freed from all naming activities. Annihilation doesn't apply. 'Does not exist' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. Nothingness doesn't apply. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18449 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? Dear Robert and all, Thanks to everybody to answer to my post. Because what I wrote has merely the value of a << speculation >> so I prefers not to engage into details of discussions but to stick to the main idea in order to see clearly. My << speculation >> is: The Tathagata << does exist >> as Omniscience. And this Omniscience is not << something >> nor a << Self >> nor of the domain of the << 5 khandhas >> Yesterday, after writing that post, I suddenly realized something interesting that maybe the first Mahayana Buddhists had the same << intuitive >> observation as mine :-)) Why? Because the first Mahayana Sutras to appear are the many voluminous Prajnaparamita Sutras (Perfection of Wisdom) (now available in English by the translations of E. Conze) Prajnaparamita literally means << The Transcendental Wisdom that Brings One to the Other Shore >> If you read those Sutras then you will see that from the first page to the last page, the Prajnaparamita were constantly stressed to satiety ! :-)) So the Omniscience I mention above << IS >> this Prajnaparamita. Peace, KKT 18450 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:30am Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: So the Omniscience I mention above << IS >> this Prajnaparamita. KKT: Prajnaparamita is also called << Mother of All Buddhas >> KKT 18451 From: James Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Hi Ken H., You write, Hi Charles and Andrew, "It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive …So, if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to know what you both think of it…In the previous message, for 'Charles,' please read 'James." Well, this is a big subject! ;-) Before I go into the long explanation, let me give the conclusion. I do not believe that the `dhamma' of the Triple Gem is best taken as descriptive rather than prescriptive. I am not sure who has been writing that in this group, I haven't come across that statement yet, but it surely wasn't me. If you take the dhamma as descriptive over prescriptive, it is dead and useless. It becomes a set of philosophical ponderings, much like those of Aristotle, which will have little benefit to anyone in a practical sense. Additionally, such a position is impossible to take when related to dhamma. Dhamma, by its very nature, is prescriptive. Just look at your above statement, "It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive." Now, no offense, but this position is oxymoronic. `Advice' is prescriptive; you are writing that the best advice for a dhamma student is that the dhamma is not meant as advice. If that is so, why offer any advice? Why does there exist a `dhamma student'? You further write: "Why would anyone prescribe a course of action, knowing that there is only this present trilli-second of a moment? Ultimately, there are no courses of action, no prescribers, no prescribees." Okay, this position is `anatta' gone haywire. Even though there is `no self' that doesn't let us all off the hook for recognizing proper behavior, karma, and responsibility. This is hard to explain with cognitive thought, but `anatta' is a `closed system'. Though `we' don't exist except as a collection of vibrations (aggregates), one must never forget what caused those vibrations in the first place: ignorance, craving, and desire for existence. Those are the things that must be negated, not just their result. If you just cut down the tree, if you just adhere to a philosophy of `non-self', you will miss the roots. The tree will grow back again as quickly as it is cut down. This is my view. One takes refuge in the Triple Gem because it the medicine which will cure us. Thanisarro Bhikkhu expressed it well with these words: "On the internal level, the Buddha, Dhamma, and Sangha are the skillful qualities we develop in our own minds in imitation of our external models. For instance, the Buddha was a person of wisdom, purity, and compassion. When we develop wisdom, purity, and compassion in our own minds, they form our refuge on an internal level. The Buddha tasted Awakening by developing conviction, persistence, mindfulness, concentration, and discernment. When we develop these same qualities to the point of attaining Awakening too, that Awakening is our ultimate refuge. This is the point where the three aspects of the Triple Gem become one: beyond the reach of greed, anger, and delusion, and thus totally secure." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/refuge.html#goi I hope this response answers your question. I still hold the position that to be `focusing everything one has on the benefit of others' is the proper way to practice `selflessness'. It doesn't mean to deny self and other. Metta, James Ps. Your writing and ability to express yourself are exemplary. I meant that you do not hold me in high regard because I do not adhere to your mode of thinking. Though I feel that is not the case anymore; since you ask to understand and not to disprove. 18452 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Way 31, Comm, the goal op 31-12-2002 23:35 schreef peterdac4298 op peterdac4298@y...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: >> N: This is clear. Past is past already, the present has already > arisen and >> then gone, so fast. Through the Path the latent tendencies are > eradicated, >> so that defilements cannot arise in the future. Thus, I can > understand that >> past or present defilements are not abandoned. > > So, presumably, the goal of the holy life is to realize this with > total clarity, at all times, without any trace of doubt or confusion? Dear Peter, I am not sure whether I understand your question. Please could you elaborate a little? As to doubt, only the sotapanna has eradicated this. When we have theoretical understanding we have doubts, but when there is awareness we learn to understand realities. Latent tendencies of defilements can be eradicated by panna developed to the degree of lokuttara panna. This is the goal of the holy life. Nina. 18453 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:58am Subject: Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 5 Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 5 All arahats abide by nature in the following three kinds of vipassanå, insight knowledge: the void abiding (suññata vihåra), the signless abiding (animitta vihåra) and the desireless abiding (appanihita vihåra)12. In the Commentary to the ³Path of Discrimination², to Chapter IX, Equanimity about Formations (sankhårupekkhåñåna), we read: ³With regard to the abiding in the three kinds of insight by the arahats who wish to abide in vipassanå, without fruition-attainment: they see the clinging to oneself as a danger, and they are inclined to the void abiding (suññatå vihåra, voidness of self); they see the decline(of conditioned dhammas) by equanimity about formations under the aspect of the void abiding. They see as a danger the characteristics of conditioned realities (sankhåranimitta), and they are inclined to the signless abiding (animitta vihåra); they see the decline (of conditioned dhammas) by equanimity about formations under the aspect of the signless abiding. They see as a danger the steadfastness of clinging, and they are inclined to the desireless abiding (appanihita vihåra); they see the decline (of conditioned dhammas) by equanimity about formations under the aspect of the desireless abiding. With regard to the arahats who are sukkhavipassaka, with ³dry² insight (insight alone), they have attained arahatship with lokuttara cittas without jhåna factors of the different stages of jhåna, but they have calm of citta since defilements have been completely eradicated. If they have accumulated the inclination to calm of the degree of jhånacitta, then they are able to enter fruition-attainment, which is ³abiding in bliss here now² (ditthadhamma sukhavihåra [13 ). With respect to this, we read in the Subcommentary (Tíka) to the Vinaya, the Såratthadípaní, in the section ³Through wisdom (vijjå)²: ³As to the words stating the benefit of citta which has a single object, thus, the benefit of citta with samådhi, concentration, these have been explained as follows: the benefit of ³abiding in bliss here now² (ditthadhamma sukhavihåra). The abiding in bliss (sukha) here now, the commentator describes this with the leading words that the citta has a single object and that the citta having a single object has that benefit. This refers to the arahat who has dry insight (sukkha vipassaka).²[14 Footnotes: 13. Dittha dhamma: dhammas which are seen (dittha), namely, this world, or ³here now². ³Abiding in bliss, here now², dittha dhamma sukha vihåra, has different meanings in different contexts. Here it refers to the abiding in the bliss of fruition-attainment. 14. Although an arahat is sukkha vipassaka, who has attained without having developed jhåna, after his enlightenment he may have the inclination to jhåna, and in that case he can enter fruition-attainment. Then he is ³abiding in bliss here now.² 18454 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy New Year and No Need to Agree..... op 01-01-2003 01:02 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Happy New Year everyone. And may we all remember to notice the passing > of whatever the present moment may bring. A good reminder, thank you, Nina 18455 From: Uan Chih Liu Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 0:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Hi Jon, You said > The problem in talking about the weather as vipaka, as I see it, is > that different people may be experiencing quite different vipaka due > to the same weather conditions at the very same moment. One person > may find the temperature just right (kusala vipaka) while another > person may be feeling too hot or too cold (akusala vipaka). It > doesn't really seem possible to draw any conclusion about the weather > as vipaka from that. Maybe I'm confused about kusala vs. akusala afterall. I always thought kusala/akusala is not intellectual considerations. Just because one finds the temperature just right, it does not make vipaka kusala. One cannot make an akusala vipaka kusala or vice versa. I always thought that a true understanding of whether a vipaka is kusala or akusala grows with wisdom just like you mentioned in your last paragraph. Or am I mis-understanding that as well? > Getting back to thinking about the weather (or about anything, for > that matter), the kusala or akusala nature of our thinking activity > isn't determined by the 'rightness' or 'wrongness' of the thinking, > but by the quality of the mental factors that accompany the thinking. > This can be known only, I believe, by a level of understanding > (panna) that directly experiences the thinking moments. You said > I think it's important to remember that whether one sees the weather > as simply the environment or as an ecological event due to one's past > cittas or kamma, it is in either case a view of things that is based > on purely intellectual considerations. Just like what I raised in this group before, how can one tell whether anyone's understanding is purely intellectual consideration or wisdom. I don't see this case is any different. My point is one cannot take weather simply as environment either when it may be in fact ecological event. Yes, it may be environment only in one case, and ecological event at another moment. One will know only when understanding of the situation comes with wisdom. metta, Wendy 18456 From: peterdac4298 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 1:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Way 31, Comm, the goal --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > op 31-12-2002 23:35 schreef peterdac4298 op > peterdac4298@y...: > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > > wrote: > > Dear Peter, > I am not sure whether I understand your question. Please could you elaborate > a little? As to doubt, only the sotapanna has eradicated this. When we have > theoretical understanding we have doubts, but when there is awareness we > learn to understand realities. Latent tendencies of defilements can be > eradicated by panna developed to the degree of lokuttara panna. This is the > goal of the holy life. > Nina. Thank you Nina This is more or less what I was wondering. Apologies for being vague. Peter 18457 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 4:16pm Subject: Way 33, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.45 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Because the subject of meditation of mindfulness on in-and-out-breathing is not easy to accomplish without leaving the neighbourhood of a village, owing to sound, which is a thorn to absorption; and because in a place not become a township it is easy for the meditator to lay hold of this subject of meditation, the Blessed One, pointing out the abode suitable for that, spoke the words, "Gone to the forest," and so forth. The Buddha is like a master of the science of building sites [vatthu vijjacariya] [Tika:] because of the pointing out by him of the suitable abode for yogis [yoginam anurupa nivasatthanu-padissanato]. As a master in the science of selecting building sites, after seeing a stretch of ground good for building a town, and after considering it well from all sides, advises: "Build the town here," and when the building of the town is happily completed receives high honor from the royal family, so the Buddha having well considered from all points the abode suitable for the meditator advises: "Here, should the subject of meditation be yoked on to." When arahantship is gradually reached by the yogi, by the expression of the yogi's gratitude and admiration with the words: "Certainly, the Blessed One is the Supremely Awakened One," the Master, receives great honor. The bhikkhu indeed, is comparable to a leopard, [T:] because like the leopard he lives alone, in the forest, and accomplishes his aim, by overcoming those contrary to him, namely, the passions. Just as a great king of leopards concealed in the forest in grass-bush, jungle-bush or hill-thicket, seizes wild buffaloes, elks, pigs and other beasts, this bhikkhu yoking himself to the subject of meditation gains the Four Real Paths and Fruits [cattaro magge ceva ariyaphalani ganhati] one after another, in succession; and therefore the men of old said: As leopard in ambush lies and captures beasts, So does this son of the Awakened One, The striving man, the man of vision keen, Having into the forest gone seize therein Fruition that truly is supreme. 18458 From: peterdac4298 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 5:12pm Subject: Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Message 18433 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:56 am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for getting back with the extra notes. > > wrote: > > > ..... > ..... > The reason I asked is because I think we tend to read the brief details > given in the texts according to how we imagine anyone might feel during > such acts. So we read about the long pregnancy of the Bodhisatta's mother > and consider her distress, assume the angst that the Bodhisatta must have > felt by the 3 encounters and anguish/regret at leaving all that was dear > to him and the even greater distress Yasodhara must have experienced at > being deserted as her new baby was born. Some of the books we read when we > first encounter Buddhism possibly contribute to the `wallpaper decoration' > that we are only too ready to believe. When we strip back the wallpaper to > the bare textual references, I'm not sure that there is any evidence of > all this anguish. Why should the Bodhisatta, having over countless > lifetimes perfected the paramis, be `acting with extreme regret'? ..... I personally find the four divine messengers a more useful reflection than the earlier references to multiple past lives, but I do get your point. For me to be inspired by the Buddha, he has to be believable. I have to be able to say, "well if he can do it, so can I". If the Buddha is too special it makes his achievement seem more unattainable by the rest of us: well me at least. I get around this by seeing the Bodhisatta, whilst still an unenlightened being, still non-the-less special in the perfection of the virtues. I can handle this because the virtues are not self knowledge. I can well imagine that cultivating the virtues without the benefit of insight could well take innumerable rebirths: this makes him human, and a very fine one too. But non the less susceptible to anguish. Why else would he forsake his family to go off and strive so hard for its cessation? I know! It is because he resolved to do so in an earlier life in the presence of Dipankara Buddha. But this still poses the same question, why did he feel the need to do that? This question is strictly rhetorical, let us not get side tracked. Your point is that we read into the scant details of the Suttas our own projections. I would like to venture that this is exactly how I practice. The trick is not to attach to these reflections, but to freely update them as and when they become out grown and of no further value. This works because frustration, anguish, despair, etc. re-emerge and drive us onward, ever deeper into the investigation of the Buddha's Dhamma and Vinaya. By Dhamma I would include the Abhidhamma. And if this pressure from Dukkha necessitates abandoning this style of practice for something along the lines of what you are advocating, then so be it. An opportunity not to be missed. > >The Buddha > > mentions in Suttas that whilst still the Bodhisatta he was deeply > > moved by the encounter with a sick person, an old person and a dead > > person. He said he was inspired by the encounter with a yogi deep > > in meditation. He resolves to leave his family at night whilst no > > one will try to stop him, so as to live the life of a Yogi and find > > the escape from this anguish. He takes a last look at his new born > > son in the arms of his wife, but is afraid to awaken them. To me > > this all suggests that the Bodhisatta experienced at least some of > > the anguish that had previously been awoken in him by three of those > > earlier encounters. The anguish that he spent the next six years > > earnestly struggling to transcend. > ..... > Let me give a few quotes from texts used in Nanamoli's `the Life of the > Buddha' (p4f) which you referred us to recently which don't, I think, > suggest any anguish: > ***** > M123). > ***** > (A.111,38) > ***** > (M.26, 36. 85, 100) > ***** > (Sn. 111,1) > ********** There is indeed, no reference to anguish in these passages. However:- > "Now before my enlightenment, while I was still only an > unenlightened Bodhisatta...........I resort to a remote jungle- thicket > abode in the forest as one of the Noble Ones, who are free from > these defects (all mentioned above). Seeing in myself this freedom > from such defects, I find great solace in living in the forest." > (M.4) > ********** Firstly, having lived in a tropical forest for a year, i.e. during all three seasons, (an area reputed by locals to be haunted, which is why they did not cultivate it, and we could live in it), I can confirm that it is indeed a most agreeable place to dwell for a meditator. I only claim to be a regular bloke living with other equally regular fellas with nothing but the Vinaya training and discipline for protection against unwholesome fear and dread. Secondly, the Sutta quoted from above (M.4) does go on to mention the Bodhisatta's fear and dread, pp 15,16 The Life of the Buddha, ~Naanamoli: Following on from the very next line after your own quote: "I thought: 'But there are the specially holy nights of the half moons of the fourteenth and fifteenth, and the quarter moon of the eighth; suppose I spent those nights in such awe-inspiring abodes as orchard shrines, woodland shrines and tree shrines, which make the hair stand up--perhaps I should encounter the fear and dread?' "And later, on such specially holy nights as the half ... eighth, I dwelt in such awe-inspiring abodes as orchard ... shrines, which make the hair stand up. And while I dwelt there, a deer would approach me, or a peacock would knock off a branch, or the wind would rustle the leaves. Then I thought: 'Surely this is the fear and dread coming'. "I though: 'Why do I dwell in constant expectation of the fear and dread? Why not subdue that fear and dread while maintaining the posture I am in when it comes to me?' "And while I walked, the fear and dread came upon me; but I neither stood nor sat nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and dread. While I stood, the fear and dread came upon me; but I neither walked nor sat nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and dread. While I sat, the fear and dread came upon me: but I neither walked nor stood nor lay down till I had subdued that fear and dread. While I lay, the fear and dread came upon me: but I neither walked nor stood nor sat till I had subdued that fear and dread". ~Naanamoli's translation. For me this makes the Bodhisatta human, and as such his achievement is all the more inspiring. He did after all make mistakes with over exertion etc. before he finally found the middle way. I can relate to this and even map my own experience to the template of his life story for further guidance and inspiration. When I get it wrong, I can always rely on Ajhan Dukkha to prompt me into trying some other direction, either more or less extreme, as the case may be. > > It seems highly probable that Yasodhara understood this, if not > > immediately, then at least soon after. It is quite common for wives > > to understand their husbands better than the husbands to know > > themselves. > ..... > Certainly not common for wives to be married to the Bodhisatta who had > attained to the first jhana as a child and understood his mind states very > clearly. Meditation would seem to come quite easy to many children if approached in a skillful way. Any good Buddhist temple will have Sunday school lessons for children age from say six to twelve or so. The one in Wimbledon, Wat Buddhapadipa, has a very enthusiastic attendance. My own secular experience at around that age: I'd find myself just sat down, (in a bus of all places), when the most amazing feeling of a bliss-like-tranquillity would suddenly and unexpectedly well up, this happened on a couple of occasions around that time. I can still recollect the feeling after all this time. > ..... > >It brings to mind the image of countless women > > throughout the ages, who allowed their husbands to go off to war, > > with the distinct possibility that they wouldn't see them again. > > The way Yasodhara both lived her life and finally greeted the Buddha > > on his return suggests this depth of feeling quite clearly, to my > > mind, and is the reflection intended in what was offered above. I > > do hope it was OK. > ..... > We read about the father's sadness. I haven't read anything to suggest any > anguish on Yasodhara's part as yet. On the contrary, the little I've read > suggests to me she was inspired to follow his example and lead and for > Rahula to do the same. As we know, she became a bhikkhuni later and an > arahant. Maybe my projections again, but when I read that the Buddha requested that she great him as she wished I assumed that he anticipated the possibility of some kind of emotional display. However, non of this appears to be in any early texts, well not in ~Naanamoli's collection at least. > ..... > This has already got rather long, so I'll look at the other comments > later. I just wished to `suggest' that perhaps we always underestimate the > `extraordinary' qualities (the paramis in particular) developed by the > Bodhisatta over lifetimes and also perhaps of those who were his close > associates. How me would feel or imagine anyone would feel is not > necessarily how it would have been. > > What do you think? I entirely agree. There is indeed a need for clarity when offering a reflection to be careful not to implicate the texts where they don't actually apply. I will endeavour to be more careful in the future, for the welfare of generations to come. If I ever fall prey to this mistake again, it will be entirely due to my ignorance of the texts, and would appreciate such errors to be pointed out. > > Thanks again for your contributions on this topic and to Chris for > prompting it around somewhere;-)>. That's amaizing, how could you have possibly known?!?!?!?!?!? > > Sarah > ====== Cheers Peter 18459 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 6:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, Comm, Breathing Way 33: Because the subject of meditation of mindfulness on in-and-out-breathing is not easy to accomplish without leaving the neighbourhood of a village, owing to sound, which is a thorn to absorption... L: Someone might ask why "absorption"? Perhaps we could say a distracting sound is also a thorn to insight and tranquility and insight are mixed together in mindfulness of in-and-out breathing. It might also be being suggested that mindfulness of breathing is a way of approaching jhana. Both kayanupassana and vedananupassana are associated more with the cultivation of quietude while cittanupassana and dhammanupassana are associated more with the cultivation of insight. The predominate insight of body mindfulness is concerned with "casting out the illusion (vipallasa) of beauty" but I don't think that applies to mindfulness of breathing. So I would say a quiet, tamed mind is what we are cultivating here, so far. Comments? Larry 18460 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello Howard, [On the unconditioned within the conditioned.] >Mainly that - free of any self/essence/core, and free of all craving, >aversion, and attachment, but a bit more as well. Also unconditioned in >the sense of not arising from conditions, volitional or other, nor comprised >of conditions - uncompounded, unmade. I wanted to ask you more about the second sentence, but on reflection I don't think we do agree. The second sentence is a standard characterization and it makes sense in terms of Suan's position that nibbana is wholly other from The All (though applying it creates problems within that context*). But how it applies to a view that is not a change in ontology is rather problematic. One can sort of naturalize nibbana away; I think that Buddhadasa and Ajhan Chah may have both done so. I find them inadequate on this core subject. But I don't think your view is of suchness, of everything is perfect as it is (in, say, a somewhat Zen type way). *Apparently* it's something like this: There's a noumenal reality which we see as distinct phenomena under the influence of the self view / avijja; this is samsara. With the dissolution of moha/dosa/lobha the noumenal reality is seen in itself (nibbana); but it doesn't contain trees or chairs or anything that is differentiated / describable. Close? In that case the second sentence readily applies. But, alas, I don't think that's the way things are so it doesn't help me :-( metta, stephen *The application of these criteria lead, with an ineluctable Parmenidian logic, to matterless — sentiencelessness. At least some of us find this a problem. 18461 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? Hello James >Ps. I don't have a problem with people using sutta quotes. Heck, I >probably use them more than anyone!! ;-) I have a problem with >people who use them without their own analysis or explanation. In >other words, I don't respect pseudo-Buddhas. Why should I? This is a bit off the mark. Robert, in particular, does include both. Yet there's a real point here. Wouldn't it be pleasant to have a no sutta week? One could only put up posts based on their actual beliefs and experiences. "Once all of you come to know the Dhamma, which is comparable to that raft, you should leave the Dhamma alone...if we cling to, gloat over, and cherish ditthi that are pure and bright, calling them ours, consider the parable of the raft just presented. We proclaim the Dhamma so that it can be used for crossing over. We should not tie ourselves to it, right?" (M.I.260) ...oops, how'd that sutta quote get in here? metta, stephen 18462 From: Andrew Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:28pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau " wrote: > Hi Charles and Andrew, > > > It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive > not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most > valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive. > > In the Wheel publication by Bhikkhu Bodhi entitled "The Noble Eightfold Path", the author writes: "To eliminate ignorance we need wisdom, but how is wisdom to be acquired? As indubitable knowledge of the ultimate nature of things, wisdom cannot be gained by mere learning, by gathering and accumulating a battery of facts. However, the Buddha says, wisdom can be cultivated. It comes into being through a set of conditions, CONDITIONS WHICH WE HAVE THE POWER TO DEVELOP." (my emphasis). KenH, unless my grasp of the English language is completely topsy-turvey, these are words of prescription and not mere description. Do you argue that Bhikkhu Bodhi is wrong? If so, what should he have written? Andrew 18463 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? Hello Stephen, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: Wouldn't it be pleasant to have a no sutta week? One could only put up posts based on their actual beliefs and experiences. "Once all of you come to know the Dhamma, which is comparable to that raft, you should leave the Dhamma alone...if we cling to, gloat over, and cherish ditthi that are pure and bright, calling them ours, consider the parable of the raft just presented. We proclaim the Dhamma so that it can be used for crossing over. We should not tie ourselves to it, right?" (M.I.260) ...oops, how'd that sutta quote get in here? metta, stephen KKT: But you forget that one drops the raft only once one is on the other shore? Not before, Stephen :-)) Metta, KKT 18464 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 8:59pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Andrew " wrote: In the Wheel publication by Bhikkhu Bodhi entitled "The Noble Eightfold Path", the author writes: "To eliminate ignorance we need wisdom, but how is wisdom to be acquired? As indubitable knowledge of the ultimate nature of things, wisdom cannot be gained by mere learning, by gathering and accumulating a battery of facts. However, the Buddha says, wisdom can be cultivated. It comes into being through a set of conditions, CONDITIONS WHICH WE HAVE THE POWER TO DEVELOP." (my emphasis). KKT: I have a question here? If << wisdom cannot be gained by mere learning >> and << wisdom can be cultivated. It comes into being through a set of conditions >> then what are those conditions? And is wisdom here the same as the cetasika << Panna >> ? Thanks. KKT 18465 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs Dear Sarah, Thank you very much, I save it. But what is spk? Nina op 02-01-2003 08:31 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: the Sutta on chicken and eggs, S >> III, >> Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101 (Adze handle). (For others, note Spk refers to the > commentary to SN): > > note 212 18466 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 9:30pm Subject: Way 33, left out passage on anapana Hi Larry and all, Way 33 we read: Right before the beginning, Because the subject... Ven. Soma left out a passage which I believe is essential for understanding this subject, for whom it is suitable and also the goal of anapanasati: developing insight and calm to the degree of jhana, using jhana as foundation for vipassana and attaining fruition of the arahat. It is also a passage translated in the Vis. VIII, 155: This is almost the same as my translation that follows (I saw the Vis tr later on): apica, yasmaa ida.m kaayaanupassanaaya muddhabhuuta.m sabbabuddhapaccekabuddhabuddhasaavakaana.m visesaadhigama-di.t.thadhammasukhavihaarapada.t.thaana.m aanaapaanassatikamma.t.thaana.m N: And thus also, with regard to the meditation subject of anapanasati which has become the topmost of Body Contemplation, being the proximate cause for abiding in ease here, now (di.t.thadhammasukhavihaara, fruition attainment) for all Buddhas, Silent Buddhas and disciples of the Buddha, itthipurisahatthiassaadisaddasamaakula.m gaamanta.m apariccajitvaa na sukara.m sampaadetu.m, saddaka.n.takattaa jhaanassa. N: this is not easy to undertake when one has not abandoned the border of the village, full of sounds of women, men, elephants, horses etc. agaamake pana ara~n~ne sukara.m yogaavacarena ida.m kamma.t.thaana.m pariggahetvaa aanaapaanacatutthajjhaana.m nibbattetvaa tadeva jhaana.m paadaka.m katvaa sa"nkhaare sammasitvaa aggaphala.m arahatta.m paapu.nitu.m. N: If the meditator does not live in a village but in the forest, it is easy for him, after he has mastered this meditation subject, attained the fourth jhana of anapana sati, and made this jhana the foundation and has thoroughly comprehended conditioned dhammas (sankhare), to fulfill the highets frutuion, the fruition of arahatship; tasmaassa anuruupasenaasana.m dassento bhagavaa ``ara~n~nagato vaa''tiaadimaaha. N: Therefore the Blessed One, pointing out the dwelling suitable for that, said, gone to the forets etc. (As is) Rematks: We see here that this meditation subject is for those who can attain jhana and develop insight even to arahatship. Some time ago (In September 002) I made a study of the Co to the Anapana Sati sutta. I quote again and also include posts of Jon: We read in the Co. to the Anapana Sati Sutta: The Co states that it is thus elsewhere (in other texts), but that in this sutta it is handed down that the mundane foundations of mindfulness perfect the mundane enlightenment factors, and that these perfect clear vision (vijjå), deliverance (vimutti), fruition (phala) and nibbana, which are lokuttara. Because in this sutta ³clear vision and deliverance² designate clear vision, fruition (phala) and nibbana.> N : If jhana is not reached, and there are not the masteries (vasis) in jhana, such as attaining and emerging at any time, at any place, samatha, the development of calm, cannot be a foundation for vipassana. As Jon said, And Jon said also: N: I would add:the bhikkhus the sutta was addressed to were highly adept, they were arahats or they had accumulations to attain arahatship. We read even after the first tetrad (Of mindfulness of breath) in the Visuddhimagga: (Jon to Rob Ep, Sept 16): the Anapanasati Sutta is a teaching on attaining to the superior kind of insight known as 'insight both ways', based on jhana, in this case jhana with breath as object. As such, is directed at those who have already attained jhana with breath as object or who are potentially capable of doing so. For such individuals, breath is already a naturally arising object in their daily life, a daily life that is far different from yours and mine. So, no, I do not read this sutta as *advocating* anything about taking a particular object for insight development... As I have indicated, the sutta was given for the benefit of those (monks) who are already highly adept at attending to the breath (actually, its nimitta) as an object of samatha, and for those persons the sutta is indeed about the discernment of an 'everyday object'.> end quote. Nina. 18467 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] chicken and eggs Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > Thank you very much, I save it. But what is spk? > Nina > op 02-01-2003 08:31 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > the Sutta on chicken and eggs, S > >> III, > >> Middle Fifty, Ch 5, § 101 (Adze handle). (For others, note Spk refers > to the > > commentary to SN): > > > > note 212 ..... Spk - Saaratthappakaasini From BB's preface to SN: "Many of the notes are drawn from the Pali comentaries on SN, of which there are two. One is the authorized commentary, th Samyutta Nikaya-atthakatha, also known by its proper name, the Sarathappakasini (abbr:Spk), "The Elucidator of the Essential Meaning." This is ascribed to the great Buddhist commentator, Acariya Buddhaghosa..........The other commentarial work is the subcommentary, the Samyutta Nikaya-tikam akso known as the Sarathappakasini-purana-tika (abbr:Spk-p.t) and the Liinatthappakaasanaa (Part 111), "The Elucidation of the Implicit meaning." This is ascribed to Acariya Dhammapala... To keep the notes as concise as possible, the commentaries are generally paraphrased rather than directly quoted, but I use quotation marks to show where I am quoting directly. I have not given volume and page numbers to the citations from Spk and Spk-pt, for I did not have permanent access to the PTS edition of the former, while the latter is published only in Burmese script." ***** For others, BB continues in his preface; "I should state, as a precaution, that the commentaries explain the suttas as they were understood sometime around the first century CE at the latest, at which time the old commentaries drawn upon by Buudhaghosa were closed to further additions. the commentaries view the suttas through the lens of the complex exegetical view that had evolved within the theravada school, built up from the interpretations of the ancient teachers welded to a framework constructed partly from the principles of the Abhidhamma system......." Sarah ======= 18468 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, left out passage on anapana Hi Nina, Thanks for this. I had forgotten your posts on the Anapanasati Sutta. This gives me more confidence that we shouldn't be particularly concerned with insight while practicing anapanasati but rather we should be more focused on cultivating a calm tamed mind. However, it's been a long time since I last read the Anapanasati Sutta and I would like to read more of the Satipatthana Commentary before I say that insight is not part of anapanasati. I do agree that developing a calm discipline is primary in the beginning (and it could be a very long beginning) of practicing anapanasati. I agree when you say, "We see here that this meditation subject is for those who can attain jhana and develop insight even to arahatship." However, I disagree when you say that doesn't include us. I agree that the Buddha's audience was more spiritually advanced than us but we are part of his retinue so we are included. We can do it, but it might take longer. best wishes, Larry 18469 From: James Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 10:51pm Subject: [dsg] Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > > > Hello James > > >Ps. I don't have a problem with people using sutta quotes. Heck, I > >probably use them more than anyone!! ;-) I have a problem with > >people who use them without their own analysis or explanation. In > >other words, I don't respect pseudo-Buddhas. Why should I? > This is a bit off the mark. Robert, in particular, does include both. (James: Stephen, I didn't specifically refer to Robert in this evaluation. Actually, I wasn't referring to Robert at all. Most people in this group do use proper analysis for quotations used, and give proper sources. When they don't, and the post is addressed to me, I scream holy murder. I think you may have seen some posts which bear that fact out. I don't just 'grin-and-bear it', because then the person will not learn and improve at communication; I also don't send off a bunch of off-list e-mails criticizing the person. I address them directly and state directly what I am displeased about and why I am displeased about it. I believe that is more in keeping with the dharma than other tactics which amount to subterfuge or patronizing.) Yet > there's a real point here. Wouldn't it be pleasant to have a no sutta week? (James: Hmmm...maybe, but I think it would be more pleasant to have a 'No Pali Terms without English equalivalents' week! ;-) Another pet peeve of mine! ;-) > One could only put up posts based on their actual beliefs and experiences. > "Once all of you come to know the Dhamma, which is comparable to that raft, > you should leave the Dhamma alone...if we cling to, gloat over, and cherish > ditthi that are pure and bright, calling them ours, consider the parable of > the raft just presented. We proclaim the Dhamma so that it can be used for > crossing over. We should not tie ourselves to it, right?" (M.I.260) ...oops, > how'd that sutta quote get in here? > metta, stephen (James: Well, some sutta usage is okay, but I don't think it should be overdone. But, since we are on the subject of 'Things that irritate James' ;-), I also wish that members would clearly identify their comments when replying to posts in-text; as I have done with this post. For example, there is currently a fascinating post that is between Peter and Sarah about Yosodhara, post #18458, that has evolved and keeps evolving. Responses are inserted within responses within responses. It is a virtual Pandora's Box to try to figure out who said what and who is referring to who. I have noticed that done quite often in this group and I usually give up and skip reading those posts. I like to know the differences between each person talking. Otherwise, it is all noise.) Metta, James 18470 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 11:07pm Subject: Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? --- please don't speak of me in the > third person…it's not very polite. Ok, sorry about that. > Ps. I don't have a problem with people using sutta quotes. Heck, I > probably use them more than anyone!! ;-) I have a problem with > people who use them without their own analysis or explanation. In > other words, I don't respect pseudo-Buddhas. Why should I? ______________ Thanks for clarifying, I misunderstood. I realied you weren't referring to me here James.(thanks for the defense anyway Stephen) Robert 18471 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 11:34pm Subject: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Dear All, wrote: > It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive > not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most > valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive. ..... For anyone who has joined DSG in the last few months and wishes to have a little more idea what Ken H is referring to, I’ve just retrieved a sample only of the messages from escribe which I think he’d be referring to. (Note: most of these are by Jon, but by following the threads at the ends of messages, you can look at others’ comments too). Best to be read in reverse order;-) ***** http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11468.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m9166.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m7731.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m7337.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m7098.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5309.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m4981.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m3806.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m3734.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m3727.html http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m211.html ***** Sarah ===== 18472 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 11:51pm Subject: Way 10, comm: pilapanti vs plavanti. B.Bodhi comments Dear Al l (especially Suan & Jim), I just received the following letter from Bhikkhu Bodhi to be forwarded to DSG. As it’s not a recent thread and also contains difficult points, I’ve looked out the following posts which can be read through (in order) first by those wishing to follow the discussion - Sarah: ********** http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12185.html Jim http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12191.html Suan http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12264.html Sarah http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12280.html B.Bodhi to Suan http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12289.html Suan http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m12760.html B.Bodhi to Suan ******************************************************* Dear Sarah, Thanks for sending the selections from the Dhamma Study Group discussions. I don’t have any comments to add on the new discussions, but let me pick up where I left off in Hong Kong, with my discussion with Suan Luzaw over the expression in AN IV 191, ‘pi lapanti’(Ee) or ‘pilapanti’ (Se) or ‘plavanti’ (Be). Suan quotes the Anguttara Commentary as giving unambiguous support to the Be reading with its gloss: te sabbe pasanne aadaase chaayaa viya plavanti, paaka.taa hutvaa pa~n~naayanti. But in the Sinhala script edition of the Anguttara Commentary, the disputed verb is read as ‘pilapanti’. Since it far more probable that a difficult reading would be normalized than that a normal reading would be converted into a difficult one (apart from typographical error, which is not the case here), the difference in the two readings shows, once again, that the Sixth Council edition has solved the problem of an enigmatic archaic reading by replacing it with a more familiar "normal" one in *both* the canonical text *and* the commentary. Thus the Burmese-script commentary can support the Burmese reading of ‘plavanti’ in the sutta because the commentary has also been edited in accordance with the same principle, namely to change the difficult reading of older editions into an easier, more familiar one. I don’t know what the older (pre-Sixth Council) Burmese editions and manuscripts had, but the fact that the PTS edition doesn’t mention a Burmese alternative to its ‘pi lapanti’ suggests that the older Be versions read pretty much the same as the PTS and Sinhala script editions. It was only at the Sixth Council that the word was revised to read ‘plavanti’. I wouldn’t say that interpreting ‘pilapanti’ as representing ‘plavanti’ is wrong. It might well be the right interpretation. But we have to be careful not to read interpretative decisions into the text. Once one looks at the Commentary with ‘pilapanti’ in place of ‘plavanti’, then it isn’t so obvious that "floating up" or "crossing over" is the intended meaning. K.R. Norman deals succinctly with this word in his short article (which for students of Pali interested in this question is well worth reading; it’s in his Collected Papers, Vol. III). Norman comes to very much the same conclusion that I came too before I was even aware of his article, namely, that the original reading may have been ‘apilapanti’, this word being equivalent in sense to ‘abhilapanti’ = to remind. I’m not sure I would go along with this interpretation now. The phrase is puzzling and the plain fact is, in the absence of further evidence, it seems impossible to know with complete certainty what is meant. But whatever interpretation I eventually arrive at, I would let the text stand without alteration. Let that be it for now. With metta, Bhikkhu Bodhi ******************************************************** 18473 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Clinging Aggregates Hi Steve, --- "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi > Does anyone have any info on where the article/book >"Aggregates > and Clinging Aggregates" can be found. Bhikkhu Bodhi has in Note 65 > of the Khandhavagga of his translation of the Samyutta >For a > detailed study of this problem see Bodhi,"Aggregates and clinging > Aggregates." I'm not sure if he means Bhikkhu Bodhi is the author or > it is in one of the Bodhi Leaves articles. .... I saw Chris tracked down the reference with her usual efficiency. I was reminded of your queery when looking for one of the other posts I came across one of these which may be of relevance too: ***** http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m8515.html Num http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m6064.html Jon http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m8365.html Num http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12457 ADL -Larry **** Actually, I'm pretty sure Nina also wrote further on this topic, but I can't find her post. (Maybe she or someone else can find it). I'd be interested to know what your interest or considerations are as I'm sure they will contain useful points. When I next f/w some posts to BB, I can also ask if he has a copy of the article he can f/w if it's a problem to get hold of. Let me know, perhaps. On your other 'space' questions which Chris and Nina gave helpful brief comments on, Rob M also wrote a couple of good posts (see 'Space' in Useful Posts)and particularly helpful are the notes Nina wrote on this and other rupas in her book (not yet printed) 'Rupas' to be found on one of these websites: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ http://www.abhidhamma.org/ Sarah ======== 18474 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman Andrew (and KenH) I hope you don't mind me coming in here. --- "Andrew " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau > " wrote: > > Hi Charles and Andrew, > > > > > > It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive > > not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most > > valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive. > > > > > In the Wheel publication by Bhikkhu Bodhi entitled "The Noble > Eightfold Path", the author writes: "To eliminate ignorance we need > wisdom, but how is wisdom to be acquired? As indubitable knowledge > of > the ultimate nature of things, wisdom cannot be gained by mere > learning, by gathering and accumulating a battery of facts. > However, > the Buddha says, wisdom can be cultivated. It comes into being > through a set of conditions, CONDITIONS WHICH WE HAVE THE POWER TO > DEVELOP." (my emphasis). > > KenH, unless my grasp of the English language is completely > topsy-turvey, these are words of prescription and not mere > description. Do you argue that Bhikkhu Bodhi is wrong? If so, > what > should he have written? > Andrew It depends of course what the Ven author means by 'we have the power to develop'. Does it mean, in the context, anything other 'must be developed (by one aspiring to wisdom)'? And more importantly, what are those conditions, as described by the Buddha? The classic formulation is something like: association with the right people, hearing the teachings, considering what has been heard, and applying what has been realised. This relates to an earlier post of yours where you asked: Do we not NEED to go through all the conventional stuff as we slowly move away from the elephant? The necessary conditions of hearing, considering and applying the teachings do not include any 'going through the conventional stuff', to my understanding. Of course, we do and we will continue to, but because we are not capable of doing otherwise, not becasue it is what the teachings say is needed. Jon 18475 From: jonoabb Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Howard Hi, and happy new year to you. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I understand your point. However, attaining the jhanas includes the > the arousing of a number of enlightenment factors, which puts one already a > step up on the way. By attaining jhanas, and then embarking on vipassana > bhavana, one is starting the climb having already ascended some steps. ... > -------------------------------------------------------- The view that attaining the jhanas puts one some way along the path to enlightenment is not one that I have found stated in the suttas or ancient commentaries. I agree that the Buddha encouraged monks to develop samatha, and that many who attained enlightenment at the time of the Buddha did so after attaining the jhanas, but neither of these facts requires the conclusion that the samatha/the jhanas takes one along the path that is vipassana. To my understanding, the factors that are developed in the course of attaining jhana are of a different quality to the factors of the same name that are required for the development of vipassana. Take panna (understanding, wisdom) for example. The mental factor of panna is common to both samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana. While the panna that accompanies moments of samatha bhavana knows the kusala or akusala quality of the present mental state, it does not know the present mental state as a nama that is anatta (not-self). To put this another way, highly developed concentration (even the jhanas) and strong wrong view are not mutually exclusive in a person. A person with strong wrong view who has attained the jhanas has no less wrong view for having done so. Nor is he a step along the way to developing the panna that is insight/vipassana, since the obstacle to his development is his wrong view, and this cannot be dispelled by the panna that accompanies samatha bhavana. The same goes for the other factors, including concentration. The concentration that accompanies the mind when it is focussed continually on a mental image to the exclusion of the sense-door experiences is not the concentration that accompanies insight that sees the true nature of a presently arising nama or rupa appearing through any of the 6 doorways. The kind of steps that count in this regard are, for example, the development of satipatthana as in the Satipatthana Sutta, or, at a more general level, the 'factors of wisdom' of association with good friends, listening the dhamma, considering what one has heard and applying what one has considered. As I see it, anyway ;-)) Jon 18476 From: Sarah Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:13am Subject: Pandora's box Hi James & Stephen, --- "James " wrote > (James: Stephen, I didn't specifically refer to Robert in this > evaluation. Actually, I wasn't referring to Robert at all. Most > people in this group do use proper analysis for quotations used, and > give proper sources. When they don't, and the post is addressed to > me, I scream holy murder. I think you may have seen some posts > which bear that fact out. I don't just 'grin-and-bear it', .... I think we may have noticed.... ..... >because > then the person will not learn and improve at communication; I also > don't send off a bunch of off-list e-mails criticizing the person. ..... Would anyone do such a thing????;-) ..... > I address them directly and state directly what I am displeased > about and why I am displeased about it. I believe that is more in > keeping with the dharma than other tactics which amount to > subterfuge or patronizing.) ..... Oh well, as Ken H said, we all have our failings.....;-) ..... Stephen:> Yet > > there's a real point here. Wouldn't it be pleasant to have a no > sutta week? ..... Hi Stephen, Happy New Year to you too - we could have an action-packed Abhidhamma and commentaries only week just for you ..... > (James: Hmmm...maybe, but I think it would be more pleasant to have > a 'No Pali Terms without English equalivalents' week! ;-) Another > pet peeve of mine! ;-) > > (James: Well, some sutta usage is okay, but I don't think it should > be overdone. .... Ok.....that’s good..... .... >But, since we are on the subject of 'Things that > irritate James' ;-), I also wish that members would clearly identify > their comments when replying to posts in-text; as I have done with > this post. For example, there is currently a fascinating post that > is between Peter and Sarah about Yosodhara, post #18458, that has > evolved and keeps evolving. Responses are inserted within responses > within responses. It is a virtual Pandora's Box to try to figure > out who said what and who is referring to who. ..... I’ll try to do some unravelling if and when I next reply.....we wouldn’t want you to skip any pearls of wisdom or to get lost again in the box ;-) ..... >I have noticed that > done quite often in this group and I usually give up and skip > reading those posts. I like to know the differences between each > person talking. Otherwise, it is all noise.) .... ‘all noise’..Oh no...I’ll do a trade, James: I put your ‘pet peeve’ list above my computer screen and you scream holy murder off-list;-) ;-) (btw, I agree that it does help to identify who is talking....) Nice to see you around, Stephen. Sarah ======= 18477 From: jonoabb Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:15am Subject: [dsg] Re: Dhamma Issues, Ch 2, Fruition-attainment, no 1 Hi again, Howard --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: ... > By attaining jhanas, and then embarking on vipassana > bhavana, one is starting the climb having already ascended some steps. Then, > classically, as in the Anupada Sutta, and as you point out, the jhanas, their > features, and especially the entering and leaving of jhanas, can serve as > objects of investigation. > -------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for giving the reference to this sutta. However, I'm not sure it supports a conclusion of 'jhana first' as the classic approach. The Anupada Sutta (MN ) is a description by the Buddha of Sariputta's enlightenment and many attainments. Given Ven. Sariputta's position as one of the aggasavaka (great disciples), I think it should be regarded as a very special case. But I think in any event it's relevant here that Ven. Sariputta either had attained the jhanas before ever hearing the Buddha's teaching, or was able to do so within a very short time (2 weeks) of that. Either way, he was ripe for both attainments. To my reading so far, the kind of bhikkhu to whom the instruction on enlightenment with jhana as base was given was the bhikkhu who had already attained jhana (or had the potential to attain it) and was firmly established in mindfulness. You may know suttas that say otherwise, and I would be very happy to be shown them. Jon 18478 From: Date: Thu Jan 2, 2003 11:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Stephen - In a message dated 1/2/03 11:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > [On the unconditioned within the conditioned.] > > >Mainly that - free of any self/essence/core, and free of all craving, > >aversion, and attachment, but a bit more as well. Also unconditioned in > >the sense of not arising from conditions, volitional or other, nor > comprised > >of conditions - uncompounded, unmade. > > I wanted to ask you more about the second sentence, but on reflection I > don't > think we do agree. ------------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand why you would say that, but I actually think we *may* yet agree. I probably didn't express my meaning well. I am a non-dualist, to put a tag on it. I think that "what there is" is not some sort of joining of two totally disparate things, but, rather, is a single, dynamic reality that has one appearance under the sway of illusion, and another when seen as it is. When I say that "the unconditioned" doesn't arise from conditions and isn't composed of them, the so-called conditions I refer to to are conditions as they usually appear to us, which really means separate, self-existent, yet somehow interrelated, things - entities. I don't think that reality is actually like that. The very same world of conditions that we seem to see, when seen aright, has a character almost opposite from what it seems to have in the dark shade of reification. To give a suggestion of what I mean: On the one hand, anicca rules the world; conditions seem to arise where they were previously nonexistent, and then they cease. But these conditions, lacking own-being, and arising as they do completely in dependence on the confluence of other similarly empty conditions, are not separate, self-existent entities, but only selected-out aspects of an experiential flow - and, thus, there is no thing, no self-existent entity which ever arises or ever ceases! Look, for example, at the opening lines of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhymakakarika to see the same idea succinctly expressed. Stephen Bachelor translates this as follows: I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened one who taught contingency (no cessation, no birth, no annihilation, no permanence, no coming, no going, no difference, no identity) to ease fixations. --------------------------------------------------------- > The second sentence is a standard characterization and it > makes sense in terms of Suan's position that nibbana is wholly other from > The > All (though applying it creates problems within that context*). But how it > applies to a view that is not a change in ontology is rather problematic. > One > can sort of naturalize nibbana away; I think that Buddhadasa and Ajhan Chah > > may have both done so. I find them inadequate on this core subject. > But I don't think your view is of suchness, of everything is perfect as it > is > (in, say, a somewhat Zen type way). > *Apparently* it's something like this: There's a noumenal reality which we > see as distinct phenomena under the influence of the self view / avijja; > this > is samsara. With the dissolution of moha/dosa/lobha the noumenal reality is > > seen in itself (nibbana); but it doesn't contain trees or chairs or > anything > that is differentiated / describable. Close? > In that case the second sentence readily applies. But, alas, I don't think > that's the way things are so it doesn't help me :-( > metta, stephen > *The application of these criteria lead, with an ineluctable Parmenidian > logic, to matterless — sentiencelessness. At least some of us find this a > problem. > > ============================= 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) 18479 From: selamat Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 7:30am Subject: Fw: [Pali] New Pali Tipitaka Project fyi only metta, selamat rodjali ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kumaara Bhikkhu" To: Sent: Friday, January 03, 2003 7:04 PM Subject: [Pali] New Pali Tipitaka Project Dear all, I was informed by Ven. Sujato (an Australian monk, who conducted a retreat here) of a new Pali Tipitaka project undertaken by a university (MahaCulalonkorn?) in Thailand. Here's some background information about it: 1. It all started when the mother of one of the people in the project went to Rangoon (now Yangon) to observe the proceedings of the Sixth Council. She was so inspired by it that, before she died, she asked that her son print the Tipitaka for free distribution. 2. When the VRI CSCD come out, the son decided to produce a print version of it, thereby fulfilling his mother's dying wish. 3. However, as he went over the texts, he found errors. The more he checked the more errors he found. 4. This led to a big project under the auspices of a Thai university. 5. From the research, they found out that: There are more than 30,000 discrepancies found in the VRI version. The VRI CSCD does not contain the Sixth Council version. (Sayadaw U Silananda was right.) Somehow, it is found to have taken the Fifth Council (Mandalay) version as its source. 6. Instead of reproducing the Sixth Council version (which many scholars outside Myanmar are not too happy about), they decided to produce a new version. To do this, the project took a few years and a lot of human and computer power. Among the scholars was a nun who had learnt many ancient writings to lead the transcription work. With her help, they were able to make comparison among more than ten different ancient scripts of the Pali scriptures. 7. The texts went through repeated visual *and* verbal proofreading. So, it should have minimal typographic errors. 8. The Pali Tipitaka Project has ended. As I was told, they have printed 1000 sets for free distribution and have recently launched it. If I remember correctly, they have included all the commentaries as well. Please don't ask me where to get them. We managed the contact the man (whose mother's wish started all this), and he only said he'll keep us informed. That was a few weeks ago. No news since then. peace Kumâra Bhikkhu - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Yahoo! Groups members can set their delivery options to daily digest or web only. [Homepage] http://www.tipitaka.net [Send Message] pali@yahoogroups.com [Mailing List] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pali [Discussion] http://www.tipitaka.net/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl 18480 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 7:14am Subject: The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Everybody, I find this sutta to be very helpful and would like to point it out to those who are interested. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3- 12.html I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery, the palace of Migara's mother. Now on that occasion -- the Uposatha day of the fifteenth, the full- moon night -- the Blessed One was sitting in the open air surrounded by the community of monks. Surveying the silent community of monks, he addressed them: "Monks, if there are any who ask, 'Your listening to teachings that are skillful, noble, leading onward, going to self- awakening is a prerequisite for what?' they should be told, 'For the sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.' 'What duality are you speaking about?' 'This is stress. This is the origination of stress': this is one contemplation. 'This is the cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': this is a second contemplation. For a monk rightly contemplating this duality in this way -- heedful, ardent, & resolute -- one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right here & now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- non-return." Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18481 From: Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 2:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/3/03 10:15:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Everybody, > > I find this sutta to be very helpful and would like to point it out > to those who are interested. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3- > 12.html > > > > I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near > Savatthi in the Eastern Monastery, the palace of Migara's mother. > Now on that occasion -- the Uposatha day of the fifteenth, the full- > moon night -- the Blessed One was sitting in the open air surrounded > by the community of monks. Surveying the silent community of monks, > he addressed them: "Monks, if there are any who ask, 'Your listening > to teachings that are skillful, noble, leading onward, going to self- > awakening is a prerequisite for what?' they should be told, 'For the > sake of knowing qualities of dualities as they actually are.' 'What > duality are you speaking about?' 'This is stress. This is the > origination of stress': this is one contemplation. 'This is the > cessation of stress. This is the path of practice leading to the > cessation of stress': this is a second contemplation. For a monk > rightly contemplating this duality in this way -- heedful, ardent, & > resolute -- one of two fruits can be expected: either gnosis right > here &now, or -- if there be any remnant of clinging-sustenance -- > non-return." > > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ============================= Of course there is the conditioned arising and ceasing of dukkha. But that very fact makes dukkha neither a true existent nor a nullity. Since it arises it is not nothing at all, but since it ceases it lacks essence. (See the Kaccayangotta Sutta in this regard.) Emptiness is the key - anatta. Not too much should be read into the use of the word 'dualities'. (The Buddha also used the words 'I', 'me', 'mine', and 'self' all the time. Reificationists just love to latch onto those usages - like life preservers for folks drowning in a raging sea.) 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) 18482 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 7:41am Subject: The Tathagata has no passion for nibbana. Hi Everybody, I find this sutta to be very helpful also and would like to point it out to those who are interested. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html In this sutta, the Buddha talked about directly knowing nibbana as nibbana. He taught that an Awakened One has no passion even for nibbana. An interesting point to note is that at the end of this discourse, the monks who heard the Tathagata's teachings did not delight in it. "The Tathagata -- a worthy one, rightly self-awakened -- directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... fire as fire... wind as wind... beings as beings... gods as gods... Pajapati as Pajapati... Brahma as Brahma... the luminous gods as luminous gods... the gods of refulgent glory as gods of refulgent glory... the gods of abundant fruit as the gods of abundant fruit... the Great Being as the Great Being... the dimension of the infinitude of space as the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness as the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness as the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception as the dimension of neither-perception-nor-non-perception... the seen as the seen... the heard as the heard... the sensed as the sensed... the cognized as the cognized... singleness as singleness... multiplicity as multiplicity... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because the Tathagata has comprehended it to the end, I tell you. "The Tathagata -- a worthy one, rightly self-awakened -- directly knows earth as earth. Directly knowing earth as earth, he does not conceive things about earth, does not conceive things in earth, does not conceive things coming out of earth, does not conceive earth as 'mine,' does not delight in earth. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into-being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self- awakening, I tell you. "He directly knows water as water... the All as the All... "He directly knows Unbinding as Unbinding. Directly knowing Unbinding as Unbinding, he does not conceive things about Unbinding, does not conceive things in Unbinding, does not conceive things coming out of Unbinding, does not conceive Unbinding as 'mine,' does not delight in Unbinding. Why is that? Because he has known that delight is the root of suffering & stress, that from coming-into- being there is birth, and that for what has come into being there is aging & death. Therefore, with the total ending, fading away, cessation, letting go, relinquishment of craving, the Tathagata has totally awakened to the unexcelled right self-awakening, I tell you." That is what the Blessed One said. Displeased, the monks did not delight in the Blessed One's words. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18483 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 7:57am Subject: The Discourse that quaked the ten-thousand fold cosmos. Hi Everybody, I find this discourse to be very interesting. Even the ten-thousand fold cosmos quaked. How marvellous the Dhamma is! http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an03-123.html On one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Vesali at Gotamaka Shrine. There he addressed the monks, "Monks!" "Yes, lord," the monks responded. The Blessed One said, "It's through direct knowledge that I teach the Dhamma, not without direct knowledge. It's with a cause that I teach the Dhamma, not without a cause. It's with marvels that I teach the Dhamma, not without marvels.[1] Because I teach the Dhamma through direct knowledge and not without direct knowledge, because I teach the Dhamma with a cause and not without a cause, because I teach the Dhamma with marvels and not without marvels, there is good reason for my instruction, good reason for my admonition. And that is enough for you to be content, enough for you to be gratified, enough for you to take joy that the Blessed One is rightly self- awakened, the Dhamma is well-taught by the Blessed One, and the community has practiced rightly." That is what the Blessed One said. Gratified, the monks delighted in the Blessed One's words. And while this explanation was being given, the ten-thousand fold cosmos quaked. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18484 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 8:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Howard, > Of course there is the conditioned arising and ceasing of dukkha. > But that very fact makes dukkha neither a true existent nor a > nullity. Since it arises it is not nothing at all, but since it > ceases it lacks essence. That's very good! And I tell you, there is another reality which is the cessation of that very arising of dukkha and the cessation of that very dissolution of dukkha. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18485 From: Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi, Swee Boon and all - The following is a sutta I find very helpful. With metta, Howard **************************************************** Samyutta Nikaya XII.15 Kaccayanagotta Sutta To Kaccayana Gotta (on Right View) Translated from the Pali by Thanissaro Bhikkhu. For free distribution only. Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?" "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, only stress is passing away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view. "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering. "Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-& -form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering." Revised: Mon 10 September 2001 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-015.html /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) 18486 From: Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/3/03 11:11:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > >Of course there is the conditioned arising and ceasing of dukkha. > >But that very fact makes dukkha neither a true existent nor a > >nullity. Since it arises it is not nothing at all, but since it > >ceases it lacks essence. > > That's very good! > > And I tell you, there is another reality which is the cessation of > that very arising of dukkha and the cessation of that very > dissolution of dukkha. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > ============================ Perhaps we are not so far apart as first meets the eye. What you call "another reality" I think of as simply the way things really are, and the way they are seen to be when our "seeing" is unaffected by avijja. It seems to me that how things really are is so radically different from the way things *seem* to be to us worldlings that to call it "another reality" is not so much of a stretch. 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) 18487 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 8:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Howard, > But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually > is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the > world does not occur to one. > When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is > with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world > does not occur to one. "Origination of the world" refers to the arising and dissolution of dukkha; samsara. "Cessation of the world" refers to the cessation of arising and the cessation of dissolution of dukkha; nibbana. Where one sees the arising and dissolution of dukkha, 'non- existence' does not apply. Where one sees the cessation of arising and the cessation of dissolution of dukkha, 'existence' does not apply. Where one sees both the origination and cessation of the world, knowing samsara as samsara, knowing nibbana as nibbana, 'non- existence' does not apply, 'existence' does not apply. Seeing both, the arahant transcends both; goes to an end that cannot be classified. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18488 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 8:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi All This question abt whether Nibbana is an object for conditioned mind is very interesting. Some of my initial hunch is that: a. Without Nibbana as an object, then it is not quite possible to go there. It is grasping air. A conditioned mind before going to nibbana needs a condition hence I think that is why Nibbana is an object to attain Nibbana. Then will it comes to the a problem, since Nibbana is preceded by a conditioned mind, doesn't it make it conditioned also. A good explanation will be like the process of changing the catepillar to a butterfly. Butterfly once shed the cocoon will not be longer affected by this previous form however needs the previous form as a basis to become a butterfly. b. Second question, is cessation. When we talk about cessation, I think the point it is the cessation of the catepillar. What is the buttlerfly then, Buddha has describe it and I believe present catepillar from cannot understand or conceptualise or visual it at all. I always believe when we talk about cessation, we talk about cessation of the conditioned mind and it is not scary at all bc we know we going to be butterfly. kind rgds KC 18489 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 10:02am Subject: Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 6 Dhamma Issues, 2, fruition-attainment, no. 6 5. In the ³Visuddhimagga² Ch XXIII, 6, Description of the Benefits in Developing Understanding (what is fruition-attainment?), the meaning of phala-samåpatti, fruition-attainment, has been explained: ³It is absorption in the cessation (nirodha) in which the Noble Fruition (ariya phala) consists.² We should consider the following: how could an ariyan who is not able to attain jhåna, have calm of citta to the degree of absorption which has nibbåna (cessation) as object, after the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness which arose at the moment of enlightenment, have fallen away? The ³Visuddhimagga² (XI, 120) in the Conclusion of the Explanation about Concentration (samådhi) (in ³The benefits of developing concentration²: the benefit of blissful abiding here now (ditthidhamma sukhavihåra) states: ³For the development of absorption concentration provides the benefit of a blissful abiding here now for the arahats with cankers destroyed who develop concentration, thinking ŒWe shall attain (enter samåpatti) and dwell with unified mind in bliss for a whole day¹. The development of attainment concentration (appanå-samådhi) of those monks is said to have as benefit blissful abiding here now...² This shows that a person who is able to enter fruition-attainment which is ³blissful abiding here now², must be able to attain jhåna. The Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, the ³Paramattha Mañjuså², the Mahå-tíka, Commentary to ³the Benefits of Concentration², clearly explains that in order to enter fruition-attainment, it is necessary to develop samådhi to the degree of attainment-concentration (appanå samådhi, which is jhåna), and not merely access concentration (upacåra samådhi). We read: ³By the word samåpatti, attainment, used here, it has been made clear that it is attainment-concentration, appanå-samådhi. It is true that one may also take the words, Œ citta is one-pointed, ekagga¹, for access concentration, and therefore, to refute this (interpretation), the teachers thus said, Œ the development of attainment-concentration, appanå samådhi, (by them) ¹.² 18490 From: Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? In a message dated 1/2/03 8:52:24 PM, phamdluan@a... writes: >KKT: But you forget that >one drops the raft only >once one is on the other shore? > >Not before, Stephen :-)) If one is attached to the raft they'll never get to the other shore. (But I meant: it's possible to just talk about the raft and it's tremendous sea worthiness as it sits on the bank. One can talk about where they are in the sea ;-) adrift, stephen 18491 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 11:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? Hello Stephen, You say: "Once all of you come to know the Dhamma, which is comparable to that raft, you should leave the Dhamma alone...if we cling to, gloat over, and cherish ditthi that are pure and bright, calling them ours, consider the parable of the raft just presented. We proclaim the Dhamma so that it can be used for crossing over. We should not tie ourselves to it, right?" (M.I.260) ...oops, how'd that sutta quote get in here?" Christine: Just a little confused by your citation (M.I. 260) - which sutta were you referring to? My copy of the Majjhima Nikaya only goes up to Sutta No. 152, though numbering systems could differ. The Alagaddupama Sutta may be what you are referring to. (MN 22) In this sutta, a bhikkhu named Arittha gives rise to a pernicious view that conduct (sensual pleasure) prohibited by the Buddha is not really an obstruction. The Buddha reprimands him and, with a series of memorable similes, (including the snake and the raft), stresses the dangers in misapplying and misrepresenting the Dhamma. The sutta culminates in one of the most impressive disquisitions on non-self found in the Canon. excerpt: 13. "Bhikkhus, I shall show you how the Dhamma is similar to a raft, being for the purpose of crossing over, not for the purpose of grasping. "(n.254) The simile of the Raft, (according to note 254 Nanamoli and Bodhi) states "This famous 'simile of the raft' continues the same argument against misuse of learning introduced by the simile of the snake. One who is preoccupied with using the Dhamma to stir up controversy and win debates carries the Dhamma around on his head instead of using it to cross the flood." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > > In a message dated 1/2/03 8:52:24 PM, phamdluan@a... writes: > > >KKT: But you forget that > >one drops the raft only > >once one is on the other shore? > > > >Not before, Stephen :-)) > > If one is attached to the raft they'll never get to the other shore. > (But I meant: it's possible to just talk about the raft and it's tremendous > sea worthiness as it sits on the bank. > One can talk about where they are in the sea ;-) > adrift, stephen 18492 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 0:56pm Subject: Re: Way 33, left out passage on anapana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > > Right before the beginning, Because the subject... > Ven. Soma left out a passage which I believe is essential for understanding > this subject, for whom it is suitable and also the goal of anapanasati: > developing insight and calm to the degree of jhana, using jhana as > foundation for vipassana and attaining fruition of the arahat. > It is also a passage translated in the Vis. VIII, 155: this mindfulness of breathing as a meditation subject- which is foremost > among the various meditation subjects of all Buddhas, [some] Paccekaa > Buddhas and [some] Buddhas¹ disciples as a basis for attaining distinction > and abiding in bliss here and now- is not easy to develop without leaving.. __________ Dear Nina, Thanks for pointing out this omission from Venerable Soma's translation. I wonder if he left out other sections? In my first few years in buddhism Anapanasati was promoted by some teachers and books as if it was a basic subject. I remember being surprised when I read more in the commentaries to find that it was considered the most profound and difficult of all objects of samatha. Robert > the neighbourhood of villages... , 18493 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:17pm Subject: Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Sarah Just got through the links and their threads, as recommended below. It took me the entire day, but it was the most useful day I've spent since I disrobed more than a decade ago. Cheers Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear All, > > wrote: > > > It is often said on dsg that the Dhamma is descriptive > > not prescriptive. I think this is possibly the most > > valuable piece advice any Dhamma student can receive. > ..... > For anyone who has joined DSG in the last few months and wishes to have a > little more idea what Ken H is referring to, I've just retrieved a sample > only of the messages from escribe which I think he'd be referring to. > (Note: most of these are by Jon, but by following the threads at the ends > of messages, you can look at others' comments too). > > Best to be read in reverse order;-) > ***** > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m11468.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m9166.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m7731.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m7337.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m7098.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5309.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m4981.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m3806.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m3734.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m3727.html > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m211.html > ***** > Sarah > ===== 18494 From: Andrew Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:21pm Subject: Re: Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Sailor.......lawyer, used car salesman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Andrew (and KenH) > > I hope you don't mind me coming in here. > > Jon Thanks for this post, Jon. I have been reading the previous on-topic posts kindly provided by Sarah and for the first time am getting a sense of what is being said. Much to contemplate. Will let you know how I am going a bit later. Language is an imperfect tool! Thanks again. Andrew > 18495 From: peterdac4298 Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:51pm Subject: Re: Pandora's box Hi Sarah, James & Stephen Was going to have a go at this myself, but since Sarah offered I think I'll leave well alone: my attempts would only add to the problem! Cheers Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James & Stephen, > > --- "James " wrote > > >But, since we are on the subject of 'Things that > > irritate James' ;-), I also wish that members would clearly identify > > their comments when replying to posts in-text; as I have done with > > this post. For example, there is currently a fascinating post that > > is between Peter and Sarah about Yosodhara, post #18458, that has > > evolved and keeps evolving. Responses are inserted within responses > > within responses. It is a virtual Pandora's Box to try to figure > > out who said what and who is referring to who. > ..... > I'll try to do some unravelling if and when I next reply.....we wouldn't > want you to skip any pearls of wisdom or to get lost again in the box ;-) > ..... > >I have noticed that > > done quite often in this group and I usually give up and skip > > reading those posts. I like to know the differences between each > > person talking. Otherwise, it is all noise.) > .... > `all noise'..Oh no...I'll do a trade, James: I put your `pet peeve' list > above my computer screen and you scream holy murder off-list;-) ;-) > > (btw, I agree that it does help to identify who is talking....) > > Nice to see you around, Stephen. > > Sarah > ======= 18496 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 5:41pm Subject: Dear Group, For the last few days I've been taking long treks in the forest in New Zealand. I was thinking over the ideas we have about `situation' and place and how different this is from understanding the present moment. Just 10 days ago I was walking along Sukumvit – a busy street in Bangkok – with similar reflections. Forest, Metropolis are concepts; but really only seeing, hearing, hardness….thinking with lobha(attachment) dosa (aversion), ignorance… Sometimes we may feel our current lifestyle is not suited to Dhamma and believe that if only we lived in ideal circumstances – such as a cave in the mountains or under a tree in the jungle - that then we would make fast progress. And for some these circumstances are better: for instance those of the Buddha's monks who developed anapanasati had to go to isolated areas by themselves. And monks are allowed to take up the 13 dhutanga. One group of seven in the time of Kassapa Buddha even went to the top of a mountain and pushed away the ladders so they could not get down again, for them it was a helpful condition, one or two became arahant within a couple of days. Laypeople too can live very simple lives, we can see stories of these in the suttas, it can be helpful. But too there are such examples as Bimbisara who was a sotapanna yet still lived as a King and kept his 500 wives. While another king(I forget the name) immediately gave up his kingdom and wives hearing about the Buddha. Ugga of vessali was the chief among those who give pleasing gifts (manapadayakanam) and he gave up his 4 wives – but only after he became an Anagami-third stage of Enlightenment- (one who has no sense desire and can no longer live in normal man-wife relations) Anguttara Nikaya IV.208: "Now, sir, I had four wives, young girls, and I went and spoke to them thus: "Sisters, I have embraced the five rules of training in the godly life. Who wishes, may enjoy the wealth of this place, or may do deeds of merit, or may go to her own relations and family; or is there some man you desire to whom I may give you?"""end quote. There seems to be so many different lifestyles and circumstances that the followers of the Buddha lived. And I think if we try to estimate what is right for us while still within the clutch of concepts it may be misleading. If there is insight into khandhas here and now, without concern for whether we are in our imagined right situation or right job, then wisdom is developing regardless and it is wisdom – a conditioned phenomena – that will come to know what is best. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn21-010.html the Blessed One said to him, "Is it true, Elder, that you live alone and extol the virtues of living alone?" ... "Yes, lord." ... "But how do you live alone and extol the virtues of living alone?" ... "Lord, alone I enter the village for alms, alone I return, alone I sit withdrawn, alone I do walking meditation. That is how I live alone and extol the virtues of living alone." ... "There is that way of living alone, Elder. I don't say that there isn't. Still, listen well to you how your living alone is perfected in its details, and pay close attention. I will speak." ... "As you say, lord," Ven. Elder responded. ... The Blessed One said: "And how is living alone perfected in its details? There is the case where whatever is past is abandoned, whatever is future is relinquished, and any passion & desire with regard to states of being attained in the present is well subdued. That is how living alone is perfected in its details." RobertK 18497 From: James Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 6:58pm Subject: Re: Pandora's box --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Sarah, James & Stephen > > Was going to have a go at this myself, but since Sarah offered I > think I'll leave well alone: my attempts would only add to the > problem! > > Cheers > Peter > Hi Peter, Oh, wow, how magnanimous of you! I guess I should just forget this asinine post of yours and not add my own asinine post to the fray! Oops…too late! Well, as Sarah writes, "… we all have our failings.....;-)" Metta, James 18498 From: James Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 7:00pm Subject: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi All > > This question abt whether Nibbana is an object for conditioned mind > is very interesting. > > Some of my initial hunch is that: > > a. Without Nibbana as an object, then it is not quite possible to > go there. It is grasping air. A conditioned mind before going to > nibbana needs a condition hence I think that is why Nibbana is an > object to attain Nibbana. Then will it comes to the a problem, since > Nibbana is preceded by a conditioned mind, doesn't it make it > conditioned also. A good explanation will be like the process of > changing the catepillar to a butterfly. Butterfly once shed the > cocoon will not be longer affected by this previous form however > needs the previous form as a basis to become a butterfly. > > b. Second question, is cessation. When we talk about cessation, I > think the point it is the cessation of the catepillar. What is the > buttlerfly then, Buddha has describe it and I believe present > catepillar from cannot understand or conceptualise or visual it at > all. I always believe when we talk about cessation, we talk about > cessation of the conditioned mind and it is not scary at all bc we > know we going to be butterfly. > > > > kind rgds > KC KC and All, These are some very interesting arguments. They do demonstrate a certain level of deep thinking. Please allow me to explain things from my perspective, which is quite different than yours. If you don't agree, never mind. I don't have any desire to prove you wrong and me right. However, I would like to point you and others in what I believe is the most beneficial direction. If others think I am pointed in the wrong direction that is fine also. As you didn't use any sutta quotes, I am not going to either. I want to speak from the entirety of my experience and learning. First, let's go back to before the Buddha was enlightened. He was a very unhappy person, distressed, and unsatisfied with life. This dissatisfaction was so deep that it haunted his days and nights. He put his mind to the nature of human existence, the nature of atman, and the turbulence in saw in those around him, and he could not find the solution with his mind. He studied the Vedic texts and practiced meditation since a very young child, and still he was dissatisfied. He saw that no matter was enumerated about human existence, no matter what purifications and rituals were performed, his state of being always went back to one of distress. His mind went deep into the problem that he felt; deeper than most of those of his time. And he determined that he suffered because he had been born. And because he had been born, he would also suffer the realities of old age, sickness, and death. While most of his contemporaries thought that these things were just `natural' and that Nibbana or wisdom could be found `around them' and `with them', Gotama knew better. He knew deep in his bones that the answer laid in his very existence…in birth, life, old age, sickness, and death. The distress that he felt over this matter was so severe that he abandoned his riches, his family, and his comforts to become a samana. Now, let's skip the stages in-between because you, and most, know them already. After discovering the middle path, he set out to find the answer. In a state of yogic contemplation, called Jhanic Levels, his mind peered into the nature of his very existence. Life, Birth, Death, it all hung there as the fodder for his contemplation. He did not want to disappear or be annihilated; he wanted to discover the nature of his existence. He wanted to find out why he had been born and why he was to die. What was the point? Why did he suffer so; and why did everyone, who was also human, suffer so? In this deep peering, this concentrated effort, `Gotama' more and more was forsaken. `He' wasn't important in this quest, his `nature' was most important. Finally, he discovered the secret. That to `know' what he was seeking, he had to `become' what he was seeking. He had to forsake `Gotama' and become Nibbana. Then, what he was seeking and what he was became one thing. He had reached Nibbana. Nibbana wasn't an object of `the mind of Gotama' that `he' `knew'; his mind had become Nibbana. It had become free. `Gotama' didn't exist any longer; he was then The Buddha, the Enlightened One. He would no longer be subject to birth, death, old age, sickness, or death because those things were not born of his true nature, they were born of craving, ignorance, and desire to keep existing. When those things were removed, he became his true nature. Existence and non- existence don't apply to the state of Nibbana that was the Buddha; those are features of the mind. Gotama had transcended himself, achieved an exstasis, and become immeasurable. This is just my view. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18499 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 8:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Dear Group, I have been following with interest a number of the threads involving anatta, nibbana and right view. It would seem that for an understanding of nibbana one must understand not-self (anatta), and in order to understand anatta one must have right view (samma- ditthi). So, it seems that everything hangs off samma-ditthi. I wonder if anyone has the time to answer some questions from the Theravada perspective as found in the Pali Canon. This post is a little garbled, but please plough on. Is the truth of anatta not that there is 'no self', but that there is no 'separate' self? I am having difficulty in understanding this. Is separateness an illusion that enlightenment dissolves, and we find our way to the Home that has always been there hidden from us only by the veils of ignorance? Is our study of the present moment to find out that there is no permanent unchanging self, realising corelessness and impermance, and therefore, the dukkha of this whole existence just another way of saying that all is illusion and there is no difference between Samsara and Nibbana? I find it difficult to think of Nibbana as the same as Samsara - I wonder why then bother with the Path of Purification? I think this also touches on my question on keeping sila ... If the Buddha stated that all he taught was Dukkha, its cause, its cessation and the Path leading to that cessation, surely it is the "ending of suffering" that is Nibbana, the release from Samsara - does this have to mean a merging of all into one? Coming from a religion that taught God as the Ground of All Being - I have a wariness about the overpowering human need to return to the safe, secure womb, and the misinterpretation of this desire influencing and filtering our view of any meditation 'experience'. I don't see that the Buddha said we need to understand things as illusions, and that Wisdom needs to see samsara and nibbana as coalescing like a giant transcendental amoeba. I think what I'm also partly saying is that my understanding is that, regarding Nibbana, the Theravada tradition does not support non- duality in any form - am I mistaken? metta, Christine 18500 From: Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 3:57pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? Hello Christine, >Christine: Just a little confused by your citation (M.I. 260) - >which sutta were you referring to? My copy of the Majjhima Nikaya >only goes up to Sutta No. 152 Page 191 of Phra Prayudh Payutto's Buddhadhamma runs together two quotes on the raft from the MN; I did not notice that it was two and think I took a bit from both. The first is footnoted M.I. 135, the second M.I. 260. Now M.i.135 is the simile of the raft from the Alagaddupama Sutta, and M.i. 260 is from the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta. I should have changed the "I" to a less confusing "i" and not missed the footnote within the indented quote in the text. Ah, if it were only this easy to clear up other issues ;-) metta, stephen (Just in passing, on the relation of samadhi and vipassana you brought up references for recently, it works like this ;-) : If one can sit down and concentrate on their breathing and count from 1 to 10 — only that!— while fully maintaining concentration of breathing (in breath counting is easier than out breath) then they can do vipassana; otherwise it's just pretense.) 18501 From: Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Pandora's box Hello Sarah, >Hi Stephen, Happy New Year to you too - we could have an action-packed >Abhidhamma and commentaries only week just for you I tried that once, all summer; it just didn't work for me. (In the beginning, after collecting an alarming number of odd notes on those pesky Pali terms, and endless lists/matika, I felt a need to sort it all out: What does it really mean? The BIG picture. My first attempt was to combine it with an ecological view of the self; dark green Dhamma. I could do a better job today but this was a real disappointment. A few years later, and a few years back, I decided: why not abhidhamma? So I spent a summer trying to work thorough my seemingly ever expanding notes using some of Nina's works, and some others. Nope, no way. I'm almost ready for a third attempt. Don't hold your breath ;-). Rather than explain why abhidhamma doesn't work (no need to thank me) I'll tell you my New Year's Resolution: all paths are complimentary. Merely different ways of approaching or mapping the same thing. Can't we all just get along? ;-) Now New Year's resolutions are asankhata, right? So there's no way for anicca to dissolve them. >Nice to see you around, Stephen. Thank you. I've been (and remain) obsessed with two problems that can't be readily discussed hereabouts, what with all the restless natives. I hear there may even be cannibals. Lot of good stuff in Zen and Dzogchen where I've been looking but there's one way that Thera and abhidhamma beat all the other schools: clarity (=honesty) of exposition. (That didn't violate my resolution did it?) metta, stephen 18502 From: Date: Fri Jan 3, 2003 4:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello Howard, Well, *now* I think that we may agree after all. You're setting out to drive me crazy, aren't you ;-) I'll think over your post; it's not your explanation, it's that I can't quite sort this out. If the unconditioned doesn't describe a separate reality or dhatu outside The All, nor the mind in itself (reifying emptiness seems popular in fact, though always denied), then it's in the relation of...but "relation" is dualistic...working on it. (If everything can be viewed as suchness and perfect in itself then what about things that are horrific? Now Bernie Glassman writes: "A Nazi putting a young child into the Auschwitz gas chamber is also prajna, so we can't look at prajna in terms of right and wrong, good and bad. The sword of Manjusri, the sword of wisdom, cuts away all dualisms, leaving only what is. The functioning of that state is prajna." "Infinite Circle," p.8. The suchness interpretation of nibbana is correct; of that I have no view. But this statement is repulsive to me. And the relative / absolute doesn't seem entirely helpful. My other obsession of late. Possibly you, or KKT have some thought. Possibly even James, who claims a Zen streak — not unlike myself. Really doesn't belong here on dsg though.) >Howard: > >I understand why you would say that, but I actually think we *may* >yet agree. I probably didn't express my meaning well. I am a non-dualist, to >put a tag on it. I think that "what there is" is not some sort of joining of >two totally disparate things, but, rather, is a single, dynamic reality that >has one appearance under the sway of illusion, and another when seen as it >is. When I say that "the unconditioned" doesn't arise from conditions and isn't >composed of them, the so-called conditions I refer to are conditions >as they usually appear to us, which really means separate, self-existent, >yet somehow interrelated, things - entities. I don't think that reality is >actually like that. The very same world of conditions that we seem to see, >when seen aright, has a character almost opposite from what it seems to >have in the dark shade of reification. To give a suggestion of what I mean: >On the one hand, anicca rules the world; conditions seem to arise where they were >previously nonexistent, and then they cease. But these conditions, lacking >own-being, and arising as they do completely in dependence on the confluence >of other similarly empty conditions, are not separate, self-existent >entities, but only selected-out aspects of an experiential flow - and, >thus, there is no thing, no self-existent entity which ever arises or ever ceases! >Look, for example, at the opening lines of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhymakakarika >to see the same idea succinctly expressed. Stephen Bachelor translates this >as follows: >I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened one >who taught contingency (no cessation, no birth, no annihilation, no permanence, >no coming, no going, no difference, no identity) to ease fixations. I liked the long intro to "Verses From the Center" but the actual text I found quite perplexing. metta, stephen 18503 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 0:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Tathagatha exists after death? Hello Stephen, You may be interested in reading Patrick Kearney's explanation (I think I have mentioned him to you before?) of the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta. He ends with a Zen story: http://www.meditation.asn.au/teachings.html We end with a reminder of the net of craving within which Bhikkhu Sati is trapped. What does he crave? How is he trapped? And how can he escape? there is a Zen story about a Zen student who found a bottle with a ship constructed within it. The problem he was faced with is: How do you get the ship out of the bottle without breaking the bottle? The student grew increasingly frustrated as he tried to work this out, and finally, in despair, he rang his teacher and pleaded for the answer. The teacher replied, "Forget about the ship; just get out of the bottle!" And with regards to the counting breath/vipassana method .. who sez? and can I use a rosary? :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > > Hello Christine, > > >Christine: Just a little confused by your citation (M.I. 260) - > >which sutta were you referring to? My copy of the Majjhima Nikaya > >only goes up to Sutta No. 152 > Page 191 of Phra Prayudh Payutto's Buddhadhamma runs together two quotes on > the raft from the MN; I did not notice that it was two and think I took a bit > from both. The first is footnoted M.I. 135, the second M.I. 260. Now M.i.135 > is the simile of the raft from the Alagaddupama Sutta, and M.i. 260 is from > the Mahatanhasankhaya Sutta. I should have changed the "I" to a less > confusing "i" and not missed the footnote within the indented quote in the > text. > Ah, if it were only this easy to clear up other issues ;-) > metta, stephen > > (Just in passing, on the relation of samadhi and vipassana you brought up > references for recently, it works like this ;-) : If one can sit down and > concentrate on their breathing and count from 1 to 10 â€" only that! â€" while > fully maintaining concentration of breathing (in breath counting is easier > than out breath) then they can do vipassana; otherwise it's just pretense.) 18504 From: Sarah Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pandora's box Hi Stephen, --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > >. A few years later, and a > few > years back, I decided: why not abhidhamma? So I spent a summer trying to > work > thorough my seemingly ever expanding notes using some of Nina's works, > and > some others. Nope, no way. I'm almost ready for a third attempt. Don't > hold > your breath ;-). ..... I won’t, but if I can help with anything I’d be glad to. My approach has always been very different to this -- I’ve never tried to work it out, so to speak, or studied lists or charts even, except incidentally. For the BIG picture you refer to, I think that just by really reflecting on and understanding (at whatever level) the various namas and rupas that make up life and experience now as we know it -- nothing more or less -- the details of the Abhidhamma and the other texts take care of themselves. I hope that doesn’t sound patronising or confusing further - it’s not meant to. ..... > Rather than explain why abhidhamma doesn't work (no need to thank me) > I'll > tell you my New Year's Resolution: all paths are complimentary. Merely > different ways of approaching or mapping the same thing. Can't we all > just > get along? ;-) ..... Perhaps, just perhaps, one reason why the ‘abhidhamma doesn’t work’ for you might be that you are trying to see ‘all ways of approaching or mapping the same thing’. This can be a hindrance, I think. It’s easier to understand or appreciate the abhidhamma if one is not trying to relate it to a philosophy, psychology or one’s understanding of a particular school of Buddhism. Just a suggestion, Stephen. ..... > Now New Year's resolutions are asankhata, right? So there's no way for > anicca > to dissolve them. ..... ;-) ..... > but there's one way that Thera and abhidhamma beat all the > other > schools: clarity (=honesty) of exposition. (That didn't violate my > resolution > did it?) ..... Well this ‘restless native’ just zapped up yr other comments (not following any such resolutions);-) I’ll leave you to any comparisons...... Give Abhidhamma a chance..... After all, as everyone keeps saying, it’s just seeing or visible object, like or dislike and so on appearing now. Sarah p.s. Do New Year resolutions come with New Year gifts? If so (or even if not so, how about one for our photo album or at least one of the usual excuses Chris can set to work on;-)) ====== 18505 From: Sarah Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Peter, --- "peterdac4298 " wrote: > Hi Sarah > > Just got through the links and their threads, as recommended below. > It took me the entire day, but it was the most useful day I've spent > since I disrobed more than a decade ago. ..... Running an active list for us is mostly a real joy. It can sometimes be quite demanding and occasionally there are hiccups -- often these are when we are really busy or on holiday. This kind of message makes any work involved or any hiccup really worthwhile. Thank you for letting us know. If you feel up to sharing a little more in your own words, we’d all be glad to hear (and it might be a useful exercise for yourself as well). You never know, someone might even write a musical score to accompany it;-) In appreciation, Sarah ===== 18506 From: Sarah Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Swee Boon & All, Just a couple of extra points here on the Aggivacchagotta sutta - let me know if you don’t agree: > Consider Majjhima Nikaya 72: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn072.html > > "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the > Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its > root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the > conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. ..... S: like the fire when the fuel has been used up -no conditions for future arising. All defilements eradicated. ..... >Freed from > the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, > boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't > apply. 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not > reappear' doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' > doesn't apply. ..... S: the form is incapable of arising in future. The wisdom and liberation from samsara of the Tathagata is ‘deep...’. like the fire, ‘reappears’ amd ‘does not reppear’ are inapplicable. Commentary (given by BB): “ ‘does not reappear’ actually does apply, in the sense that the arahant does not undergo a new existence. but if Vaccagotta were to hear this he would misapprehend it as annihilationism, and thus the Buddha denies that it applies in the sense that annihilation is not a tenable position.” ..... > > "Any feeling... Any perception... Any mental fabrication... > > "Any consciousness by which one describing the Tathagata would > describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its root destroyed, > like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the conditions of existence, > not destined for future arising. Freed from the classification of > consciousness, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to > fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. 'Does not reappear' > doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' doesn't > apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't apply." > > > Is there a difference between being silent and saying "doesn't > apply"? ..... I agree with all your conclusions. Both are applicable to describing parinibbana. Views of eternalism and annihilationism are both bound up with the view of self (see Brahmajala sutta and commentary). Many thanks for all your contributions and to those like Howard and KKT who continue to prompt them. Sarah ===== 18507 From: Sarah Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Way 33, left out passage on anapana Dear Nina and Rob K, --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: > Dear Nina, > Thanks for pointing out this omission from Venerable Soma's > translation. I wonder if he left out other sections? .... There have been one or two other sections that Nina has highlighted - for example, the parrot one. I think it’s really helpful that Nina is highlighting these. I pass them on to B.Bodhi who tells us he has been asked to continue on as president of BPS, allbeit from a distance. I think this is good news. Perhaps in future publications, the missing parts may be added, though it may not be for a very long time as I think he mentioned before that they have large stocks of ‘The Way’ and of course, everyone is busy. ..... > In my first few years in buddhism Anapanasati was promoted by some > teachers and books as if it was a basic subject. I remember being > surprised when I read more in the commentaries to find that it was > considered the most profound and difficult of all objects of samatha. ..... I think the section Nina highlighted is an important one too and I’m not sure why it would have been left out. It’s a difficult subject. For anyone interested, they may like to look at posts under ‘anapanasati’ in Useful Posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Enjoy the walks in the forests in New Zealand while you have the chance, Rob - sounds more fun than walking in Sukhumvit or the subway in Tolyo, even if the ‘seeing’ and ‘visible objects’ are no more worthy of being clung to;-) Nice to see you around, too. (Btw, Mike N sent a short note and particularly asked to have his regards sent to everyone here. He's been given a second-hand computer, so hopefully, we may here from him sometime.) Sarah ===== 18508 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 0:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi, James - I think this is a remarkable presentation. Whether one agrees or disagrees with it, it must be appreciated for its simultaneous depth, simplicity, and loveliness. (It happens that, subject to my own interpretive reading of it, I *do* agree with it.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/3/03 10:00:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong > wrote: > >Hi All > > > >This question abt whether Nibbana is an object for conditioned mind > >is very interesting. > > > >Some of my initial hunch is that: > > > >a. Without Nibbana as an object, then it is not quite possible to > >go there. It is grasping air. A conditioned mind before going to > >nibbana needs a condition hence I think that is why Nibbana is an > >object to attain Nibbana. Then will it comes to the a problem, > since > >Nibbana is preceded by a conditioned mind, doesn't it make it > >conditioned also. A good explanation will be like the process of > >changing the catepillar to a butterfly. Butterfly once shed the > >cocoon will not be longer affected by this previous form however > >needs the previous form as a basis to become a butterfly. > > > >b. Second question, is cessation. When we talk about cessation, I > >think the point it is the cessation of the catepillar. What is the > >buttlerfly then, Buddha has describe it and I believe present > >catepillar from cannot understand or conceptualise or visual it at > >all. I always believe when we talk about cessation, we talk about > >cessation of the conditioned mind and it is not scary at all bc we > >know we going to be butterfly. > > > > > > > >kind rgds > >KC > > KC and All, > > These are some very interesting arguments. They do demonstrate a > certain level of deep thinking. Please allow me to explain things > from my perspective, which is quite different than yours. If you > don't agree, never mind. I don't have any desire to prove you wrong > and me right. However, I would like to point you and others in what > I believe is the most beneficial direction. If others think I am > pointed in the wrong direction that is fine also. As you didn't use > any sutta quotes, I am not going to either. I want to speak from the > entirety of my experience and learning. > > First, let's go back to before the Buddha was enlightened. He was a > very unhappy person, distressed, and unsatisfied with life. This > dissatisfaction was so deep that it haunted his days and nights. He > put his mind to the nature of human existence, the nature of atman, > and the turbulence in saw in those around him, and he could not find > the solution with his mind. He studied the Vedic texts and practiced > meditation since a very young child, and still he was dissatisfied. > He saw that no matter was enumerated about human existence, no matter > what purifications and rituals were performed, his state of being > always went back to one of distress. His mind went deep into the > problem that he felt; deeper than most of those of his time. And he > determined that he suffered because he had been born. And because he > had been born, he would also suffer the realities of old age, > sickness, and death. While most of his contemporaries thought that > these things were just `natural' and that Nibbana or wisdom could be > found `around them' and `with them', Gotama knew better. He knew > deep in his bones that the answer laid in his very existence…in > birth, life, old age, sickness, and death. The distress that he felt > over this matter was so severe that he abandoned his riches, his > family, and his comforts to become a samana. > > Now, let's skip the stages in-between because you, and most, know > them already. After discovering the middle path, he set out to find > the answer. In a state of yogic contemplation, called Jhanic Levels, > his mind peered into the nature of his very existence. Life, Birth, > Death, it all hung there as the fodder for his contemplation. He did > not want to disappear or be annihilated; he wanted to discover the > nature of his existence. He wanted to find out why he had been born > and why he was to die. What was the point? Why did he suffer so; > and why did everyone, who was also human, suffer so? In this deep > peering, this concentrated effort, `Gotama' more and more was > forsaken. `He' wasn't important in this quest, his `nature' was most > important. Finally, he discovered the secret. That to `know' what > he was seeking, he had to `become' what he was seeking. He had to > forsake `Gotama' and become Nibbana. Then, what he was seeking and > what he was became one thing. He had reached Nibbana. Nibbana > wasn't an object of `the mind of Gotama' that `he' `knew'; his mind > had become Nibbana. It had become free. `Gotama' didn't exist any > longer; he was then The Buddha, the Enlightened One. He would no > longer be subject to birth, death, old age, sickness, or death > because those things were not born of his true nature, they were born > of craving, ignorance, and desire to keep existing. When those > things were removed, he became his true nature. Existence and non- > existence don't apply to the state of Nibbana that was the Buddha; > those are features of the mind. Gotama had transcended himself, > achieved an exstasis, and become immeasurable. > > This is just my view. If you don't agree, okay. > > Metta, James > > /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) 18509 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 6:04am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Sarah, > S: the form is incapable of arising in future. The wisdom and > liberation from samsara of the Tathagata is `deep...'. like the > fire, `reappears' amd `does not reppear' are inapplicable. The sutta says the Tathagata is 'deep...', but it didn't say the wisdom and libration from samsara of the Tathagata is 'deep...'. ??? > Commentary (given by BB): " `does not reappear' actually does > apply, in the sense that the arahant does not undergo a new > existence. but if Vaccagotta were to hear this he would > misapprehend it as annihilationism, and thus the Buddha denies > that it applies in the sense that annihilation is not a tenable > position." That is one reason. But I think there is another reason that will at the same time include the above reason. Repudiating the four 'ultimate realities' of rupa, citta, cetasika and nibbana, can you describe another 'ultimate reality'? It is impossible, because that 'something' lies beyond range of what can be known or can be comprehended. 'Something' that lies beyond range of ... cannot perform the feat of 'does not reappear'. To perform the feat of 'does not reappear', an object of reference with regard to the feat is required. Such an object of reference must exist within range, that is, must exist either as rupa, citta, cetasika (or their composition) or nibbana. (Surely, if it is beyond range, how can it be an object of reference in the first place?) The Tathagata, at parinibbana, is beyond range. The Tathagata cannot be the object of reference with regard to the feat 'does not reappear'. Hence, 'does not reappear' does not apply. It is invalid. Even so, the Tathagata cannot be the object of reference with regard to the feat 'annihilation'. Hence, 'annihilation' does not apply. It is invalid. In this way, the Tathagata is said to be boundless, for there is no case by which the Teacher can be the object of reference with regard to any feat at all (whatever feat we can come up with). Even so, the fire that had gone out cannot be the object of reference with regard to any feat at all. Whenever we think about that fire which had gone out, that fire is merely our imagination, a concept. In actual fact, that fire is 'beyond range'. Even so, whenever we think about the Tathagata (or any arahant gone parinibbana), the Tathagata (or that arahant) is merely our imagination, a concept. In actual fact, the Tathagata (or that arahant) is 'beyond range'. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18510 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi, Stephen - In a message dated 1/4/03 12:41:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, oreznoone@a... writes: > > Hello Howard, > Well, *now* I think that we may agree after all. You're setting out to > drive > me crazy, aren't you ;-) > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yeah! It's a helluva hobby!! ;-)) ----------------------------------------------------- > I'll think over your post; it's not your explanation, it's that I can't > quite > sort this out. If the unconditioned doesn't describe a separate reality or > dhatu outside The All, nor the mind in itself (reifying emptiness seems > popular in fact, though always denied), then it's in the relation of...but > "relation" is dualistic...working on it. > (If everything can be viewed as suchness and perfect in itself then what > about things that are horrific? Now Bernie Glassman writes: "A Nazi putting > a > young child into the Auschwitz gas chamber is also prajna, so we can't look > > at prajna in terms of right and wrong, good and bad. The sword of Manjusri, > > the sword of wisdom, cuts away all dualisms, leaving only what is. The > functioning of that state is prajna." "Infinite Circle," p.8. The suchness > interpretation of nibbana is correct; of that I have no view. But this > statement is repulsive to me. And the relative / absolute doesn't seem > entirely helpful. My other obsession of late. Possibly you, or KKT have > some > thought. Possibly even James, who claims a Zen streak — not unlike myself. > Really doesn't belong here on dsg though.) > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: I would suppose there are different "levels" at which things can be considered. The one thing that is not available to us, unfortunately, is easy answers. It is clear, I think, that the Buddha who had uprooted all defilements and was no longer caught in samsara (that is, was no longer under the sway of illusion), was also not living in a homogeneous realm of perfection, unable to distinguish "good" from "bad", and "useful" from "harmful". He could still function quite effectively and eminently sanely in this world of 10,000 things. The Buddha was the sanest counselor imaginable to kings and outcastes alike, dealing with the most practical day-to-day questions of ethics and right action. I see complete enlightenment as a radical enlargement of perspective (resulting from the complete uprooting of defilements) - I see it as superior in every way. (The full understanding of an event or series of events, such as the Nazi horrors, would not include an obliteration of the monstrousness involved; it would include it, perfectly clearly, but seen in its entirety with no aspects missed.) --------------------------------------------------------- > > >Howard: > > > >I understand why you would say that, but I actually think we *may* > >yet agree. I probably didn't express my meaning well. I am a non-dualist, > to > >put a tag on it. I think that "what there is" is not some sort of joining > of > >two totally disparate things, but, rather, is a single, dynamic reality > that > >has one appearance under the sway of illusion, and another when seen as it > >is. When I say that "the unconditioned" doesn't arise from conditions and > isn't > >composed of them, the so-called conditions I refer to are conditions > >as they usually appear to us, which really means separate, self-existent, > >yet somehow interrelated, things - entities. I don't think that reality is > >actually like that. The very same world of conditions that we seem to see, > >when seen aright, has a character almost opposite from what it seems to > >have in the dark shade of reification. To give a suggestion of what I > mean: > >On the one hand, anicca rules the world; conditions seem to arise where > they > were > >previously nonexistent, and then they cease. But these conditions, lacking > >own-being, and arising as they do completely in dependence on the > confluence > >of other similarly empty conditions, are not separate, self-existent > >entities, but only selected-out aspects of an experiential flow - and, > >thus, there is no thing, no self-existent entity which ever arises or ever > > ceases! > >Look, for example, at the opening lines of Nagarjuna's Mulamadhymakakarika > >to see the same idea succinctly expressed. Stephen Bachelor translates > this > >as follows: > >I bow down to the most sublime of speakers, the completely awakened one > >who taught contingency (no cessation, no birth, no annihilation, no > permanence, > >no coming, no going, no difference, no identity) to ease fixations. > > I liked the long intro to "Verses From the Center" but the actual text I > found quite perplexing. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I've just looked at it on-line. I own the translations and commentaries by Kalupahana and by Garfield. I like Garfield's the best, by far. ------------------------------------------------------- > metta, stephen > > =========================== 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) 18511 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 6:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. > Is the truth of anatta not that there is 'no self', but that > there is no 'separate' self? My perspective is that there is 'no self'. > I think what I'm also partly saying is that my understanding is > that, regarding Nibbana, the Theravada tradition does not support > non-duality in any form - am I mistaken? My perspective is that that is the case. Duality is what the Buddha taught. Samsara and Nibbana are not one giant amoeba. They are two opposing realities. "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18512 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Christine, I am sorry to have forgotten to address you in my last post. And I have something to add on the issue of anatta. This sutta shows that the actual answer given by the Buddha is 'no self'. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn44-010.html 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?'" This sutta shows that, in actual fact, the Buddha wanted to say 'no self', but instead he was silent on two grounds. (1) Arising of Annihilation View (2) Bewilderment The last paragraph shows that the Buddha's actual intended answer is 'no self'. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18513 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/4/03 10:12:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > 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?'" > > > This sutta shows that, in actual fact, the Buddha wanted to say 'no > self', but instead he was silent on two grounds. > > (1) Arising of Annihilation View > (2) Bewilderment > > The last paragraph shows that the Buddha's actual intended answer > is 'no self'. > > ============================ I think your analysis is exactly right! 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) 18514 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, left out passage on anapana Hi Larry and all, I would like to answer, but now I am so busy with 400 pages of checking the text of Survey. It may take a week or more. Have to wait, or maybe others will come in! Yes, just now see Jon's post to Howard: end quote. Lodewijk just shouts: best regards to you Larry, thus, best wishes for the New Year from both of us, Nina. P.S. A correction: I did my study of Anapana around Sept 001, no wonder you do not remember all details. op 03-01-2003 07:20 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > I agree when you say, "We see here that this meditation subject is for > those who can attain jhana and develop insight even to arahatship." > However, I disagree when you say that doesn't include us. I agree that > the Buddha's audience was more spiritually advanced than us but we are > part of his retinue so we are included. We can do it, but it might take > longer. 18515 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 9:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Stephen, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: (If everything can be viewed as suchness and perfect in itself then what about things that are horrific? Now Bernie Glassman writes: "A Nazi putting a young child into the Auschwitz gas chamber is also prajna, so we can't look at prajna in terms of right and wrong, good and bad. The sword of Manjusri, the sword of wisdom, cuts away all dualisms, leaving only what is. The functioning of that state is prajna." "Infinite Circle," p.8. The suchness interpretation of nibbana is correct; of that I have no view. But this statement is repulsive to me. And the relative / absolute doesn't seem entirely helpful. My other obsession of late. Possibly you, or KKT have some thought. Possibly even James, who claims a Zen streak â€" not unlike myself. Really doesn't belong here on dsg though.) KKT: Since you mention the sword of Manjusri and your perplexity about the dualism, I cannot resist to quote something from a Mahayana Sutra. You will see that in this Sutra Manjusri tries to kill the Buddha with his sword of Wisdom ! (O my God, such a lese-majesty! :-)) Hope that Sarah doesn't feel any objection (Hello Sarah :-)) Just some flavor of non-duality :-)) Bodhisattva << Crown >> Manjusri is the personification of Prajnaparamita, the Wisdom beyond all duality. At that time, in the assembly there were five hundred Bodhisattvas who had achieved the four dhyanas and the five miraculous powers. These Bodhisattvas were immersed in dhyana, whether sitting or standing. They did not slander the Dharma, though they had not yet acquired the realization of the Dharma-truth. Possessing the miraculous power of knowing their past lives, these Bodhisattvas perceived their past evil karma--killing their fathers, mothers, or Arhats; destroying Buddhist temples or stupas; or disrupting the Samgha. Because they clearly perceived their past evil karma, they were always obsessed by profound misgivings an remorse, so that they could not realize or penetrate the profound Dharma. It was because they discriminated a self and were unable to forget their past transgressions that they could not achieve the realization of the profound Dharma. At that time, in order to rid those five hundred Bodhisattvas of mental discrimination, the World-Honored One inspired Manjusri with his miraculous power; as a result, Manjusri rose from his seat, adjusted his robe, bared his right shoulder, and holding a sharp sword in hand, advanced straight toward the World-Honored One to kill him. Hurriedly, the Buddha said to Manjusri, "Stop, stop! Do not do the wrong thing. Do not kill me in this way. If you must kill me, you should first know the best way to do so. Why? Because, Manjusri, from the beginning there is no self, no others, no person; as soon as one perceives in his mind the existence of an ego and a personal identity, he has killed me; and this is called killing." Having heard the Buddha say this, the [five hundred] Bodhisattvas thought, "All dharmas are illusory, like magic. In them there is no self, no personal identity, no sentient being, no life, no person, no human being, no youth, no father, no mother, no Arhat, no Buddha, no Dharma, no Samgha. There is neither killing nor killer; how can there be falling [to the miserable planes of existence] because of killing? Why is this so? Now, Manjusri is wise and intelligent, and his unrivaled wisdom is praised by the Buddhas, the World-Honored Ones. He has already achieved the unhindered realization of the profound Dharma, made offerings to countless ... billions of myriads of Buddhas ... comprehended well and in detail all Buddha-Dharmas, and can discourse on those true doctrines. He [used to] have equal respect for all Tathagatas. But now, he suddenly came to kill the Tathagata with a sword, and the World-Honored One told him hurriedly, 'Stop, stop! Manjusri, do not kill me! If you must, you should know the best way to kill me.' Why? Because if there were any real dharma that could come into existence through the combination of various elements, so that it could be called Buddha, Dharma, Samgha, father, mother ... , and if these dharmas could definitely be grasped, then they could never be demolished. Actually, all dharmas are without substance or entity; they are nonexistent, unreal, delusive, perceived through wrong views, and empty, like magic productions. Therefore, there is no sinner and no sin. Where is the killer to be punished?" Having contemplated and understood this, the [five hundred] Bodhisattvas immediately achieved the Realization of the Nonarising of Dharmas. Overwhelmed with joy, they ascended in midair to the height of seven palm trees one upon another, and spoke in verse: [...] At that time, the Venerable Sariputra asked Manjusri, "Great sage, now you have performed the most wicked karma. You attempted to kill the great Teacher of gods and humans. When this karma comes to maturity, what retribution will you receive?" Manjusri answered Sariputra, "It is so, virtuous one, just as you say; I have performed such a wicked karma. However, I really do not know how I shall receive any retribution. Sariputra, in my opinion, I shall undergo it just as a magically produced being does when his illusory karma ripens. Why? Because the magically produced being makes no discrimination and has no thoughts, and all dharmas are illusory, like magic. Furthermore, Sariputra, let me ask you something, and you may answer as you like. What do you think? Do you think that you have really seen the sword?" Sariputra answered, "No." Manjusri asked, "Are you sure that the evil karma definitely exists?" Sariputra answered, "No." Manjusri asked, "Do you definitely perceive a retribution for that evil karma?" Sariputra answered, "No." Manjusri said, "Thus, Sariputra, since there is no sword and no karma or retribution, who performs that karma and who will undergo the karmic retribution? Yet you now ask me what retribution I will receive?" Sariputra asked, "Great sage, why do you say so?" Manjusri answered, "In my opinion, there is no such thing as the ripening of a karmic result. Why? Because all dharmas are devoid of karma, karmic results, and the ripening of karmic results." ... Hope you enjoy the reading :-)) Peace, KKT 18516 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 5:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hello Christine, >I think what I'm also partly saying is that my understanding is that, >regarding Nibbana, the Theravada tradition does not support non- >duality in any form - am I mistaken? Do we agree that subject / object is a dualism? Me / I in here, the world out there. Do we agree that anatta means no self? No me / I in here (in the khandhas). So there isn't *this* duality? What would experience be like without a subject? It's cold and my heater is breaking; the belt is coming lose and makes a huge amount of racket. It's up on the roof where I can't fix it. Now, as I was reading this morning sometimes this was very irritating, and at other times it didn't bother me at all. You can attach to it and make dukkha, or not. Ud VIII.3 describes a state of mind where samsara gets no purchase, has no footing. It's always put up in isolation from the Bahiya part: In the seen just the seen...No self, no subject / object dualism. That's the cessation of the world of dukkha. The mind without self is unmoving (unconditioned), merely reflecting the world exactly as it is. [>And with regards to the counting breath/vipassana method .. who sez? >and can I use a rosary? :-) Mala, not rosary ;-) I sez. If one can't even hold concentration to count to 10 how can they possibly pretend to do vipassana? The Buddha was rather more stringent: he wanted 4 jhanas as part of the path.] [I'll download some of Patrick's stuff; really liked his paper on paticca sammuppada. Thank you.] metta, stephen 18517 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 11:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Neo, In the book "Food for the Heart," Ajahn Chah makes the following statement on this subject: "When we have this kind of peace established in our minds we can depend on it, (ie when we do not chase after liking and disliking). This peace, we say, has arisen out of confusion. Confusion has ended. The Buddha called the attainment of final enlightenment as "extinguishing," in the same way that fire is extinguished. We extinguish fire at the place where it appears. Wherever it is hot, that's where we can make it cool. And so it is with enlightenment. Nibbana is found in samsara. Enlightenment and delusion exist in the same place;lace, just as do hot and cold. It's hot where it was cold and cold where it was hot. When heat arises, the coolness disappears, and when there is coolness, there's no more heat. In this way nibbana and samsara are the same." I see it like those 3D pictures that use to be in every shopping mall. Looked at normally they just looked like a pattern of lines. But when we let our focus go and star at them a 3D picture emerges. So is the picture really just lines or a 3D picture? It is both depending on how they are viewed, thus they are the same and yet different, depending on how they are seen different. Thus I think it can say they are both the same and different depending on how nibbana or samsara are viewed. This is why I think this discussion arises so often, each side is correct depending on how they are viewing the "picture." Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 6:55 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. > > Is the truth of anatta not that there is 'no self', but that > > there is no 'separate' self? > > My perspective is that there is 'no self'. > > > > I think what I'm also partly saying is that my understanding is > > that, regarding Nibbana, the Theravada tradition does not support > > non-duality in any form - am I mistaken? > > My perspective is that that is the case. > > Duality is what the Buddha taught. Samsara and Nibbana are not one > giant amoeba. They are two opposing realities. > > "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. > If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- > become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely > because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, > emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is > discerned." > -- Ud VIII.3 > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 18518 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 0:00pm Subject: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > Dear Group, > For the last few days I've been taking long treks in the forest in > New Zealand. I was thinking over the ideas we have about `situation' > and place and how different this is from understanding the present > moment. Just 10 days ago I was walking along Sukumvit – a busy > street in Bangkok – with similar reflections. Forest, Metropolis are concepts; but really only seeing, hearing, hardness….thinking with > lobha(attachment) dosa (aversion), ignorance… >______________ Dear sarah, You wrote: "Enjoy the walks in the forests in New Zealand while you have the chance, Rob - sounds more fun than walking in Sukhumvit or the subway in Tokyo, even if the `seeing' and `visible objects' are no more worthy of being clung to;-)"". Actually I find it hard to think that way. Don't you enjoy (attachment) the different smells, sights , sounds of the busy parts of Bangkok and isn't hardness the same everywhere (albeit that footpaths are harder than pineneedles to walk on). Going to an even busier city: I was entranced by Varanasi - pure clinging except at the moments of studying dhammas (and occasional reflections on death down at the funeral pyres). Still I cling to quite places too: I'm off later in the week for a 3 day hike in a real isolated part of NZ. One of the best things about the forest in new Zealand is that there are no snakes or harmful creatures so we don't even need a tent to sleep out (but bring mosquito repellant). As you know it is not the situation that makes for happiness/aversion: instead it is the thinking after the different vipaka cittas arise. If the thinking is rooted in (lobha) attachment then one feels happy, if in aversion (dosa) one feels sad and if in panna then contentment and freedom of some level. RobertK P.s. I just received the cd - thanks! 18519 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Sarah --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Peter, Sarah:- If you feel up to sharing a little more in your own words, we'd all be glad to hear (and it might be a useful exercise for yourself as well). You never know, someone might even write a musical score to accompany it;-) Peter:- I am beginning to appreciate the value of clear thinking and expression. Honesty of heart or gut so often turns out to be an expression of wrong view. It seems that when ever the Dhamma gets tasted it becomes very addictive and the form in which it arose rapidly becomes the new technique that will change or even save the world. Having just resolved to see everything as Nama Rupa, I find my past catching up with me again. Perhaps it is a good way to start the ball rolling, so to speak. I'll have to persuade James to act as my agent!-) In appreciation, Sarah ===== Cheers Peter 18520 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Andrew and James, If you have been reading the posts on descriptive v's prescriptive that Sarah listed, you will know what I have been trying to say. I think you will agree that once we see that the Dhamma is not a course of action to be followed but a description of reality to be understood, then we will also see that it couldn't be any other way. Just as the Eight-fold Path of the Ariyans is a moment of consciousness with Nibbana as its object, so too the worldling's (Buddhist or non-Buddhist)path is a moment of consciousness with either a conditioned dhamma or a concept as it's object. When right understanding arises (when there is direct understanding of a conditioned dhamma object), then there is a moment of satipatthana. But with or without right understanding, reality is always just a moment of consciousness; anything outside that is illusory (concept, pannatti). It can't be any other way; in reality, there can't be courses of action. So when the Buddha seems to be prescribing "do this to achieve that, don't do this to avoid that," he can only be properly understood to be saying, "this being present, that arises, this being absent, that ceases." We must `see conditionality everywhere, in all things.' Kind regards, Ken H 18521 From: dotl Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] B. Bodhi Thankyou Sarah for news of B. Bhodi- We were wondering how he is these days, at our meeting on Saturday. dotl 18522 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 2:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, left out passage on anapana Dear Nina, After reviewing the Visuddhimagga I am still not 100% clear why samadhi is brought in here in the description of anapanasati. Sati is not samadhi and samadhi is not satipatthana but they seem to be mixed together in many of the practices of satipatthana. A quick look at the 16 bases of anapanasati (see below) shows that this is not just transic absorption, though jhana could apparently arise in the course of practice. I think Soma Thera, and probably Nyanaponika Thera who advised him, were at pains to down-play the samadhi aspect, as this seems to be a totally intimidating aspect of practice these days. Your argument that the advanced stages of practice are so far beyond us that we shouldn't even begin seems a little questionable to me. I readily admit to spending many years floundering about in anapanasati and Buddhism in general, but those years were all positive accumulations that led to today and today will hopefully lead to a better tomorrow. I do think that intellectual understanding leads to more profitable results and there is always room for improvement in that regard, but there is no substitute for practical experience. best wishes, Larry ps: There are many interesting aspects of anapanasati outlined in the Visuddhimagga. Our commentary only gives a brief description. The 16 Bases of Anapanasati ...he (she) knows: 1. I breathe in long, breathe out long. 2. I breathe in short, breathe out short. 3. breathes in/out experiencing the whole breath body. 4. breathes in/out tranquilizing the bodily formation. 5. breathes in/out experiencing happiness. 6. breathes in/out experiencing bliss. 7. breathes in/out experiencing the mental formation. 8. breathes in/out tranquilizing the mental formation. 9. breathes in/out experiencing the manner of consciousness. 10. breathes in/out gladdening the manner of consciousness. 11. breathes in/out concentrating the manner of consciousness. 12. breathes in/out liberating the manner of consciousness. 13. breathes in/out contemplating impermanence. 14. breathes in/out contemplating fading away. 15. breathes in/out contemplating cessation. 16. breathes in/out contemplating relinquishment. 18523 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi, Ray - Excellent! I've long thought that those "Magic Eye" pictures serve as great metaphors for Buddhist concepts such the "identity" of samsara and nibbana, and also dependent origination. BTW, I'm about 3/4 of the way through reading Food for the Heart, and I'm enjoying it immensely. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/4/03 2:26:28 PM Eastern Standard Time, rhendrickson1@e... writes: > > Hi Neo, > > In the book "Food for the Heart," Ajahn Chah makes the following > statement on this subject: > > "When we have this kind of peace established in our minds we can depend on > it, (ie when we do not chase after liking and disliking). This peace, we > say, has arisen out of confusion. Confusion has ended. The Buddha called > the attainment of final enlightenment as "extinguishing," in the same way > that fire is extinguished. We extinguish fire at the place where it > appears. Wherever it is hot, that's where we can make it cool. And so it > is > with enlightenment. Nibbana is found in samsara. Enlightenment and > delusion > exist in the same place;lace, just as do hot and cold. It's hot where it > was cold and cold where it was hot. When heat arises, the coolness > disappears, and when there is coolness, there's no more heat. In this way > nibbana and samsara are the same." > > I see it like those 3D pictures that use to be in every shopping mall. > Looked at normally they just looked like a pattern of lines. But when we > let our focus go and star at them a 3D picture emerges. So is the picture > really just lines or a 3D picture? It is both depending on how they are > viewed, thus they are the same and yet different, depending on how they are > seen different. Thus I think it can say they are both the same and > different depending on how nibbana or samsara are viewed. This is why I > think this discussion arises so often, each side is correct depending on > how > they are viewing the "picture." Ray > /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) 18524 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 1:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Ken - So, no decisions are ever made and no volition ever exercised? All dhammas except cetana are "realities"? With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/4/03 4:52:22 PM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > Hi Andrew and James, > > If you have been reading the posts on descriptive v's > prescriptive that Sarah listed, you will know what I have > been trying to say. I think you will agree that once we > see that the Dhamma is not a course of action to be > followed but a description of reality to be understood, > then we will also see that it couldn't be any other way. > > Just as the Eight-fold Path of the Ariyans is a moment of > consciousness with Nibbana as its object, so too the > worldling's (Buddhist or non-Buddhist)path > is a moment of consciousness with either > a conditioned dhamma or a concept as it's object. When > right understanding arises (when there is direct > understanding of a conditioned dhamma object), then there > is a moment of satipatthana. But with or without right > understanding, reality is always just a moment of > consciousness; anything outside that is illusory > (concept, pannatti). > > It can't be any other way; in reality, there can't be > courses of action. So when the Buddha seems to be > prescribing "do this to achieve that, don't do this to > avoid that," he can only be properly understood to be > saying, "this being present, that arises, this being > absent, that ceases." We must `see conditionality > everywhere, in all things.' > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > /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) 18525 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 7:43pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Happy New Year and No Need to ............. --- nina van gorkom wrote: > op 01-01-2003 01:02 schreef LBIDD@w... op > LBIDD@w...: > > > Happy New Year everyone. And may we all remember > to notice the passing > > of whatever the present moment may bring. > A good reminder, thank you, > Nina Dear Nina, Larry and everyone, Yes, a good reminder indeed. I,ve been thinking about the tradition of making a New Year's resolution, and I found this in my little book from years ago. 'Remember, the greatest intention [chanda] to have, when kusala acts are performed, is the intention to eradicate defilements. If intention is for good results in the future then one can go on forever and forever, but defilements will not be eradicated.' However, chanda arises without 'us' doing anything anyway - but still a good reminder. And I also found this on patience: 'Patience in reality, is many cetasikas, but patience can help us to deal with a harmful person, help us thro miserable conditions and in its highest form, be patient for awareness to arise and experience realities as they really are.' I think the above must have followed on from a discussion we were having because I have since learnt that patience is one cetasika -Khanti. May we all develop patience, courage and good cheer this year. Azita 18526 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 8:14pm Subject: Re: The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Ray, > Nibbana is found in samsara. Enlightenment and delusion > exist in the same place;lace, just as do hot and cold. It's hot > where it was cold and cold where it was hot. When heat arises, > the coolness disappears, and when there is coolness, there's no > more heat. In this way nibbana and samsara are the same." So, does the arahant abandons both samsara and nibbana? Or, is the arahant both samsara and nibbana? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18527 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 3:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hello Ken, >It can't be any other way; in reality, there can't be >courses of action. So when the Buddha seems to be >prescribing "do this to achieve that, don't do this to >avoid that," he can only be properly understood to be >saying, "this being present, that arises, this being >absent, that ceases." We must `see conditionality >everywhere, in all things.' Yes, well what is present is effort of will; it's conditioned all right, but it's not something that passively happens, it's something one actively does. "And, what, monks, is Right Effort? Here, monks, a monk rouses his will, makes an effort, stirs up energy, exerts his mind and strives to prevent..." DN.ii.313. (Shin Buddhists believe that in this 'last age of the Dharma' self-effort is no longer of value —as it was in the Buddha's day, so we can ignore his exhortations; one must rely on other power. Sound familiar?) Combine this position with the ever popular let's dispense with the jhanas / Samma Samadhi and some abhidharmikas certainly have a novel interpretation of the Noble 6-Fold Path. Ven Visuddhacara ("Attaining Jhana Before One Does Vipassana," just recommended reading on dsg) makes the Shin argument: "...conditions nowadays [are] not as conducive to the development of Samantha as in the old days..." a position he finds endorsed by Ven Nyanaponika. So it's okay to skip it. (BTW, as a lazy person with a very discursive mind I can tell you that the second argument is pure hokum. As for the first, we all know we have free choice (just how to explain it is a problem) otherwise the religious path would not exist. As the Buddha noted.) metta, stephen 18528 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 8:44pm Subject: Reminder (was, My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long)) Hi, All Just in case anyone is in any doubt about this(!), we ask everyone to refrain from quoting non-Theravadin texts, please (a passing reference is OK, but nothing more). Thanks. Jon -------------------------------------- From: "phamdluan2000 " Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 1:42 am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Dear Stephen, ... KKT: Since you mention the sword of Manjusri and your perplexity about the dualism, I cannot resist to quote something from a Mahayana Sutra. You will see that in this Sutra Manjusri tries to kill the Buddha with his sword of Wisdom ! (O my God, such a lese-majesty! :-)) Hope that Sarah doesn't feel any objection (Hello Sarah :-)) Just some flavor of non-duality :-)) ... 18529 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 8:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Swee Boon, I would say that what is abandoned is the craving which binds us to samsara. Thus the mind is cool while the body is yet hot :) One interesting thing about the Magic Eye pictures is that you don't see both the lines and the 3D pictures at the same time, you either see one or the other. When the 3D pictures arises the lines are no longer seen as lines. Perhaps this is the same with the Arahant, when unbinding is realized, samsara is never seen the same? Ray ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, January 04, 2003 8:14 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: The Teaching On The Duality. > Hi Ray, > > > Nibbana is found in samsara. Enlightenment and delusion > > exist in the same place;lace, just as do hot and cold. It's hot > > where it was cold and cold where it was hot. When heat arises, > > the coolness disappears, and when there is coolness, there's no > > more heat. In this way nibbana and samsara are the same." > > So, does the arahant abandons both samsara and nibbana? > > Or, is the arahant both samsara and nibbana? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 18530 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 9:28pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) ---Dear Stephen, You write: """what is present is effort of will; it's conditioned all right, but it's not something that passively happens, it's something one actively does. "And, what, monks, is Right Effort? Here, monks, a monk rouses his will, makes an effort, stirs up energy, exerts his mind and strives to prevent..." DN.ii.313. Combine this position with the ever popular let's dispense with the jhanas / Samma Samadhi and some abhidharmikas certainly have a novel interpretation of the Noble 6-Fold Path. We all know we have free choice (just how to explain it is a problem) otherwise the religious path would not exist.""" And a little while back you wrote ""Abhidhamma recognizes both black and white kamma, and mixed, but what about the kamma that ends kamma? What is its classification?""" ___________ I'd like to look at these points in relation to the eightfold path. Apologies for repeating some points I've mentioned before. Certainly we can live very productive and happy lives with an idea of self and a belief in control and make much useful self-effort.. We can develop kusala and samatha and jhana of all levels; but not vipassana or the lokuttara jhanas. 1. "Black and white kamma": The expositor PTS (translator :pe maung tin). P58. Triplets in the Matika "'leading to accumulation' are those states which go about severally arranging births and deaths in a round of of destiny like a bricklayer who arranges bricks, layer by layer in a wall." "..leading to accumulation are those causes which by being accomplished go to, or lead a man, in whom they arise, to that round of rebirth"ENDQUOTE It then defines these causes as "moral or immoral states". i.e akusala AND kusala including the mundane jhanas. It is not saying to avoid kusala , simply that these are very much part of the causes of samsara. 2: "The kamma that ends kamma": The start of the next chapter is where it discusses the eight-fold path. The Discourse on lokuttara (transcendental). "He cultivates the Jhana means that he evolves, produces the ecstatic jhana of one momentary flash of consciousness. because it goes forth from the world, from the round of rebirths, this is jhana called going out...This is not like that which is known as 'leading to accumulation' which heaps up and increases rebirths by the moral(kusala) consciousness of the three planes. When we think of intention and choice and being able to control, this is thinking and it is not understanding the nature of cetana, intention, as a momentary phenomena -it cannot last even for a split second, nor can any feelings or consciousness. And the noble eightfactored path has no cetana as part of it. In the Nidanavagga (book of causation about Paticcasamuppada) the Buddha said in several suttas "Bhikkhus what one intends and what one plans and whatever one has a tendency towards this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness..when consciousness is established there is the production of renewed existence, birth, ageing, death, sorrow ... BUT bhikkhus when one does not intend, and one does not plan and one does not have a tendency toward anything no basis exists for consciousness...there is no production of renewed existence..no birth, ageing, death, sorrow,.."endquote see 576Bodhi We have much ignorance about dhammas, they have to be known in detail. But when we emphasise intention and self-effort the knowing will be tied up with craving - and then the links of the Paticcasamuppada are strenghtened. The path, so I believe, is simply the direct insight into the presently arising moment; the path is not trying to know or be something other than what is here right now. Is there effort when there is this special type of knowing? Yes, but is an effort that is very different from the effort associated with attachment. Is there concentration at these moments? Yes, there is ekaggata cetasika which focuses on whatever arises in the present moment. Can it arise right now? Sure, dhammas- the five khandhas - never stop arising. They are there to be insighted. Can it arise all the time? No, the conditions for ignorance, for wrong view, for wrong practice, for wrong path have been accumulated for aeons. The path is a very gardual one that takes much patience. But there are so many opportunties also for other types of kusala. Robertk 18531 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] (unknown) to Robert --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: > Dear Group, > For the last few days I've been taking long treks in > the forest in > New Zealand. I was thinking over the ideas we have > about `situation' > and place and how different this is from > understanding the present > moment> [snip] > and it is wisdom – a conditioned phenomena – that > will come to know > what is best. > > > RobertK > > dear Robert, and just last evening I watched 'Lord of the Rings' movie 2, with those wonderful expansive vistas of NZ. The rest of the movie - well - too much killing. when I read your e.mail, I felt a little 'emotional' for just those very reasons. Knowing theoretically that anywhere, anytime is the right time to develop Sati and panna, but often thinking of my time spent with you and the others in Bkk, and wondering if I'll see you all again, and to hear the dhamma as we all sat around discussing various topics. But this is just attachment and aversion and these can be known right here, right now, don't have to go anywhere. as kenH. so beautifully stated in an earlier post, that he often can only write about nama and rupa [or something to that effect]. It's really all there is - just this citta, cetasika and rupa arising and falling away, whether we are in FNQ, NZ. or up on stage trying to work out why the words to 'Norma Jean' had been changed!!! Love yer spirit. Patience, courage and good cheer, Azita > > > > 18532 From: Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 10:05pm Subject: middle ways Dear group, It seems to me there is a confusion of middle ways. The middle way between eternalism and nihilism is samsara, kamma, the round of births, dependent arising. This middle way is dukkha and nibbana is the cessation of this middle way. The middle way the Buddha advocated is middle way (not too extreme) asceticism and the 8-fold path was called the middle way is this regard. The life of an arahant is neither one of these middle ways. The 8-fold path has ceased and dependent arising will cease at death. We could say the heart of the 8-fold path is the perfection of wisdom, so the perfection of wisdom (analysis, as Suan said) is the quintessential middle way that leads to its own end by the disillusionment of desire which is what keeps the middle way of dependent arising and the middle way of analysis going. So enlightenment is middle waylessness. Comments? Larry 18533 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 4, 2003 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] (unknown) to Robert --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > and just last evening I watched 'Lord of the > Rings' movie 2, with those wonderful expansive vistas > of NZ. ___________ Dear Azita, I must have a look at it soon. ____ > when I read your e.mail, I felt a little > 'emotional' for just those very reasons. Knowing > theoretically that anywhere, anytime is the right time > to develop Sati and panna, but often thinking of my > time spent with you and the others in Bkk, and > wondering if I'll see you all again, and to hear the > dhamma as we all sat around discussing various topics. > But this is just attachment and aversion and these > can be known right here, right now, don't have to go > anywhere. _________ So true and nicely put. ____________ > as kenH. so beautifully stated in an earlier > post, that he often can only write about nama and rupa > [or something to that effect]. It's really all there > is - just this citta, cetasika and rupa arising and > falling away, whether we are in FNQ, NZ. or up on > stage trying to work out why the words to 'Norma Jean' > had been changed!!! _________ For those who are wondering, Azita came for lunch and I asked the band to let me sing what I thought was Elton John's Norma Jean: don't say I don't entertain my guests!. I was trying to figure out why the words were so different until Azita explained that Elton rewrote the track in honor of Princess diana. I hope you were insighting sound, sound, sound Azita? Robertk > 18534 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 0:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Ray, I think the 4 Noble Truths is merely a view, a Right View. The duality of the 4 Noble Truths as taught by the Buddha in the quoted sutta is merely a view for worldlings and lower ariyans to cross over the floods. An arahant, having comprehended the 4 Noble Truths to their very end, no longer relishes the 4 Noble Truths. Having comprehended 'stress', the arahant has abandoned stress, samsara. Having comprehended 'the origination of stress', the arahant has abandoned the origination of stress. Having comprehended 'cessation of stress', the arahant has abandoned the cessation of stress, nibbana. (An arahant does not take delight in nibbana.) Having comprehended 'the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress', the arahant has abandoned that very path. In short, the arahant has abandoned the 4 Noble Truths. He no longer needs them. Since he has arrived at the other shore, the raft is no longer needed. He abandons that very raft which took him across the floods. For an arahant, both duality and non-duality do not apply. They are merely views. An arahant takes no views. Nevertheless, Duality accounts as Right View that will take one across the floods. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18535 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 1:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Howard, Christine and Others who are interested, Upon re-reading and re-pondering over the Kaccayanagotta Sutta, I *think* I have misinterpreted it in my reply to Howard on this sutta. Here is my *current* interpretation: > But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually > is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to > the world does not occur to one. "Origination of the world" refers to the arising of dukkha. > When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually > is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to > the world does not occur to one. "Cessation of the world" refers to the dissolution of dukkha. By the above two sentences, the Buddha was talking only on Samsara, and NOT both Samsara and Nibbana. For Samsara is the arising and dissolution of dukkha. But Nibbana is the cessation of both the arising and dissolution of dukkha. When one sees the arising of dukkha, the thought 'non-existence' does not occur. When one sees the dissolution of dukkha, the thought 'existence' does not occur. So, Howard is correct to say that Samsara is non-dual in this respect. This is Howard's Right View. (At least I *think* so. Howard, I hope that is what you meant in your post, not?) After explaining the non-dualism of Samsara in this respect, the Buddha went on to teach Kaccayana the Dhamma via the middle. > "'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't > exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, > the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: After expounding to Kaccayana the First and Second Noble Truths, which is Samsara and seeing Samsara without Dualism (without the Two Extremes), he expounded to Kaccayana the Third and Fourth Noble Truths, which is the 'Cessation of Both the Arising and Dissolution of Dukkha' ( Nibbana) and the 'Path Leading to that Very Cessation'. Wherefore, at the end of this discourse, the Buddha had expounded the 4 Noble Truths to Kaccayana. (That is what I think.) Therefore, my conclusion is that Samsara in and of itself is Non- Dual with respect to the Two Extremes. But Samsara and Nibbana taken together is a Duality. This Duality accounts for the completion of Right View. "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right view." -- DN 22 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-ditthi.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18536 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 4:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard, If we can forget about Buddhism for a moment, can I ask you, what is the simple, common-sense answer to the question, "what exists?" Does the past or the future exist? If your answer is no, then, presumably, only the present exists. What is the present? What is its duration? Unless you can put a period of duration to the present moment, you might suggest a `singularity' of some sort. Whatever your answer is, you have moved well away from the conventional, everyday view of existence. The everyday view of existence does not stand up to the simplest scrutiny; it relies on memories of the past, combined with expectations of the future -- nothing to do with the present moment at all. One answer that suggests itself is "nothing exists;" but the most common answer, even among philosophers, is a side-stepping of the issue -- "I think, therefore I am." (For heaven's sake, how unworthy.) So why do you object to my statement, `in reality, there are no courses of action?' A course of action implies act one, act two, act three; but at the time of act one, acts two and three are in the future -- not yet existent. At the time of act two, act one is in the past -- no longer existent. So when do all three or just two actions exist together? Never; a course of action is a mind-made concept. We don't need a Buddha to tell us this. To make matters worse, when does act one exist? At the middle of the action, its beginning is past history; its end of has never existed. What does exist? Thanks in advance, Ken H --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Ken - > > So, no decisions are ever made and no volition ever exercised? All > dhammas except cetana are "realities"? > > With metta, > Howard > 18537 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi, Swee Boon - There is a duality, a duality of knowing - knowing rightly and knowing under the sway of illusion. This duality is that of absence vs presence. The term 'the world', as I see it, certainly includes dukkha and its moment to moment arising and ceasing. Dukkha is characteristic of "the world". But more generally, the term 'the world' pertains to reality as it is misperceived due to avijja, graspiing, and aversion, namely it pertains to samsara, and it includes all conditioned dhammas seen as separate, self-existent entities. This sutta, as I see it, explains the nature of the misperception by the mass of humanity, with people generally clinging to the extremes of existence and nonexistence, sometimes one, sometimes the other, buffeted between the two. That is samsara. But seeing reality as it is, with the eyes of the middle way, with the direct apprehension of dependent origination, the world is gone and nibbana appears - the difference is the obliteration of the three poisons. With regard to "the world", Ajahn Chah writes the following in a Taste of Freedom (taken from ATI): **************************** " ... activities of happiness, unhappiness and so on are constantly arising because they are characteristics of the world. The Buddha was enlightened in the world, he contemplated the world. If he hadn't contemplated the world, if he hadn't seen the world, he couldn't have risen above it. The Buddha's Enlightenment was simply enlightenment of this very world. The world was still there: gain and loss, praise and criticism, fame and disrepute, happiness and unhappiness were still there. If there weren't these things there would be nothing to become enlightened to! What he knew was just the world, that which surrounds the hearts of people. If people follow these things, seeking praise and fame, gain and happiness, and trying to avoid their opposites, they sink under the weight of the world. Gain and loss, praise and criticism, fame and disrepute, happiness and unhappiness -- this is the world. The person who is lost in the world has no path of escape, the world overwhelms him. This world follows the Law of Dhamma so we call it worldly dhamma. He who lives within the worldly dhamma is called a worldly being. He lives surrounded by confusion. Therefore the Buddha taught us to develop the path. We can divide it up into morality, concentration and wisdom -- develop them to completion! This is the path of practice which destroys the world. Where is this world? It is just in the minds of beings infatuated with it! The action of clinging to praise, gain, fame, happiness and unhappiness is called "world." when it is there in the mind, then the world arises, the worldly being is born. The world is born because of desire. Desire is the birthplace of all worlds. To put an end to desire is to put an end to the world. *********************************** Another reference to "the world" is to be found in the marvelous Uraga Sutta from the Sutta Nipata (again taken from ATI). I particularly draw your attention to paragraphs 8 and 9: ************************************ Uraga Sutta: The Serpent > 1. Yo ve uppatita vineti kodha > visatam sappavisam va osadhehi > so bhikkhu jahati oraparam > urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > >> He who can curb his wrath >> as soon as it arises, >> as a timely antidote will check >> snake's venom that so quickly spreads, >> -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, >> just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. > 2. Yo ragam udacchida asesam bhisapuppham va saroruham vigayha so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who entirely cuts off his lust > as entering a pond one uproots lotus plants, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 3. Yo tanham udacchida asesam saritam sighasaram visosayitva so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who entirely cuts off his craving > by drying up its fierce and rapid flow, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 4. Yo manam udabbadhi asesam nalasetum va sudubbalam mahogho so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who entirely blots out conceit > as the wind demolishes a fragile bamboo bridge, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 5. Yo najjhagama bhavesu saram vicinam puppham iva udumbaresu so bhikkhu jahati orapara urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who does not find core or substance > in any of the realms of being, > like flowers which are vainly sought > in fig trees that bear none, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 6. Yass'antarato na santi kopa itibhavabhavatañca vitivatto so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who bears no grudges in his heart, > transcending all this "thus" and "otherwise," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 7. Yassa vitakka vidhupitave ajjhattam suvikappita asesa so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who has burned out his evil thoughts, > entirely cut them off within his heart, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, just as the > serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 8. Yo naccasari na paccasari sabbam accagama imam papañcam so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, > entirely transcending the diffuseness of the world, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 9. Yo naccasari na paccasari sabbam vitatham idan'ti natva loke so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind > and knows about the world: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 10. Yo naccasari na paccasari sabbam vitatham idan'ti vitalobho so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, > greedless he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 11. Yo naccasari na paccasari sabbam vitatham idan'ti vitarago so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, > lust-free he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 12. Yo naccasari na paccasari sabbam vitatham idan'ti vitadoso so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, > hate-free he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 13. Yo naccasari na paccasari sabbam vitatham idan'ti vitamoho so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who neither goes too far nor lags behind, > delusion-free he knows: "This is all unreal," > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 14. Yass'anusaya na santi keci mula akusala samuhatase so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who has no dormant tendencies whatever, > whose unwholesome roots have been expunged, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 15. Yassa darathaja na santi keci oram agamanaya paccayase so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > States born of anxiety he harbors none > which may condition his return to earth, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 16. Yassa vanathaja na santi keci vinibandhaya bhavaya hetukappa so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > States born of attachment he harbors none > which cause his bondage to existence, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. 17. Yo nivarane pahaya pañca anigho tinnakathamkatho visallo so bhikkhu jahati oraparam urago jinnam iva tacam puranam. > He who has the five hindrances discarded, > doubt-free and serene, and free of inner barbs, > -- such a monk gives up the here and the beyond, > just as a serpent sheds its worn-out skin. ======================= With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/5/03 4:41:03 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes:
> > >When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually > >is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to > >the world does not occur to one. > > "Cessation of the world" refers to the dissolution of dukkha. > > > By the above two sentences, the Buddha was talking only on Samsara, > and NOT both Samsara and Nibbana. For Samsara is the arising and > dissolution of dukkha. But Nibbana is the cessation of both the > arising and dissolution of dukkha. > > > When one sees the arising of dukkha, the thought 'non-existence' > does not occur. > When one sees the dissolution of dukkha, the thought 'existence' > does not occur. > > So, Howard is correct to say that Samsara is non-dual in this > respect. This is Howard's Right View. (At least I *think* so. > Howard, I hope that is what you meant in your post, not?) > > After explaining the non-dualism of Samsara in this respect, the > Buddha went on to teach Kaccayana the Dhamma via the middle. > > > >"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't > >exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, > >the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: > > After expounding to Kaccayana the First and Second Noble Truths, > which is Samsara and seeing Samsara without Dualism (without the Two > Extremes), he expounded to Kaccayana the Third and Fourth Noble > Truths, which is the 'Cessation of Both the Arising and Dissolution > of Dukkha' ( Nibbana) and the 'Path Leading to that Very Cessation'. > > Wherefore, at the end of this discourse, the Buddha had expounded > the 4 Noble Truths to Kaccayana. (That is what I think.) > > Therefore, my conclusion is that Samsara in and of itself is Non- > Dual with respect to the Two Extremes. > > But Samsara and Nibbana taken together is a Duality. This Duality > accounts for the completion of Right View. > > > "And what is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge > with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to > the cessation of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of > practice leading to the cessation of stress: This is called right > view." > -- DN 22 > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/samma-ditthi.html > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > /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) 18538 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Ken - In a message dated 1/5/03 7:04:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > If we can forget about Buddhism for a moment, can I ask > you, what is the simple, common-sense answer to the > question, "what exists?" > > Does the past or the future exist? If your answer is no, > then, presumably, only the present exists. What is the > present? What is its duration? > > Unless you can put a period of duration to the present > moment, you might suggest a `singularity' of some sort. > Whatever your answer is, you have moved well away from > the conventional, everyday view of existence. > > The everyday view of existence does not stand up to the > simplest scrutiny; it relies on memories of the past, > combined with expectations of the future -- nothing to do > with the present moment at all. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I take no exception to the foregoing. --------------------------------------------------- > > One answer that suggests itself is "nothing exists;" but > the most common answer, even among philosophers, is a > side-stepping of the issue -- "I think, therefore I am." > (For heaven's sake, how unworthy.) > > So why do you object to my statement, `in reality, there > are no courses of action?' A course of action implies > act one, act two, act three; but at the time of act one, > acts two and three are in the future -- not yet existent. > At the time of act two, act one is in the past -- no > longer existent. So when do all three or just two > actions exist together? Never; a course of action is a > mind-made concept. We don't need a Buddha to tell us > this. > > To make matters worse, when does act one exist? At the > middle of the action, its beginning is past history; its > end of has never existed. What does exist? > > Thanks in advance, > Ken H > =============================== There is no self, no agent, who wills or acts. But there is willing and acting. Whatever happens indeed happens now. Willing is now. And then there are subsequent "nows". Inclinations and memories carry over. There *is* action over time in that sense. You ask why I take exception to your statement "in reality, there are no courses of action." The answer is that what I take exception to is the implication of powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as it seems, but to not take conventional action because somebody says that such action is illusion is, unfortunately, to never escape from illusion, to never actually *see* the reality of things. We start where we are, in the midst of samsara - unenlightened, and an intellectual grasp of Buddhist theory is not a substitute for direct knowing. It is possible to take the no-control aspect of anatta to an extreme point, a point which destroys any possibility of liberation, of ever attaining direct knowing. I wrote: 'So, no decisions are ever made and no volition ever exercised? All dhammas except cetana are "realities"?' My point was that volition can and does get exercised, though there is no "one" who exercises it, and that cetana is a first-class cetasika, and not a stepchild to be ill treated. Someone, I think it may have been Jon or Robert, said that cetana is not a path factor. I don't dispute this. But without (useful) cetana being exercised, again and again, we needn't have any concerns about what are and are not path factors, because we will never get to see the path. Following the Buddha's training requires volition and right effort. The Buddha's training does not consist in waiting for kusula accumulations to somehow accumulate! The Buddha's training consists in more than studying his teachings and hoping for the best. With metta, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Ken - > > > > So, no decisions are ever made and no volition ever > exercised? All > >dhammas except cetana are "realities"? > > > >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) 18539 From: robmoult Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 8:32am Subject: Back on line Hi All, Sorry for being away for so long. I was at home over the holidays and my wife insisted that I focus 100% on the family. She made me promise not to touch "my mistress" (that what she calls my notebook). Metta, Rob M :-) PS: When I do something wrong with "my mistress", she gives me a blue screen or an error message. When I do something wrong with my wife, she also gives me a "blue screen" or an "error message". However, it takes a lot longer to "reset the system" with my wife. 18540 From: robmoult Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 8:56am Subject: New Class Notes On Line! Hi All, I have updated the Class Notes again. The new version can be downloaded from the "Files" section of the DSG. I added new material on ethically variable cetasikas and cleaned up a lot of areas. I distributed copies of this to my new class which started today. I welcome constructive criticism and suggestions for improvement! Metta, Rob M :-) 18541 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 4:19pm Subject: Way 34, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.46 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html And so the Blessed One, pointing out the forest abode, the fit place for speedy exertion in the practice of meditation, said "Gone to the forest", and so forth. Nisidati pallankam abhujitva ujum kayam panidhaya parimukham satim upatthapetva so satova assasati sato passasati = "Sits down, bends in his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps is body erect, and arouses mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in front of him. Mindful he breathes in, and mindful he breathes out." "Bends in his legs crosswise on his lap." Three things pertaining to the sitting posture of the yogi are pointed out by that: firmness of the posture; easefulness of breathing due to the posture; and the expediency of the posture for laying hold of the subject of meditation. One sits in this posture having locked in the legs. It is the entirely thigh-bound sitting posture, and is known as the lotus, and the immovable posture too. "Keeps his body erect." Keeps the vertebrae in such a position that every segment of the backbone is said to be placed upright, and end to end throughout. The body, waist upwards, is held straight. "Arouses mindfulness in front." Fixes the attention by directing it towards the breath which is in front. "Mindful he breathes in and mindful he breathes out." Breathes in and out without abandoning mindfulness. Digham va assasanto digham assasamiti pajanati digham va passasanto digham passasamiti pajanati: = "He, thinking, 'I breathe in long,' understands when he is breathing in long; or thinking, 'I breathe out long,' he understands when he is breathing out long. "When breathing in long, how does he understand, 'I breathe in long.'? When breathing out long, how does he understand 'I breathe out long'? He breathes in a long breath during a long stretch of time, he breathes out a long breath during a long stretch of time, and he breathes in and he breathes out long breaths, each during a long stretch of time. As he breathes in and breathes out long breaths, each during a long stretch of time, desire [or intention; chanda] arises in him. With desire he breathes in a long breath finer than the last during a long stretch of time; with desire he breathes out a long breath finer than the last during a long stretch of time; and with desire he breathes in and he breathes out long breaths finer than the last, each during a long stretch of time. As with desire he breathes in and he breathes out long breaths finer than the last, each during a long stretch of time, joy [piti] arises in him. With joy he breathes in a long breath finer than the last during a long stretch of time; with joy he breathes out a long breath finer than the last during a long stretch of time; and with joy he breathes in and he breathes out long breaths finer than the last, each during a long stretch of time. As with joy he breathes in and he breathes out long breaths finer than the last, each during a long stretch of time, the mind turns away from the long in-and-out-breathings, and equanimity [upekkha] stands firm. 18542 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 11:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hello Robert, >Certainly we can live very productive and happy lives with an idea >of self and a belief in control and make much useful self-effort.. >We can develop kusala and samatha and jhana of all levels; but not >vipassana or the lokuttara jhanas. That's a straw man argument; I never mentioned self-effort, though you snuck it in your post twice. What's there is (names aren't that important) is intention or cetana or will or effort. It's conditioned, primarily by previous choices (cetana) that are largely responsible for making us what we are (character). This intention is free: = controlled without a controller, because it's not determined (contra-causal causality as it's called in philosophy). This is merely another way of saying that we're not automatons or marionettes. It's another way of saying that the religious life is possible. There is free action but no Self or substantial agent that exists through time exercising this choice or owning it. (The freewill problem didn't exist for the Buddha because he wasn't a dualist: he did not have to reconcile inner free choice with external causes.) >"He cultivates the Jhana means that he evolves, produces the >ecstatic jhana of one momentary flash of consciousness. Because >it goes forth from the world, from the round of rebirths, this >is jhana called going out... This is a redefinition of jhana and does not correspond to the suttas. It may well be a useful and valid novel use but it can't be used as an excuse to avoid samma samadhi. (Someone(s) have systematically gone through the suttas putting in standard formulas for jhana and the hindrances. This isn't too harmful. When we come to the abhidhamma since there were 5 hindrances they decided to have 5 levels of jhana. Neato. By this point not only did these systematizers and copyist have no experiences to get in the way of their catalogs they're were no longer even interested in having any; truth had ceased to be a hindrance to them.) >When we think of intention and choice and being able to control, >this is thinking and it is not understanding the nature of cetana, >intention, as a momentary phenomena -it cannot last even for a split >second, nor can any feelings or consciousness. If this is part of the theory that mental events happen 'faster than the speed of light' and all that it has no more merit than flat earth cosmology. It's *known* to be wrong. (The Catholic Church has a long history of being at odds with science, much to their embarrassment and loss.) >We have much ignorance about dhammas, they have to be known in >detail. But when we emphasize intention and self-effort the knowing >will be tied up with craving - and then the links of the >Paticcasamuppada are strengthened. There's a very tricky point here, and, despite all the above, it's where we actually may have some agreement; at least discussion. It is indeed the self-effort of getting and becoming which ties us to samsara, the bhavacakka. One is liberated who abandons craving. Now: how does one accomplish that? It's like doing nothing, or attaining not-attaining. Wu-wei (spelling?) is the Taoist notion of not-doing. But it doesn't mean doing nothing, it means no Self-doing, no selfish getting and becoming; becoming one with the grain of the universe. Effortless effort. No action from separateness, which leads to attachment. Very paradoxical to try to describe. In the seeing, just seeing (no seer and nothing seen), in the doing, just doing (no doer and nothing done). Viriya as 'effort'; perhaps not quite right. We know what it can feel like, following an inner motivation that is effortless (unlike returning to work tomorrow! —a chore), following our natural being; nothing compulsive. Pursuing our highest good. So efforts to improve, to develop (as the Buddha exhorted, relinquish akusala, adopt kusala) need not be something a self does, but something the universe does. metta, stephen (I'll read any reply you send with interest but will sadly be very busy this coming week; so you *may* have the last word.) 18543 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 5:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 34, Comm, Breathing Way 34: As he breathes in and breathes out long breaths, each during a long stretch of time, desire [or intention; chanda] arises in him. With desire he breathes in a long breath finer than the last during a long stretch of time; with desire he breathes out a long breath finer than the last during a long stretch of time... L: Hi all, Ven. ~Nanamoli has an interesting note on this in Visuddhimagga,VIII, par.168, n.46. He translates "chanda" as "zeal": '"Zeal arises": additional zeal, which is profitable and has the characteristic of desire to act, arises due to the satisfaction obtained when the meditation has brought progressive improvement. "More subtle than before": more subtle than before the already-described zeal arose; for the breaths occur more subtly owing to the meditation's influence in tranquilizing the body's distress and disturbance, "Gladness arises": fresh happiness arises of the kinds classed as 'minor', etc., which is the gladness that accompanies the consciousness occupied with the meditation and is due to the fact that the peacefulness of the object increases with the growing subtlety of the breaths and to the fact that the meditation subject keeps to it course. "The mind turns away": the mind turns away from the breaths, which have reached the point at which the manifestation needs investigating owing to their gradually increasing subtlety. But some say "It is when the in-breaths and out-breaths have reached a subtler state owing to the influence of the meditation and the counterpart sign; for when that has arisen, the mind turns away from the normal breaths". "Equanimity is established": when concentration, classed as access and absorption, has arisen in that counterpart sign, then, since there is no need for further interest to achieve jhana, on-looking (equanimity) ensues, which is specific neutrality.' (Pm. 260) 18544 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 6:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 34, Comm, Breathing ~Nanamoli note 46: "The mind turns away": the mind turns away from the breaths, which have reached the point at which the manifestation needs investigating owing to their gradually increasing subtlety. Hi all, I made a typo here and there's a note to see the following paragraph, #177: "The mind turns away": the mind turns away from the breaths, which have reached the point at which THEIR manifestation needs investigating owing to their gradually increasing subtlety. 177: Suppose a man stands still after running, or descending from a hill, or putting down a big load from his head, then his in-breaths and out-breaths are gross, his nostrils become inadequate, and he keeps on breathing in and out through his mouth. But when he has rid himself of his fatigue and has bathed and drunk and put a wet cloth on his heart, and is lying in the cool shade, then his in-breaths and out-breaths eventually occur so subtly that he has to investigate whether they exist or not; so too, previously, at the time when the bhikkhu has still not discerned,... he has to investigate whether they exist or not. 18545 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 8:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Back on line Hi Rob M, --- "robmoult " wrote: > Hi All, > > Sorry for being away for so long. I was at home over the holidays > and my wife insisted that I focus 100% on the family. She made me > promise not to touch "my mistress" (that what she calls my notebook). .... ;-) Good to see you back and I fully sympathise with neglected wives/partners/family. As well as thanking all the contributors on DSG, we should also be thanking the patient and kind family members who help make this possible. Perhaps you can select a few (plain English) posts each week to print out and read with them to encourage their interest as well. Even my mother became quite interested in this way when I was last with her. Some of James' ones to the kids in Useful Posts would be a good start perhaps. ..... > PS: When I do something wrong with "my mistress", she gives me a > blue screen or an error message. When I do something wrong with my > wife, she also gives me a "blue screen" or an "error message". > However, it takes a lot longer to "reset the system" with my wife. .... ;-) As a wife, I understand. Keeping the family happy should be No.1 priority. We'll chat later. Happy New Year to you and your family and all your students;-) Sarah ====== 18546 From: robmoult Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 10:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some interesting comments on Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Sarah and All, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Rob M & All, > > You discuss the value and authenticity of commentarial material and in > particular, the value of details in the Abhidammattha Sangaha which are > not found in the Tipitaka. This is my post that you were commenting on: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m13761.html Your post happened just after I went off-line. I did not intend to question the value of the commentaries nor the value of the Abhidhammattha Sangha. However, I feel it is important to see them "as they truly are" and recognize the potential for papanca that arises (I explain at the end of this post what I mean by papanca in this context). Even the "traditional view" recognizes that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was not the word of the Buddha. In the "traditional view", the Buddha delivered the Abhidhamma to an assembly of Devas for three solid months during the seventh vassa (rainy season retreat) after His enlightenment. Each day, the Buddha would come to earth to eat and pass along to Sariputta, "This much has been covered thus far...". Sariputta, being incredibly smart, filled in the details to the "table of contents" provided by the Buddha and passed the Abhidhamma to his 500 students (this was eventually written down as the Abhidhamma Pitaka). In other words, there are three versions of the Abhidhamma: - The long version (delivered by the Buddha to the Devas) - The short version (passed by the Buddha to Sariputta) - The medium version (passed by Sariputta to his disciples and to us) Of course, one could argue that the Buddha was around for 38 years after Sariputta passed the Abhidhamma to his students so the Buddha must have known what was said and had an opportunity to correct any errors. In any case, I see great value in both the Pitaka and the commentaries (including the Abhidhammattha Sangha). It is clear that they were written by people who were much smarter than I am. Allow me to explain what prompted my original message. I was in Mumbai, India, riding in the back seat of a car. I was thinking about the abstract discussion that I was having at the time with Howard regarding rupas and phenomenology. There was pleasant feeling as I recalled Howard's points and started crafting a reply in my head. I was smiling to myself. I was looking out the window of the car with this pleasant feeling and suddenly I focused on the objects in front of me. Scenes of incredible poverty. In the past fifteen years, I have made more than 100 trips to India, so it was nothing that I had not seen dozens of times before. This time it really struck me because of the contrast between my pleasant feeling and the poverty without dignity that I was witnessing. I asked myself why I was so disconnected with the present moment and I realized that I had fallen into a trap of "analysis paralysis"; I was caught up in the intellectual aspects of the Abhidhamma so much that I forgot the purpose of the Abhidhamma. Sarah, I seem to recall you mentioning that Khun Sujin had also warned against getting caught up in the theory and losing perspective on the present moment. I observed that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was already quite theoretical and abstract and noticed that the commentaries and subcommentaries seemed to be moving in a direction toward increasing theory (i.e. more specific details of the citta-process, etc.) rather than closer to the practical application of awareness of the present moment. I concluded my original message with a conclusion that I would continue to teach all the theory (including the stuff from the commentaries and subcommentaries), but I will constantly remind the students of why we are studying this stuff. This is part of my effort to minimize pananca. By papanca, I meant becoming wrapped up in the theory and losing sight of the practical. Looking back on my original message, this theme was not very clearly expressed. I apologize. Metta, Rob M :-) 18547 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 11:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hello again Howard, Thanks for answering my questions, looking at them again, I can see that they might be a bit too `back to basics.' You wrote: ---------- > what I take exception to is the implication of powerlessness and hopelessness. > ----------- No such implication was intended. The Middle Path is not a contortion of the two extremes (an action you take when you're not taking an action). The Middle Path is, first and foremost, right understanding. It's wonderful, not in the least bit `powerlessness and hopelessness.' You continued: --------- > It is all well and good to intellectually grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as it seems, but to not take conventional action because somebody says that such action is illusion is, unfortunately, to never escape from illusion, > . . . --------- "because somebody says that such action is illusion"(?) Are you less than convinced that conventional reality is illusion? That would make it very hard to see that no one `takes conventional action.' There is the illusion of a self taking action but there is no conventional action. Whether we want to or not, we can't do or be something that is illusory. Sorry if I've got you wrong, it's hard enough to gather my own thoughts on realities and concepts, let alone see what someone else is thinking. Kind regards Ken H 18548 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 0:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Hi Peter, I found all your additional comments that you wrote to Claire very interesting (I hadn’t read these last time I wrote). I agree with your comments about the ‘highly evolved society’ at that time in India. Everything seems to suggest this. Your comments about the lack of reference to the bhikkhunis at the time of the Buddha’s Parinibbana or the First Council are interesting. I don’t think there is any chance that A.Brom’s comment that the order might have died out can be correct. Certainly there would have been reference to this at the time, when the Vinaya was being rehearsed or later. As you say, it is also inconsistent with the details given about Sanghamitta, Asoka’s daughter coming to Sri Lanka. She was an arahant and came with a group of nuns who were all enlightened (arahants probably?) too. I believe their numbers were relatively small compared to those of the monks and there was no special reason for particular mention. The leading disciples and those responsible for the First Council activities were all bhikkhus. Your other speculations about ‘times of crisis or emergency, e.g. war etc...’ may also be correct. These would not be times when the bhikkhuni issues would be predominant. You mentioned that all you did for your article was largely to use the details in DoPPN. Still, I think this was an admirable way to go about it - at least it ensures the facts are correct and none of your notes were misleading. ***** The reason I raised some of the ‘depth of anguish’ comments in one or two of your later posts is because I think the idea of needing to really suffer, or be taught by ‘Ajahn Dukkha’ as you put it well, is very common. I also read this in the article on samvega (sense of urgency) that Christine gave the link for and which we discussed under that heading. You mention in your more recent post (in the context of the Bodhisatta’s leaving his family and household/princely life): P:“This works because frustration, anguish, despair, etc. re-emerge and drive us onward, ever deeper into the investigation of the Buddha's Dhamma and Vinaya.” ..... I think there’s a difference between (a) understanding with panna (wisdom) whatever phenomena appear, including kilesa (defilements) such as anguish, despair and fear and (b)seeing these kilesa as being the driving force or sense or urgency that lead to wisdom developing. In the Bhayabherava Sutta (Fear and Dread), MN4 which the extracts we were looking at were taken from, we read through all the unwholesome states that other recluses experience in the forest. Iinstead of these, the Bodhisatta has wholesome ones - from ‘purified in bodily conduct’ through to ‘wisdom’.This is followed by the part about the special moon nights and experience of fear and dread as you rightly pointed out. In the Bodhisatta’s case these are known and ‘subdued’ immediately. “Tireless energy was aroused in me and unremitting mindfulness was established, my body was tranquil and untroubled, my mind concentrated and unified.” He then goes on to expereince the jhanas, recollection of past lives and full enlightenment. ***** So of course there are conditions for all kilesa to arise for us as mere wordlings and we never know what our accumulations will bring at any moment. Any conditioned phenomena have to be known with detachment. This is the only way the path can develop. Understanding the unsatisfactory nature of all conditioned phenomena is different, I think, from having any idea that experiencing deep anguish and so on are necessary constituents or factors of the path. Surely it is the wisdom which develops in spite of the kilesa, rather than the reverse, that leads us to hear, consider and reflect further. In the commentary to the Cariya Pitaka (Treatise on the Paramis in B.Bodhi’s Brahmajala Sutta anc commentaries p272f) we read about the perfection of equanimity, the last perfection attained by the Bodhisatta: “When there is no equanimity, the offensive actions performed by beings cause oscillation in the mind. And when the mind oscillates, it is impossible to practise the requisites of enlightenment..... “Moreover, the undertaking, determination, fulfilment, and completion of all the requisites of enlightenment succeed through the power of equanimity.... “Equanimity perfects the power of renunciation, for by its means he overcomes discontent and delight... “And because he is unconcerned over the wrongs done by others, he perfects the abiding in loving-kindness. Thus equanimity is indispensable to the practice of all the other paramis.” ***** In his very last life as a Bodhisatta before the present one in which he became enlightened, as Vessantara, the parami of equanimity was perfected. We read the account of how he joyfully gave away his children to a Brahmin. They were treated very harshly, ran back to Vessantara and appealed for help. Vassantara remained silent and let the Brahmin drive them away again. Vessantara was temporarily grieved, ‘his heart grew hot within him: he trembled violently...tears streaming from his eyes, he wept pitifully’ on account of how his children were being treated. However, he reflected on the pain that comes from affection and ‘by power of his knowledge he did away with that keen pang of sorrow’. I can hardly bear to read the details of the children’s afflictions or the account of Maddi, their mother wandering around looking for them before collapsing before hearing the truth and also being able to rejoice in the great act. Later she also agrees to be given away herself, confident that Vassantara knew what was necessary. He gives her away willingly too. Sakka (who had been disguised as the brahmin asking for Maddi) refers to her noble qualities, she is returned to Vessantara. As we know, eventually the children as well as Maddi and Vessantara return to Sivi and Vassantara becomes king. Maddi was of course Yasodara in this lifetime and so both she and the Bodhisatta had already given away their children and each other in far harsher circumstances.As there is so little mention about Yasodara (Rahula's mother)when the Bodhisatta left the palace, I think we just have to accept that we don't know whether she grieved or rejoiced when she found he had left or whether she knew he would be leaving. In the Vassantara Jataka, Maddi seems to have a very keen understanding of his path and what was necessary, but that doesn't mean there wasn't any grief;-) ..... I’ve rather lost my thread, revisiting the Jataka to check one or two points(always with a few tears;-)). I think my point was that the Bodhisatta had to have a lot of highly eveloped self-knowledge. The paramis can only be developed with wisdom. I bleieve that one of the conditions or qualifications for being a Bodhisatta is that in the lifetime the vow is made, he has to be capable of being enlightened in that same lifetime. The paramis are developed on top of this already high level of knowledge. ..... One last comment I’d like to refer to briefly only. You said: P:“Meditation would seem to come quite easy to many children if approached in a skillful way. Any good Buddhist temple will have Sunday school lessons for children age from say six to twelve or so. The one in Wimbledon, Wat Buddhapadipa, has a very enthusiastic attendance. My own secular experience at around that age: I'd find myself just sat down, (in a bus of all places), when the most amazing feeling of a bliss-like-tranquillity would suddenly and unexpectedly well up, this happened on a couple of occasions around that time. I can still recollect the feeling after all this time.” ***** This is a delicate subject. It’s very tempting, I think, to consider such special experiences as being something akin to jhana. I think that only by understanding more about what tranquillity is, how it is conditioned and the understanding there must be of wholesome and unwholesome states, can we answer this question. I believe that the wisdom required and difficulty of jhana is often underestimated. Finally, from the descriptive vs prescriptive thread, I particularly like your phrase: “Honesty of heart or gut so often turns out to be an expression of wrong view.” I think this is very right, unfortunately;-) Peter, you mentioned before about your difficulties in writing. May I just say that we would never have known and appreciate all your efforts in this regard. Sarah ====== 18549 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Teaching On The Duality. Hi Stephen, I’m not meaning to be ‘tricky’, but I’m genuinely interested to know if you don’t see any conflict in your following comments extracted from two recent posts: --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > Do we agree that subject / object is a dualism? Me / I in here, the > world out > there. > Do we agree that anatta means no self? No me / I in here (in the > khandhas). > So there isn't *this* duality? > > What would experience be like without a subject? ***** Vs ***** Stephen:>You can attach to it and make dukkha, or > not. ..... Sarah: you can??? .... Stephen:> I sez. If one can't even hold concentration to count to 10 how can they > possibly pretend to do vipassana? ..... Sarah: Who wants to ‘do’ vipassana and why? ..... Stephen:> Yes, well what is present is effort of will; it's conditioned all right, > but > it's not something that passively happens, it's something one actively > does. ..... Sarah: One actively does?? ..... > we all know we have > free > choice ..... Sarah: We do? ..... Apologies for taking comments out of context just this once;-) Sarah ===== 18550 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] B. Bodhi Hi Dotl, --- dotl wrote: > Thankyou Sarah for news of B. Bhodi- We were wondering how he is these > days, > at our meeting on Saturday. > dotl ..... I think I can say he's very happy to be settled back at Bodhi monastery and mentioned seeing the snow for the first time in over 20 years;-) He's also spent time with his father. He continues to have headache problems, but I believe he's had good diagnostic advice (from Dr Ma and a doctor in Shanghai) and the treatment is beginning to show marked improvement with other related conditions at least. It's a long-standing condition (i.e no quick solution) but he's used to having to be very patient. Why don't you tell us more about your group and interest in dhamma too?? Does your group study B.Bodhi's writings or translations? Best regards, Sarah ====== 18551 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 2:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Swee Boon, Sorry to be rather slow in replying..... --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > S: the form is incapable of arising in future. The wisdom and > > liberation from samsara of the Tathagata is `deep...'. like the > > fire, `reappears' amd `does not reppear' are inapplicable. > SB> The sutta says the Tathagata is 'deep...', but it didn't say the > wisdom and libration from samsara of the Tathagata is 'deep...'. > > ??? ..... In your great long post (18509), I think this was the only point I queeried. I think the question is, when we read “The Tathagata is ‘deep’ ...” is it referring to the present state or the future Parinibbana of the Tathagata? I read it to be referring to the present, but I may be wrong. As we know, ‘Tathagata” is merely used for conventional convenience to refer to the 5 aggregates of what we take for the Buddha. I understand the ‘deep...’ (BB transl: “profound, immeasurable, unfathomable”) to refer to the extent of the wisdom and total liberation as I mentioned, but I can’t be sure. I just looked to see if BB gives any commentary note, but he doesn’t. he does add this note of his own which I’ll type in full for your interest (note 723 to MN72,Aggivacchagotta Sutta): “This passage should be connected with teh simile of the extinguished fire. Just as the extinguished fire cannot be described as having gone to any direction, so the Tathagata who has attained to final Nibbana cannot be described in terms of the four alternatives. The simile concerns solely the legitamacy of conceptual and linguistic usage and is not intended to suggest, as some scholars have held, that the Tathagata attains to some mystical absorption in the Absolute. The words “profound, immeasurable, unfathomable” point to the transcendental dimension of the liberation attained by the Accomplished One, its inaccessibility to discursive thought.” ..... Earlier in the text we also read about the Dhamma that it is also “profound, hard to see and hard to understand, peaceful and sublime, unattainable by mere reasoning, subtle, to be experienced by the wise”. This seems to compliment the comments about the Tathagata. Somewhere in the Visuddhimagga it says that if anyone tries to comprehend the knowledge and omniscience of the Buddha they’ll go mad (very rough paraphrase). ..... > > Commentary (given by BB): " `does not reappear' actually does > > apply, in the sense that the arahant does not undergo a new > > existence. but if Vaccagotta were to hear this he would > > misapprehend it as annihilationism, and thus the Buddha denies > > that it applies in the sense that annihilation is not a tenable > > position." > > That is one reason. > > But I think there is another reason that will at the same time > include the above reason. > > Repudiating the four 'ultimate realities' of rupa, citta, cetasika > and nibbana, can you describe another 'ultimate reality'? ..... Another way to say the same is that if there are no more conditions for rupa, citta, cetasika (the 5 khandhas) to arise, there can no longer be any reappearing or experience of conditioned or unconditioned realities. ..... > It is impossible, because that 'something' lies beyond range of what > can be known or can be comprehended. ..... I would just say that ‘appear’ and ‘reappear’ no longer apply....otherwise someone may continue to cling to an idea of ‘something’. I believe the cannot be comprehended’ relates to the parinibbana itself - the extinguishing of the flame. In brief, as in the other suttas you, Rob K and Christine have mentioned, the reason for the response is to help rid any ideas of self-view on the part of the questioner. ..... “But, friend, one who knows and sees form..feeling...perception..volitional formations..consciousness s it really is, who knows and sees its origin, its cessation, and the way leading to its cessation, does not think: “The Tathagata exists after death’...or ‘The Tathagata neither exists or does not exist after death’. “This, friend,is the cause and reason why this has not been declared by the Blessed One.”(SN,1V,Salayatanavagga, 4 Sariputta and Kotthita) .... I find all your comments very well considered, Swee Boon. I’m interested to know whether you have had guidance or whether it has just come about by your own reflections and considerations and whether you’ve just relied on translations of suttas or whether you’ve had access to commentaries. (You don’t need to answer any of this if you’d prefer not to.) In any case, I greatly appreciate it and I’m also impressed that you’re happy to come back and ‘correct’ your own comments when you consider further. Sarah p.s I’m also not in the ‘giant amoeba’ camp as I understand it;-) ===== 18552 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 11:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some interesting comments on Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi, Rob - In a message dated 1/6/03 1:16:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > > I was in Mumbai, India, riding in the back seat of a car. I was > thinking about the abstract discussion that I was having at the time > with Howard regarding rupas and phenomenology. There was pleasant > feeling as I recalled Howard's points and started crafting a reply > in my head. I was smiling to myself. I was looking out the window of > the car with this pleasant feeling and suddenly I focused on the > objects in front of me. Scenes of incredible poverty. In the past > fifteen years, I have made more than 100 trips to India, so it was > nothing that I had not seen dozens of times before. This time it > really struck me because of the contrast between my pleasant feeling > and the poverty without dignity that I was witnessing. > > I asked myself why I was so disconnected with the present moment and > I realized that I had fallen into a trap of "analysis paralysis"; I > was caught up in the intellectual aspects of the Abhidhamma so much > that I forgot the purpose of the Abhidhamma. > > ========================= I'm sorry if I had a hand, even by "thought proxy" in any analysis paralysis that momentarily separated you from compassion. Fortunately, your good heart prevailed. From my perspective, wisdom and compassion are twins that are joined, not at the hip, but at the head and the heart, and cannot safely or properly be separated. (If they were to be separated, and only one could be saved, I'd save the compassion!) Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful, doesn't always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a substitute for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I see it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my opinion, though cold, dry intellectual examination may . 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) 18553 From: Date: Sun Jan 5, 2003 11:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Ken - There is acting, but no actor. And there is willing but no one who wills. So, literally, "we" cannot engage in right effort - yet right effort must be engaged in. And "we" cannot repeatedly engage in meditation - yet regular cultivation must be done. It is true that "we" cannot engage in courses of action - yet courses of action must be pursued. When we reach the stage that wisdom has fully blossomed, we will know the truth of anatta, and we will act with perfection, automatically. But we are not at that stage. We "live in" a world of convention, and we act in that world. Artificially pretending to ourselves that we really see anatta - insubstantiality and impersonality, and letting our *ideas* of the way things are stop us from taking conventional action because we *intellectually* grasp that there really is no one who acts and there are really no actions at all, but just an "uncontrollable" flow of conditioned dhammas, is disastrous. Much as we would wish it otherwise, we do not start at nibbana. We start right in the midst of samsara, right in the midst of this world of illusion, and "here" WE must ACT. The ultimate fact that such acting is a mere seeming, mere illusion, does not dictate inaction. The nonexistent "self" must engage in "unreal actions". The Buddha spoke of people, and actions, and he taught people to engage in various actions, actions which lead people out of illusion. He taught this using conventional speech to people like you and me, ensnared in illusion. We start where we are, not where we would hope to be. I hope this clarifies my position. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/6/03 2:05:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hello again Howard, > > Thanks for answering my questions, looking at them again, > I can see that they might be a bit too `back to basics.' > > You wrote: > ---------- > >what I take exception to is the implication of > powerlessness and hopelessness. > > ----------- > No such implication was intended. The Middle Path is not > a contortion of the two extremes (an action you take when > you're not taking an action). The Middle Path is, first > and foremost, right understanding. It's wonderful, not > in the least bit `powerlessness and hopelessness.' > > You continued: > --------- > >It is all well and good to intellectually grasp that > there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing > is as it seems, but to not take conventional action > because somebody says that such action is illusion is, > unfortunately, to never escape from illusion, >. . . > --------- > > "because somebody says that such action is illusion"(?) > Are you less than convinced that conventional reality is > illusion? That would make it very hard to see that no > one `takes conventional action.' There is the illusion > of a self taking action but there is no conventional > action. Whether we want to or not, we can't do or be > something that is illusory. > > Sorry if I've got you wrong, it's hard enough to gather > my own thoughts on realities and concepts, let alone see > what someone else is thinking. > > Kind regards > Ken H > > /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) 18554 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 5:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Correction: --- Sarah wrote: > ***** > In his very last life as a Bodhisatta before the present one in which he > became enlightened, as Vessantara, the parami of equanimity was > perfected. .... This is clearly nonsense. It’s the last Jataka tale given but obviously not the last life which was in a heavenly realm. Also it is the parami of dana that is perfected on reflection. Apologies. I believe the Bodhisatta’s last several lives were in heavenly realms. Does anyone know where there is a list showing the order? I’ve also heard/read that the Vessantara Jataka is the first to disappear from the teachings which I found interesting - the hardest for people to accept. Sarah p.s any other corrections welcome;-) ===== 18555 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 7:45am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Sarah, > I think the question is, when we read "The Tathagata > is `deep' ..." is it referring to the present state or > the future Parinibbana of the Tathagata? It refers to the parinibbana of the Tathagata. I think it is very clear that the intention of Vaccha in asking whether "the Tathagata `reappears' or not" refers to the death of the Tathagata. If the Tathagata was alive, the Tathagata `appears' (right before the eyes of Vaccha). If the Tathagata was dead, does the Tathagata `reappear'? This was the intention of Vaccha's question. > Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, > tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, > to-be-experienced by the wise. This statement refers to nibbana. Nibbana is the unconditioned phenomenon. > "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the > Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its > root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the > conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. The Tathagata, having realized the unconditioned phenomenon, nibbana, has uprooted the roots for future arising. This refers to the Tathagata alive. > Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is deep, > boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. > 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' > doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't > apply. The Tathagata can only be freed from the classification of form at death, parinibbana. While alive, the Tathagata is not yet freed from form (though he has uprooted the roots by which form arises). The five aggregates still remain in existence. FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five aggregates, there is no longer wisdom. FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five aggregates, there is no longer any more liberation from samsara. Once FREED (parinibbana), the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea (note that this is a different description by the Buddha than the one given for nibbana earlier in the sutta). Which means that any way by which we `point' to the Tathagata, that `pointing' doesn't apply. And, IMHO, the Tathagata, though freed from the classification of the five aggregates, is not nibbana. We cannot `point' to the Tathagata as nibbana. Nibbana itself is a phenomenon, the unconditioned phenomenon. Whereas the Tathagata, freed, is no longer any phenomenon. The Tathagata, freed, is non-phenomenon, for a lack of a better word. > I'm interested to know whether you have had guidance or whether > it has just come about by your own reflections and considerations My own reflections and considerations. > and whether you've just relied on translations of suttas or whether > you've had access to commentaries. Mostly translations of suttas. No access to commentaries. Reads ADL and ATI. > I'm also impressed that you're happy to come back and `correct' your > own comments when you consider further. I think it is only proper to correct my mistakes. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18556 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 10:16am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 10 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 10 King Bimbisåra who was a sotåpanna thought, ³Nothing else is more precious than the Triple Gem². Therefore he asked the merchants who were citizens of Takkasilå, ³Are the three Jewels of the Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha known in your country?² The merchants from Takkasila said, ³In our country one has never heard of them. Where could they be seen?² That was the reason that King Bimbisåra gave the order to make a sheet of gold of four cubits long, a span in breadth and a thickness which was just right: not too thin, not too thick. He washed his head in the early morning, he observed the Uposatha (vigil day), took breakfast and then he had insciptions ciseled out on the sheet of gold. He had inscriptions made relating the excellent qualities of the Buddha, the development of the ten perfections, the excellent qualities of the Dhamma, the thirtyseven factors of enlightenment, the four satipaììhånas, the eightfold Path, the excellent qualities of the Sangha and Mindfulness of Breathing. The excellent qualities of the Sangha at that time were the qualities of the ariyans who were contented with the four requisites [9 , who could subdue the hindrances, attain jhåna, acquire supranatural powers, and become ³great men² (mahåpurisa [10). King Bimbisåra considered that he would have a present made superior to anything else: the excellent qualities of the Triple Gem which he had inscribed on the golden sheet. He then wrote as follows: ³The teachings of the Lord Buddha are well spoken, they liberate beings from dukkha. If you, my friend, can really grasp this, may you then enter monkhood!² The King had wrapped around the golden sheet a blanket of animal hair of a delicate texture and had it placed into a strong box. This box was placed into another box of gold, and this golden box into a silver box, and each box was successively placed into another precious box: made of silver, pearl, coral, ruby, emerald, crystal, ivory, of all kinds of gems, and then placed into a box made of a bamboo matting. This he had placed into a strong container, this again into a golden container, and then successively into other containers, in the same way as before in the case of the boxes. The container made of all kinds of gems he had placed in a container made of bamboo matting, and this in a container of hardwood. Thus each container was placed in another one in the same way. The box made of all kinds of gems which was placed in a box of bamboo matting was wrapped around with cloth and stamped with the royal seal. The King gave orders to the courtiers to adorn his auspicious elephant and place the throne on his back, to put over it the white multilevelled royal umbrella, to decorate the streets in the city with beautiful ornaments and banners, and pay respect with perfums, incense and flowers all along the way the royal present would be carried. With regard to the King himself, he was adorned with all kinds of adornments and surrounded by his troops carrying muscial instruments. The King considered that he would accompany his present until the border area of his country and that he would give an official letter to the attendants so that they would offer this to King Pukkusåti. The contents of that letter were as follows: ³When you will receive this present, do not receive it in the quarters of the female royal servants, but may you go to the royal palace and receive it there.² When the King had given the official letter, he thought, ³The Teacher goes now to the border country², and he paid respect by the fivefold prostration, kneeling and placing his hands and head on the floor, and then he returned. Footnotes: 9. The four requisites of the monk: clothing, food, dwelling and medicines. 10. Great men or heroes: with distinctive qualities. 18557 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 11:59am Subject: Vessantara-Jataka Hi Sarah, Your quote from the Vessantara-Jataka led to my reading the entire story in the hope that my initial repugnance might be attenuated by something else in the tale. Not so. The Tale in full is, if anything, more appalling than the excerpt you posted. I am thankful I live in an age when the whole crew would have wound up before the Children's Court and received the consequences they deserved for child abuse and failing to provide protection to defenceless minors. Thankfully Jim Anderson did the research to show the Tales are NOT part of the Tipitaka. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14958 That other beings could be regarded by the Buddha-to-be as objects to be used and disposed of in order to gain his own spiritual advancement is unbelievable. I see nothing in this story that could even quality it to be regarded as a Morality Tale. I think quoting such stories as if they are authoritative teachings is unwise. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Correction: > > --- Sarah wrote: > ***** > > In his very last life as a Bodhisatta before the present one in which he > > became enlightened, as Vessantara, the parami of equanimity was > > perfected. > .... > This is clearly nonsense. It's the last Jataka tale given but obviously > not the last life which was in a heavenly realm. Also it is the parami of > dana that is perfected on reflection. > > Apologies. > > I believe the Bodhisatta's last several lives were in heavenly realms. > Does anyone know where there is a list showing the order? > > I've also heard/read that the Vessantara Jataka is the first to disappear > from the teachings which I found interesting - the hardest for people to > accept. > > Sarah > p.s any other corrections welcome;-) > ===== 18558 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 0:30pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard, Doesn't your post just play the 'let's pretend' game of tipping your hat to the intellectual and spiritual idea of "conditions but no- self", and then carries on regardless in the same way that every person who has never heard the Dhamma does - planning, doing, improving and controlling? If there is no self, just impersonal phenomena and conditions, how can there be control, how can there be courses of action? Isn't your articulate post, just illustrating the clinging to the idea of self whether as a planner, a do-er, a watch-er, or a controll-er that keeps us in Samsara? Isn't this the same old self putting on different clothes - re-framing the Teachings to allow it to continue to rule, creating the more powerfully enslaving prison of progress, achievement, and even the illusion that it is destroying illusions? Your attractive version of not-self shows it continuing to rule absolutely, subtly and tenaciously, but in a much more baneful form. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: 18559 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 0:57pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > I've also heard/read that the Vessantara Jataka is the first to disappear > from the teachings which I found interesting - the hardest for people to > accept. _________ Dear Sarah, I hadn't heard that. In Thailand we see so many temples with paintings of the vessantara Jataka in them. I think it is one of the most well known Jataka that pretty much everyone learns from an early age. I was thinking over it today and how much clinging I have to "my" children. Yet in a few short years I will be dead and in a new life with no memory of them- but for sure clinging to other beings. And so samsara continues for endless aeons. http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20perfections%20of%20insight.htm "Asked for his own children, wife, slaves, workers, and servants, the Great Man does not give them while they are as yet unwilling to go, afflicted with grief. But when they are willing and joyful, then he gives them. But if he knows that those who ask for them are demonic beings-ogres, demons, or goblins-or men of cruel disposition, then he does not give them away*(cariyapitaka attakatha)" These chidren and wives are also beings of great merit and they too wish to give and are ready to endure hardship on their own path to parinibbana . The Bodhisatta gives them not though any disdain but because they are the most valued that he clings to. He is ready even to let go of his most loved ones. But perhaps it is even harder to give up self. Robertk welcome;-) > ===== > 18560 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 3:50pm Subject: Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote:conascence-condition (sahajåta-paccaya) > What's there is (names aren't that important) is > intention or cetana or will or effort. It's conditioned, primarily by > previous choices (cetana) that are largely responsible for making us what we > are (character). This intention is free: = controlled without a controller, > because it's not determined (contra-causal causality as it's called in > philosophy). +++++++++++++ Dear Stephen, Yes, names are not important - it is always whether there is understanding of the actual moments. You say "intention is free" becuase its not determined. You seem to believe that if there is no free will that there must be determinism? I don't think so. Instead there are complex conditions are both conditioned and conditioning. Cetana, intention, is one of the mental factors that are part of sankhara khandha . Leaving aside that each moment of sankhara khandha is conditioned by past moments (e.g.anantarapaccaya ) each cetana that arises is also conditioned by other elements that arise together with it - (sahajata paccaya , conascence condition,) according to the Abhidhamma. ____________________ >> This is merely another way of saying that we're not automatons > or marionettes. ______________________ Could we be puppets though? http://www.abhidhamma.org/Patthana%203%20chapter_7.htm In the "Kindred Sayings"(I, Sagåthå-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, § 9), Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill- plighted thing. By reason of a cause it came to be, By rupture of a cause it dies away. Like a certain seed sown in the field, Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, And moisture likewise, by these two grows, So the five khandhas, the elements, And the six spheres of sense even all these, By reason of a cause they came to be; By rupture of a cause they die away.""" From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus does this machine made of the four elements move like a puppet, and deceives all foolish people with its femininity, masculinity, etc"endquote. From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi "Behold a puppet here pranked out, a body built from sores, sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides" "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are mind and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but by means of their mutual working together, this mental and bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity." from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled, Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force, So goes this body in its forward course Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air. As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied So to the body-doll the mind is joined And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits. Where is the living being that can stand, Or walk, by force of its own inner strength, Without conditions that give it support? " Acharn Sujin spoke to me while we were in Kaeng Krachan about that anattaness of this world. She said there really are no people, no Sujin, no Robert, no Nina. There are only momentary phenomena. It sort of shocked me at the time because I was in a slight daydream about a grilfriend , enjoying being lost in concept, I didn't want to know the truth right then. Didn't want to think there was just conditions, nama and rupa. But then sometimes there is awareness of a dhamma, like hardness or lobha, and there is just a little insight that it really is that way. ---------------------- > (Someone(s) have systematically gone through the suttas putting in standard > formulas for jhana and the hindrances. This isn't too harmful. When we come > to the abhidhamma since there were 5 hindrances they decided to have 5 levels > of jhana. Neato. By this point not only did these systematizers and copyist > have no experiences to get in the way of their catalogs they're were no > longer even interested in having any; truth had ceased to be a hindrance to > them.) ___________ "truth had ceased to be a hindrance to them". You mean that Buddhaghosa and the monks who recorded the early commentaries were liars? "Have no experience to get in the way" : how do you know they had no experience of Jhana? _______________ > > > > >When we think of intention and choice and being able to control, > >this is thinking and it is not understanding the nature of cetana, > >intention, as a momentary phenomena -it cannot last even for a split > >second, nor can any feelings or consciousness. > If this is part of the theory that mental events happen 'faster than the > speed of light' and all that it has no more merit than flat earth cosmology. > It's *known* to be wrong. > (The Catholic Church has a long history of being at odds with science, much > to their embarrassment and loss.) ________ You mean that consciousness lasts? Where do you get ideas about anything being 'faster than the speed of light" Citta, consciousness arises and passes away- it doesn't go anywhere. it's certainly not speeding around the universe. Nor does it last billions of years to come to the earth as scientists talk about light travelling from other planets. Not part of Abhidhamma. ____________ > > > > >Robert: We have much ignorance about dhammas, they have to be known in > >detail. But when we emphasize intention and self-effort the knowing > >will be tied up with craving - and then the links of the > >Paticcasamuppada are strengthened. _______ > Stephen: There's a very tricky point here, and, despite all the above, it's where we > actually may have some agreement; at least discussion. It is indeed the > self-effort of getting and becoming which ties us to samsara, the bhavacakka. > One is liberated who abandons craving. Now: how does one accomplish that? > It's like doing nothing, or attaining not-attaining. > Wu-wei (spelling?) is the Taoist notion of not-doing. But it doesn't mean > doing nothing, it means no Self-doing, no selfish getting and becoming; > becoming one with the grain of the universe. Effortless effort. No action > from separateness, which leads to attachment. Very paradoxical to try to > describe. In the seeing, just seeing (no seer and nothing seen), in the > doing, just doing (no doer and nothing done). > Viriya as 'effort'; perhaps not quite right. ________ Yes, I think effort not a good translation of viriya.Perhaps energy is better. Best is to know the difference between right viriya and wrong viriya when they arise in the moment. ___________ RobertK We know what it can feel like, > following an inner motivation that is effortless (unlike returning to work > tomorrow! â€"a chore), following our natural being; nothing compulsive. > Pursuing our highest good. So efforts to improve, to develop (as the Buddha > exhorted, relinquish akusala, adopt kusala) need not be something a self > does, but something the universe does. > > metta, stephen > > (I'll read any reply you send with interest but will sadly be very busy this > coming week; so you *may* have the last word.) > 18561 From: Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 4:34pm Subject: unconditioned state Hi all, What does it mean to say that nibbana is the unconditioned state? Does it mean that cessation of desire and dukkha is uncaused? If so, there must be a disconnect between the 8-fold path and nibbana. The path will take one just so far to the other shore, but not all the way. Cessation just happens, without cause, and pathwise bhavana is, strictly speaking, unnecessary. So how is the path a path to the end of dukkha? Larry 18562 From: Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 11:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Christine - In a message dated 1/6/03 3:31:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Doesn't your post just play the 'let's pretend' game of tipping your > hat to the intellectual and spiritual idea of "conditions but no- > self", and then carries on regardless in the same way that every > person who has never heard the Dhamma does - planning, doing, > improving and controlling? > If there is no self, just impersonal phenomena and conditions, how > can there be control, how can there be courses of action? Isn't > your articulate post, just illustrating the clinging to the idea of > self whether as a planner, a do-er, a watch-er, or a controll-er that > keeps us in Samsara? Isn't this the same old self putting on > different clothes - re-framing the Teachings to allow it to continue > to rule, creating the more powerfully enslaving prison of progress, > achievement, and even the illusion that it is destroying illusions? > Your attractive version of not-self shows it continuing to rule > absolutely, subtly and tenaciously, but in a much more baneful form. > > metta, > Christine > =========================== No, I don't think so. There - I said "I". (And it was said again in this last sentence! It's very hard to speak without using personal pronouns.) Is there an "I"? No. But is it meaningful to say it? Yes, it sure is. All our language is conventional, and when it is taken literally it confirms our tendencies towards substantialism and nihilism. Every time we use a noun, one can think there corresponds a self-existent entity. Utimately, the only way to express literal truth is to say not a word! This, in fact, is a point frequently made in Zen writings. But to live in this world, we must use language and linguistic conventions. The Buddha taught us to guard the senses and to be vigilant. He had us exercise volition. Is this in an ultimate-truth formulation? No. But does it make sense, and should we pay attention to it? You bet! Guarding the senses, and willfully maintaining mindfulness are essential parts of the training. Is control possible? Well, I'm not exactly sure what that means. (Actually, I prefer the word 'influence' to 'control', because 'control' can often mean 'total control'.) Volition and volitional action are possible. That's exactly what the Budha meant by 'kamma'. Volition is possible - it occurs all the time. There is just no entity who wills. There is only the willing. You ask "If there is no self, just impersonal phenomena and conditions, how can there be control, how can there be courses of action?" Well, one can equally well ask "If there is no thinker of thoughts, how can there be the thinking of thoughts?", "If there is no one who feels, how can there be feeling?", and "If there is no one cultivating sila, how can there be sila?" Your question implies that for there to be control, there must be a controller. For there to be thinking, must there be a thinker??? Thinking thinks, feeling feels, and cetana exercises influence. For some reason, people want to make cetana a second-class citizen among the cetasikas. Perhaps this is because willing is thought to be characteristic of a "self". But that's just a mistake. Willing arises, but there is no one who wills. There is no willer and no doer. But willing and kamma occur. Choices are made. The choices are conditioned. They are not random - they are not unconditioned. But choices are made, and they have consequences. In your lead paragraph you ask "Doesn't your post just play the 'let's pretend' game of tipping your hat to the intellectual and spiritual idea of "conditions but no- self", and then carries on regardless in the same way that every person who has never heard the Dhamma does - planning, doing, improving and controlling?" Well, speaking conventionally, we *do* plan, act, improve, and control events to some extent. There does exist quite meaningful (conventional) speech. The Buddha used such speech all the time. Should he have studied Abhidhamma more carefully? ;-) When we are taken in by our speech conventions, we will make all sorts of mistakes. But this needn't be so. A farmer may tell a visitor to his farm that a sprout has the power to grow into a plant. If the visitor asks the farmer where in the sprout that power is located, the farmer would look at him as if he were insane. What the farmer said about the sprout's power to grow into a plant is a conventional way of expressing complex relationships of conditionality. There is nothing wrong with the farmer's conventional statement. In a succinct way it expresses very complex facts. But it is open to substantialist misinterpretation. Likewise, there is nothing wrong in speaking of courses of action and of making choices. This is meaningful and useful language so long as it is not misinterpreted. On the other hand, it *is* wrong to take the literal incorrectness of conventional speech as a basis for saying that choices cannot be made, that nothing can be done, and that whatever will happen will happen, and that's that. The Buddha taught a program of training for us to put into practice. That is true. When our "understanding" of impersonality leads us to the point that we disbelieve the truth of it, it is time, I believe, to change our "understanding". 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) 18563 From: peterdac4298 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 5:08pm Subject: The Lion of Men Hi All Found this on Binh Anson's web page:- http://www.budsas.org/ebud/rdbud/rdbud-01.htm Part of an article by Radhika Abeysekera 4. Yasodhara Yasodhara was the daughter of King Suppabuddha and Queen Pamita. However, her love and devotion are best seen in the poem "The Lion of Men". Pointing out the Buddha and His retinue of monks to their son from the palace balcony, with adoration she described the Buddha and introduced Him to little Rahula. The following are the words she used to describe the Buddha: The Lion of Men His red, sacred feet are marked with an excellent wheel; His long heels are decked with characteristic marks; His feet are adorned with the chowrie (camara) and parasol; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. He is a delicate and noble Sakya Prince; His body is full of characteristic marks; Intent on the welfare of the world; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. Like the full moon is His face; He is dear to gods and men; His gait is as graceful as that of an elephant of noble breed; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. He is of noble lineage, sprung from the warrior caste; His feet have been honoured by gods and men; His mind is well established in morality and concentration; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. Long and prominent is His well-formed nose; His eyelashes are long like those of a heifer; His eyes are exceedingly blue and like a rainbow are His blue-black brows; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. Round and smooth is His well-formed neck; His jaws are strong like that of a lion; His body is golden like that of the king of beasts; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. Soft and deep is His sweet voice; His tongue is as red as vermilion; His white teeth like pearls are twenty, each row; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. Like the colour of collyrium is His blue-black hair; Like a polished golden plate is His smooth forehead; White as the morning star is His beautiful tuft of hair (between the brows); That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. Just as the moon, surrounded by the multitude of stars; Follows the sky's path; Even so goes the Lord, accompanied by His monks; That, indeed, is your father, lion of men. Yasodhara gave up the household life and entered the order of nuns at the same time as Maha Pajapati Gotami . She attained Arahanthship and was declared the chief disciple among the nuns who attained supernormal powers (Maha Abhiaaa) to recall infinite eras of the past. Only four of the Buddha's disciples had such powers. In general, the Buddha's disciples could only recall up to 100,000 world cycles. Yasodara, the Buddha's two chief male disciples and the Elder Bakkula, however, had supernormal powers and could recall incalculable eras. The nun Yasodhara passed away at the age of 78, prior to the Lord Buddha. Cheers Peter 18564 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 5:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) --- Dear Howard, In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Guarding the senses, > and willfully maintaining mindfulness are essential parts of the training. __________ Dear Howard, As we have said so many times on this forum all types of sila and jhana can be developed with an idea of self. But we need to be careful when discussing the development of vipassana as for this any idea of self will hinder. Can mindfulness be "willfully maintined"? Certainly it is possible with enough practice and effort to attend almost continually to breath or feelings or rupas in the body or hardness or seeing but this type of attention is not neccessarly the mindfulness of the eightfold path. ________ > For some reason, people want to make cetana a second-class citizen > among the cetasikas. Perhaps this is because willing is thought to be > characteristic of a "self". But that's just a mistake. __________ Could you be specific as to who does that? It will help if you give quotes. How do you feel about this statement "In the Nidanavagga (book of causation about Paticcasamuppada) the Buddha said in several suttas "Bhikkhus what one intends and what one plans and whatever one has a tendency towards this becomes a basis for the maintenance of consciousness..when consciousness is established there is the production of renewed existence, birth, ageing, death, sorrow ... BUT bhikkhus when one does not intend, and one does not plan and one does not have a tendency toward anything no basis exists for consciousness...there is no production of renewed existence..no birth, ageing, death, sorrow,.."endquote see 576Bodhi ____________ it *is* wrong to take the literal incorrectness of > conventional speech as a basis for saying that choices cannot be made, that > nothing can be done, and that whatever will happen will happen, and that's > that. _____ If someone suggested that here could you refer to the post. Robertk 18565 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 6:03pm Subject: Re: unconditioned state --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > The path will > take one just so far to the other shore, but not all the way. Cessation > just happens, without cause, and pathwise bhavana is, strictly speaking, > unnecessary. ________ Dear larry, Is magga citta (path moment) an unconditioned dhamma? No it is conditioned. RobertK 18566 From: Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 8:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Robert, you wrote: Dear larry, Is magga citta (path moment) an unconditioned dhamma? No it is conditioned. RobertK L: Is path consciousness (magga citta) nibbana? No. For there to be consciousness of nibbana, nibbana (cessation) must have "happened". What caused it? the path? is it somehow already the case? Larry 18567 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 8:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > L: Is path consciousness (magga citta) nibbana? No. For there to be > consciousness of nibbana, nibbana (cessation) must have "happened". What > caused it? the path? is it somehow already the case? > ++++++++++++++++++ Dear Larry, Nibbana is not caused or conditioned by anything. That is why it called unconditioned: it does not arise, nor does it cease. But Nibbana is the object of magga citta - which is conditioned by sammaditthi, right view, and the other factors of the eighfactored path. RobertK 18568 From: Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Robert, So, for a sotapanna nibbana is the cessation of ditthi but nothing causes that cessation. Cognizing that cessation is magga citta and that cognizing is conditioned by the path factors (and the cessation?). Is that how it works? Larry 18569 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 9:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robert, > > So, for a sotapanna nibbana is the cessation of ditthi but nothing > causes that cessation. Cognizing that cessation is magga citta and that > cognizing is conditioned by the path factors (and the cessation?). Is > that how it works? ________ Dear Larry, Let's put it this way: Magga citta experiences nibbana. Magga citta is conditioned and it is magga citta that eradicates ditthi. Nibbana is unconditioned. RobertK 18570 From: Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 9:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Robert, I'll have to ponder this. If you have any textual references to the point that the sotapanna magga citta eradicates ditthi, that would be helpful. Thanks for the dialogue. Larry -------------------- Robert: Dear Larry, Let's put it this way: Magga citta experiences nibbana. Magga citta is conditioned and it is magga citta that eradicates ditthi. Nibbana is unconditioned. RobertK 18571 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 10:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Robert, > > I'll have to ponder this. If you have any textual references to the > point that the sotapanna magga citta eradicates ditthi, that would be > helpful. Thanks for the dialogue. > > Larry > -------------------- Dear Larry, Someone might find a reference for this. I want to add that magga- citta is a citta that has the factors of the eighfold path in full strength. We might think it something mystical or strange but it is really only a highly developed version of the moments of true awareness of dhammas (that may be occuring already). So it is wisdom, panna, sammaditthi, that is performing the function of cutting ditthi - but assisted by the co-occuring factors of viriya and samadhi and the others. Robertk 18572 From: James Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 11:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi Sarah, > The Tathagata can only be freed from the classification of form at > death, parinibbana. While alive, the Tathagata is not yet freed from > form (though he has uprooted the roots by which form arises). The > five aggregates still remain in existence. > > Once FREED (parinibbana), the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to > fathom, like the sea (note that this is a different description by > the Buddha than the one given for nibbana earlier in the sutta). > Which means that any way by which we `point' to the Tathagata, > that `pointing' doesn't apply. > > And, IMHO, the Tathagata, though freed from the classification of > the five aggregates, is not nibbana. We cannot `point' to the > Tathagata as nibbana. Nibbana itself is a phenomenon, the > unconditioned phenomenon. Whereas the Tathagata, freed, is no longer > any phenomenon. The Tathagata, freed, is non-phenomenon, for a lack > of a better word. Hi NEO, I wanted to respond to this post. I know that this is a sticking point: What was the difference between the Buddha alive and dead? I say that there is none; you say that there is. The error, I believe, in your thinking is what you believe 'existence' means. You seem to believe that existence means that 'something' is 'there'. Take for example an apple. You believe that an apple 'exists' because you can see it, feel it, taste it, etc.; and because it appears to be separate from a table, the sky, a tree, etc.; however, none of this is true. Using that criteria, the apple doesn't exist. As the Buddha taught, what only exists are conditions: This/That conditionality. The apple exists because of conditions of 'this', when 'this' is removed, 'that' doesn't exist. So, the apple does not exist as a seperate 'something' that is 'out' there. The same goes for people. If 'this' (craving, desire for existence, ignorance) isn't there, 'that' (a human being) isn't there either. The Buddha didn't have craving, desire for existence, or ignorance, so the Buddha didn't 'exist' by your definition of existing. He was 'deep, unfathomable, and immesurable' while alive and dead. What was the difference? There wasn't a difference. The Buddha was Nibbana. Well, the Buddha explained it all in one very telling sutta: Bahuna Sutta To Bahuna I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying in Campa, on the shore of Gaggara Lake. Then Ven. Bahuna went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to him, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, freed, dissociated, & released from how many things does the Tathagata dwell with unrestricted awareness?" "Freed, dissociated, & released from ten things, Bahuna, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Which ten? Freed, dissociated, & released from form, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. Freed, dissociated, & released from feeling... Freed, dissociated, & released from perception... Freed, dissociated, & released from fabrications... Freed, dissociated, & released from consciousness... Freed, dissociated, & released from birth... Freed, dissociated, & released from aging... Freed, dissociated, & released from death... Freed, dissociated, & released from stress... Freed, dissociated, & released from defilement, the Tathagata dwells with unrestricted awareness. "Just as a red, blue, or white lotus born in the water and growing in the water, rises up above the water and stands with no water adhering to it, in the same way the Tathagata -- freed, dissociated, & released from these ten things -- dwells with unrestricted awareness." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-081.html This entire sutta is in present tense. It is talking about the Buddha as he was at that moment in time, not when he reached parinibbina. So, the Buddha was 'Freed, Dissociated, and Released' from: Form, Feeling, Perception, Fabrications, Consciousness, Birth, Aging, Death, Stress, Defilement. The 'Tathagata', while 'alive' was freed, dissociated, and released from all of these things. How could this be? How could be be freed from aging when he later aged? How could he be freed from death when he later died? I will get to that in a moment. Now, from your way of thinking, you may argue that 'Freed, Dissociated, and Released' doesn't mean they didn't 'exist' anymore, they still 'existed.' If this is so, they existed for who? Surely they didn't exist for the Buddha, he has just said that the very things that compose him, he has been freed from them. What is he now? He is only 'Unrestricted Awareness.' Or, using my previous terminology, 'Pure Mind'. What will he be after parinibbana? Well, the same conditions as above will not have changed any so he will be the same, 'Unrestricted Awareness'; or, again, 'Pure Mind'. So why did he 'appear' to his contemporaries to 'exist'. Why did he appear to age and die? I am not 100% sure, but as I have been arguing, it is because 'we' or 'samsara' continued on the illusion of the Buddha 'existing' even when the 'conditions' for his 'individual existence' had ceased. Even though the conditions that created him had ceased, we had not ceased, post facto we not only create ourselves, we create the whole samsara existence. This is something that the Buddha wanted his monks to find out for themselves, but the Mahayana Buddhists let this 'cat out of the bag' later. Metta, James 18573 From: James Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 11:47pm Subject: Re: unconditioned state --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > What does it mean to say that nibbana is the unconditioned state? Does > it mean that cessation of desire and dukkha is uncaused? If so, there > must be a disconnect between the 8-fold path and nibbana. The path will > take one just so far to the other shore, but not all the way. Cessation > just happens, without cause, and pathwise bhavana is, strictly speaking, > unnecessary. So how is the path a path to the end of dukkha? > > Larry Hi Larry, Hmmm...Abhidhamma explanations of this don't make much sense do they? Please allow me to give a different perspective. You are asking that if Nibbana is unconditioned than the 'stopping' of those things which cause samsara are unconditioned as well. In other words, that Nibbana is the 'result' of the removal of the cause for samsara. Interesting and deep thinking, but I believe slightly off. No, the cessation of desire and dukkha is conditioned; it is conditioned by the Eightfold Path. Remember, conditioning, as taught by the Buddha, is 'this/that' conditioning. When you have 'this', you have 'that'. When you have 'ignorance, craving for existence, and desire' (this), you have 'samsara and dukkha' (that). But what is the 'this' for nibbana? There isn't one. Nibbana isn't a 'that'. Nibbana just 'is'. It was never started and will never end. It is not the result of conditions. Therefore, it cannot be understood with our mind which is the result of conditions. It can't be experienced with any type of 'citta', which are also the result of conditions. I hope this answers in a way you can understand. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18575 From: Date: Mon Jan 6, 2003 9:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Robert - In a message dated 1/6/03 9:02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > > --- Dear Howard, > > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Guarding the senses, > >and willfully maintaining mindfulness are essential parts of the > training. > __________ > Dear Howard, > As we have said so many times on this forum all types of sila and > jhana can be developed with an idea of self. But we need to be > careful when discussing the development of vipassana as for this any > idea of self will hinder. Can mindfulness be "willfully maintined"? > Certainly it is possible with enough practice and effort to attend > almost continually to breath or feelings or rupas in the body or > hardness or seeing but this type of attention is not neccessarly the > mindfulness of the eightfold path. > ---------------------------------------------- Howard: Okay. It must be right mindfulness. ---------------------------------------------- > ________ > > > For some reason, people want to make cetana a second-class > citizen > >among the cetasikas. Perhaps this is because willing is thought to > be > >characteristic of a "self". But that's just a mistake. > > __________ > Could you be specific as to who does that? It will help if you give > quotes. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, then, almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most people think of willing as something that a "self" does, and I conjecture that this is a reason for Buddhists to look askance at cetana. I cannot give you chapter and verse, Robert, but my impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, is that a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have read enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect in this, then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. ----------------------------------------------------- > How do you feel about this statement "In the Nidanavagga > (book of causation about Paticcasamuppada) the Buddha said in > several suttas > "Bhikkhus what one intends and what one plans and whatever one has a > tendency towards this becomes a basis for the maintenance of > consciousness..when consciousness is established there is the > production of renewed existence, birth, ageing, death, sorrow ... > BUT bhikkhus when one does not intend, and one does not plan and one > does not have a tendency toward anything no basis exists for > consciousness...there is no production of renewed existence..no > birth, ageing, death, sorrow,.."endquote see 576Bodhi > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The Buddha made differing statements to different people to address differing "ailments". He also directed his followers to engage in various actions, i.e. to exercise their will. -------------------------------------------------- > ____________ > > it *is* wrong to take the literal incorrectness of > >conventional speech as a basis for saying that choices cannot be > made, that > >nothing can be done, and that whatever will happen will happen, and > that's > >that. > _____ > > If someone suggested that here could you refer to the post. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sorry, I have neither the time nor inclination to do a search. My impression is one of impossibility of taking action. Again, if I'm wrong I'm very pleased. --------------------------------------------------- > > > 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) 18576 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 3:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Hi Rob K (& Christine), --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > > I've also heard/read that the Vessantara Jataka is the first to > disappear > > from the teachings which I found interesting - the hardest for > people to > > accept. > _________ > Dear Sarah, > I hadn't heard that. In Thailand we see so many temples with > paintings of the vessantara Jataka in them. I think it is one of the > most well known Jataka that pretty much everyone learns from an early > age. ..... Yes, it’s also one of the stories told (in verse) in the Cariyapitaka in the Khuddaka Nikaya too. From the DoPPN, the stories told in the Cariyapitaka ‘presuppose a familiar acquaintance with all the incidents of the prose tales. the first two paramis are illustrated by ten storeis each, while the remaining parami have only fifteen stories betwen them.’ Also ‘according to the Commentary , the Cariyapitaka was preached by the Buddha at the Nigrodharama, after the conclusion of the Buddhavamsa and at the request of Sariputta. It was preached by Mahinda at the Nandanavana in Anuradhapura, soon after his arrival in Ceylon.’ As Chris points out, the Jataka stories (as opposed to the short verses) are commentaries, like the Dhammapada stories or Udana commentary (both of which are also far more extensive than the verses).They were undoubetedly, from what I’ve read, handed down by oral tradition and in the manuscripts which Buddhaghosa and other commentators had access to. I believe they’ve also been found in very early cave paintings and are an accepted part of the Pali canon along with the other ancient commentaries by Buddhaghosa and Dhammapala as far as I understand. Rob, the DoPPN also makes reference to the comment about this story disappearing first . Maybe it’s where I had read it. It gives a reference to the Anguttara commentary, i.51. Perhaps Kom or someone with access to this commentary could kindly check it out. After his life as Vessantara, he was reborn in the Tusita heaven having fulfilled all the paramis. From there he was reborn for the last life. I fully understand your feelings of revulsion, Chris. I didn’t read through the story yesterday but was just checking one or two details as I wrote. As I mentioned, even then, there were tears as I wrote, but at the same time great joy in the example of renunciation by the Bodhisatta, Maddi and even the children. “This earth, unconscious though she be, And ignorant of joy or grief, E’en she then felt arms’ mighty power, And shook and quaked full seven times.” ***** It’s very hard to comprehend. I find it helpful just to reflect on the extent of what needs to be given up, rather than on the details. ..... >I was thinking over it today and how much clinging I have > to "my" children. Yet in a few short years I will be dead and in a > new life with no memory of them- but for sure clinging to other > beings. And so samsara continues for endless aeons. ..... I know. It’s not easy to even reflect wisely. Like the reflections on death - this life is just a very small drop in samsara and all we find dear will be gone. Like the wind blowing past as K.Sujin reminds us. So difficult. ..... > http://www.abhidhamma.org/Paramis-%20perfections%20of%20insight.htm > "Asked for his own children, wife, slaves, workers, and servants, > the Great Man does not give them while they are as yet unwilling to > go, afflicted with grief. But when they are willing and joyful, then > he gives them. But if he knows that those who ask for them are > demonic beings-ogres, demons, or goblins-or men of cruel disposition, > then he does not give them away*(cariyapitaka attakatha)" ..... Vessantara’s children (after hiding) eventually agree, but hardly sound joyful......and then try to escape and return to their father, but they’d already been given..... hmm.... Maddi is definitely willing. ..... > These chidren and wives are also beings of great merit and they too > wish to give and are ready to endure hardship on their own path > to parinibbana . .... Yes, there are conditions for them to be in his family and able, like Maddi to see beyond just this life. I’ve also just read that at the same time the future Buddha was born (in his final life), Yasodara (Rahula’s mother), Channa and one or two other key courtiers, Kanthaka, the king of horses that he left the palace on, and also the Bo-tree came into existence. Nothing happens without conditions or by chance. More on this later. ..... > The Bodhisatta gives them not though any disdain but because they are > the most valued that he clings to. He is ready even to let go > of his most loved ones. But perhaps it is even harder to give up self. ..... .....and attachment to self as K.Pasenadi and Q.Mallika acknowledged. Sarah ====== 18577 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 5:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Lion of Men Dear Peter, Christine & All, A few more details on the conditions for becoming a Bodhisatta and the reasons for time, place and family for the birth of the future Buddha: ***** Conditions for becoming a Bodhisatta: http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits001.htm Jâtaka, vol. i., p. 14, l. 20: 1.- human being 2.- male 3.- only one who is capable of enlightenment in the life he makes the wish 4.- wish only in the presence of a living Buddha 5.- only a recluse or monk (not a layman) 6.- only one who has attained all jhanas and powers 7.- firm resolve and ‘ready to sacrifice his life for The Buddhas’ 8.- determination to develop paramis and qualities of a Buddha 9.-able to endure extraordinary and unbelievable hardship ***** Reasons for the time, place, family and mother of the future Buddha (last life time) http://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/bits/bits004.htm 1.- right time when length of life is between 100 and 100,000 years. At the time, the lives were 100 yrs, so it was right. Longer than 100,000 yrs and it’s impossible for beings to appreciate impermanence. ”Also it is not the right time when men's lives are less than a hundred years. And why is it not the right time? Because mortals are then exceedingly corrupt; and an exhortation given to the exceedingly corrupt makes no impression, but, like a mark drawn with a stick on the surface of the water, it immediately disappears. This, therefore, also is not the right time.” 2.-right continent is India. Buddhas are only ever born in India. 3.- right place is the Middle Country for the same reason. (Lumbini falls in this area). “In this country are born The Buddhas, the Private Buddhas,1 the Chief Disciples, the Eighty Great Disciples, the Universal Monarch, and other eminent ones, magnates of the warrior caste, of the Brahman caste, and the wealthy householders. "And in it is this city called Kapilavatthu," thought he, and concluded that there he ought to be born. 4.- right family is the Sakkyan clan “ "The Buddhas," thought he, "are never born into a family of the peasant caste, or of the servile caste; but into one of the warrior caste, or of the Brahman caste, whichever at the time is the higher in public estimation. The warrior caste is now the higher in public estimation. I will be born into a warrior family, and king Suddhodana shall be my father." Thus he decided on the family.” 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 [J.i.4928 ***** We then read: ”Then, surrounded by the gods of the Tusita heaven, and dismissing all the other gods, he entered the Nandana Grove of the Tusita capital,--for in each of the heavens there is a Nandana Grove. And here the gods said, "Attain in your next existence your high destiny," and kept reminding him that he had already paved the way to it by his accumulated merit. Now it was while he was thus dwelling, surrounded by these deities, and continually reminded of his accumulated merit, that he died, and was conceived in the womb of queen Mahâ-Mâyâ.” ***** A little more on Maha Maya’s confinement and why she died a few days after his birth: “From the time the Future Buddha was thus conceived, four angels with swords in their hands kept guard, to ward off all harm from both the Future Buddha and the Future Buddha's mother. No lustful thought sprang up in the mind of the Future Buddha's mother; having reached the pinnacle of good fortune and of glory, she felt comfortable and well, and experienced no exhaustion of body. And within her womb she could distinguish the Future Buddha, like a white thread passed through a transparent jewel. And whereas a womb that has been occupied by a Future Buddha is like the shrine of a temple, and can never be occupied or used again, therefore it was that the mother of the Future Buddha died when he was seven days old, and was reborn in the Tusita heaven.” p. 45 [J.i.5131 ***** Thank you for the extra details, Peter. In this text it mentions that the reason the future Buddha didn’t wake his wife was because she would have prevented his departure. Channa, the courtier and Kanthaka ‘the mighty steed’ (both ‘coming into existence’, like Yasodara on the day of the Bodhisatta’s birth as mentioned) help make the departure possible. Sarah ==== 18578 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 6:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James, I disagree. My interpretation of "freed, dissociated, & released" in this (Bahuna) sutta is different. "Freed, dissociated, & released" means that the three roots of attachment, aversion and ignorance have been uprooted. The Tathagata, while alive, having uprooted the three roots with respect to the ten things, dwells with unrestricted awareness. > So why did he 'appear' to his contemporaries to 'exist'. Why did he > appear to age and die? I am not 100% sure, but as I have been > arguing, it is because 'we' or 'samsara' continued on the illusion > of the Buddha 'existing' even when the 'conditions' for his > 'individual existence' had ceased. This is an untenable position. You yourself isn't sure about it. The Tathagata did not appear to age and die. He aged and died. Period. The Tathagata, knowing aging as aging, has no attachment, nor aversion, nor ignorance about aging. Knowing aging as aging, he dwells, while alive, with unrestricted awareness that he is aging. Same goes for dying, death. To say that the Tathagata does not feel pain and yet the Tathagata says he feels pain is indirectly saying that the Tathagata is a hypocrite. If he doesn't feel pain, the Tathagata will say he doesn't feel pain. The Tathagata does not lie. Though he still feels pain physically, yet he has no mental aversion to it. Knowing physical pain as physical pain, feeling as feeling, he dwells with an unrestricted awareness: there is physical pain, there is feeling. He is mindful of physical pain, mindful of feeling. This mindfulness is that unrestricted awareness. The Tathagata is simply 'aware of'. The Tathagata, dead, no longer has this mindfulness or unrestricted awareness. There is simply no awareness anymore. Even the Buddha admitted that when he was alive, he himself is subjected to aging: Now on that occasion the Blessed One, on emerging from seclusion in the late afternoon, sat warming his back in the western sun. Then Ven. Ananda went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, massaged the Blessed One's limbs with his hand and said, "It's amazing, lord. It's astounding, how the Blessed One's complexion is no longer so clear & bright; his limbs are flabby & wrinkled; his back, bent forward; there's a discernible change in his faculties -- the faculty of the eye, the faculty of the ear, the faculty of the nose, the faculty of the tongue, the faculty of the body." "That's the way it is, Ananda. When young, one is subject to aging; when healthy, subject to illness; when alive, subject to death. The complexion is no longer so clear & bright; the limbs are flabby & wrinkled; the back, bent forward; there's a discernible change in the faculties -- the faculty of the eye, the faculty of the ear, the faculty of the nose, the faculty of the tongue, the faculty of the body." [SN XLVIII.41] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/buddha.html#last Do you mean the Tathagata is putting up a show for Ananda? Do you mean that the Tathagata is putting up the world's greatest show at his parinibbana? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18579 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 2:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi, Robert (and Larry) - In a message dated 1/7/03 12:38:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Dear Larry, > Let's put it this way: Magga citta experiences nibbana. Magga citta > is conditioned and it is magga citta that eradicates ditthi. Nibbana > is unconditioned. > RobertK ============================ I guess part of the "problem" is how nibbana is described. Sometimes it is described as absence - the absence of the three poisons and the absence of dukkha. That seems unproblematical. (In a sense, that absence is always "present" in that dukkha and the three poisons are adventitious, and not essential.) On the other hand, nibbana is sometimes referred to as a cessation. The problem with that, it seems to me, is that cessation is an event, something which occurs in time and which occurs due to certain conditions having preceded it. Perhaps from the perspective of nibbana itself (above the clouds, so to speak), it is absence, and from the perspective of samsara, at the point of realization of nibbana (below the clouds, so to speak), it is cessation. [Just musings on my part.] With metta, Howard P.S. My previous post to you on the Descriptive vs Prescriptive thread was rather hurriedly written early this morning, and, perhaps, not as amicably written as it should have been (for which I apologize). I was rushing off for cataract surgery. I'm back from that now, and though I have a bit of discomfort, I also have the leisure time to write a better post than my previous one. /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) 18580 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 7:49am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Sarah, > > Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, > > tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, > > to-be-experienced by the wise. > > This statement refers to nibbana. Nibbana is the unconditioned > phenomenon. I am correcting my statement. This statement refers to the Dhamma. But I see no implication in my line of reasoning: for one who has realized the Dhamma would also have realized the unconditioned phenomenon, nibbana. I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-001.html Please let me know if you have another interpretation of the word 'reappear' as used by Vaccha. Maybe it's meaning is different in Pali? I do not know any Pali. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18581 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 7:57am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James, > What will he be after parinibbana? Well, the same conditions > as above will not have changed any so he will be the same, > 'Unrestricted Awareness'; or, again, 'Pure Mind'. How do you interpret this verse uttered by Ven. Anuruddha: "Like a flames's unbinding was the liberation of awareness."? When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse: He had no in-&-out breathing, the one who was Such, the firm-minded one, imperturbable & bent on peace: the sage completing his span. With heart unbowed he endured the pain. Like a flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16a.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18582 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 34, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, This whole passage quoted from the Path of Discrimination, does not belong to the sutta text, it is added by Ven. Soma. It is not in my Pali text. Whatever we read baut breathing, in this sutta the context is satipatthana, mindfulness and understanding of nama and rupa that naturally appear, whatever they may be: jhanafactors, or the tangible object of breath or whatever. I would like to say more later on, still overwhelmed by work. Nina op 06-01-2003 01:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.46 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > And so the Blessed One, pointing out the forest abode, the fit place for > speedy exertion in the practice of meditation, said "Gone to the > forest", and so forth. > > Nisidati pallankam abhujitva ujum kayam panidhaya parimukham satim > upatthapetva so satova assasati sato passasati = "Sits down, bends in > his legs crosswise on his lap, keeps is body erect, and arouses > mindfulness in the object of meditation, namely, the breath which is in > front of him. Mindful he breathes in, and mindful he breathes out." > "Arouses mindfulness in front." Fixes the attention by directing it 18583 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:20am Subject: Dhamma Issues 2, Fruition Attainment, no 7 Dhamma Issues 2, Fruition Attainment, no 7 There are three kinds of attainments, samåpatti: jhåna-attainment, fruition-attainment and cessation-attainment (nirodha samåpatti [15) which are progressively more subtle and refined. The ordinary person is able to attain at his own level mundane jhåna. The ariyan who has attained enlightenment with lokuttara cittas accompanied by factors of different stages of jhåna is able to enter fruition-attainment with the phalacitta (fruition-consciousness) accompanied by the jhånafactors in conformity with the stage of jhåna he has attained. With regard to the non-returner and arahat, only those with the eight attainments (of rúpa-jhåna and arúpa-jhåna), can enter cessation-attainment. Therefore, only those who are able to attain jhåna can enter these different attainments, depending on the individual¹s accumulations. 6. We read in the Visuddhimagga Ch XXIII, the Benefits of the Development of Understanding, (XXIII, 11, how can one enter fruition-attainment?): ²And if the Path he has arrived at was accompanied by the first jhåna (pathama jhånika magga), his fruition will also be accompanied by the first jhåna when it arises. If the Path is with the second jhåna, so will the fruition. And so with the other jhånas.² This shows that here only the person who is able to attain jhåna has been referred to. Thus, if the supramundane path-consciousness (lokuttara magga-citta) is accompanied by factors of one of the stages of jhåna he can enter fruition-attainment in accordance with the factors of that particular jhåna. One may object that when for the ariyan without jhåna attainment the magga-citta arises there is a high degree of calm with absorption which can be compared to the calm of the first stage of jhåna. One might therefore conclude that afterwards he is likely to be able to enter fruition-attainment with phala-citta accompanied by factors of the first jhåna (pathama jhånika phala). However, we should consider the following: it is true that the magga-citta of the ariyan without jhåna-attainment has calm with absorption equal to the tranquillity of the first jhåna, but this is because nibbåna is the object at that moment. Since he is without jhåna attainment and he has lokuttara citta without jhåna factors, samådhi, concentration, has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong absorption in the object of nibbåna could arise again after he attained enlightenment and became an ariyan. ****** Footnote 15. Nirodha samåpatti: the attainment of extinction, the temporary suspension of consciousness and all mental activity. 18584 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:58am Subject: Test This is just a test. 18585 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 0:11pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard, and Robert, I wonder if you could give some further clarification about Right Intention (samma sankappa). In his book The Noble Eightfold Path Bhikkhu Bodhi says the term refers to the purposive or conative aspect of mental activity that is sometimes rendered as 'Right Thought' - but the cognitive aspect is covered by the first factor Right View. In his chapter on Right Intention, he states that the Buddha explains Right Intention as threefold: the intention of renunciation (which counters the intention of desire), the intention of good will (which counters the intention of ill will), and the intention of harmlessness (which counters the intention of harmfulness). http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html#ch3 I have been reading a little on intention as kamma, and am not clear about whether intention that is "not acted upon", is kamma. Previously I have understood kamma to be the cetasika cetana ... and then there is zeal, the cetasika chanda, which also means intention, desire, will, according to Nyanatiloka. Is it just a case of differing choices in translation, regarding the use of the words 'intention' or 'thought' and The Noble Eightfold Path? And wouldn't this mean the ideas of 'no control' and 'choice' should be given further consideration? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > In a message dated 1/6/03 9:02:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... > > ________ > > > > > For some reason, people want to make cetana a second-class > > citizen > > >among the cetasikas. Perhaps this is because willing is thought to > > be > > >characteristic of a "self". But that's just a mistake. > > > > __________ > > Could you be specific as to who does that? It will help if you give > > quotes. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, then, > almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most people think of > willing as something that a "self" does, and I conjecture that this is a > reason for Buddhists to look askance at cetana. I cannot give you chapter and > verse, Robert, but my impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, > is that a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little > more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great > fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and that, > because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have read > enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect in this, > then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > How do you feel about this statement "In the Nidanavagga > > (book of causation about Paticcasamuppada) the Buddha said in > > several suttas > > "Bhikkhus what one intends and what one plans and whatever one has a > > tendency towards this becomes a basis for the maintenance of > > consciousness..when consciousness is established there is the > > production of renewed existence, birth, ageing, death, sorrow ... > > BUT bhikkhus when one does not intend, and one does not plan and one > > does not have a tendency toward anything no basis exists for > > consciousness...there is no production of renewed existence..no > > birth, ageing, death, sorrow,.."endquote see 576Bodhi > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > The Buddha made differing statements to different people to address > differing "ailments". He also directed his followers to engage in various > actions, i.e. to exercise their will. > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ____________ > > > > it *is* wrong to take the literal incorrectness of > > >conventional speech as a basis for saying that choices cannot be > > made, that > > >nothing can be done, and that whatever will happen will happen, and > > that's > > >that. > > _____ 18586 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 0:58pm Subject: difficulty with Class Notes Hi RobM, I have been trying to download your Class Notes in the Files section of dsg without success. I have Acrobat Reader 5 installed and haven't had trouble with your previous versions, or with any other PDF files. When I try to download the Class Notes, Acrobat Reader appears and goes through the motions, then presents me with a blank page showing the address at the top and tells me it is 'done'. Is it me? Is it the Class Notes? Is there a middle way? metta, Christine 18587 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 1:12pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Hi Sara I'm having to send this in two parts. It had bounced twice. Hope it works, spliting it into three could get a bit boring. Sarah wrote: Hi Peter, I found all your additional comments that you wrote to Claire very interesting (I hadn't read these last time I wrote). I agree with your comments about the `highly evolved society' at that time in India. Everything seems to suggest this. === Peter writes: I was trying to bring to Claire's attention the crucial role that (highly) cultivated memory played in the development of self-knowledge/wisdom. I believe 'sati' originally meant 'memory' and that 'mindfulness' is a term coined by Rhys Davids. I often wonder how Buddhism in the West would have developed if he had chosen instead something like the term 'recollectedness'. Perhaps he needed to include the concept of 'clarity' and thus needed a new word that could contain both ideas. Except that according to ~Naanamoli, in his 'Abhidhamma Studies', memory = attentiveness + clarity: i.e. without clarity being present at a moment of attention there will be no recollection of it, (or something like that anyway). I feel this way about a few other basic terms, and regret in particular that 'proliferation' isn't made more use of, 'formations' seems so dry and remote to my mind. Maybe RD needed to include the concept of 'accumulation', which doesn't seem to be implied in 'proliferation': (noo?) === Sarah: The reason I raised some of the `depth of anguish' comments in one or two of your later posts is because I think the idea of needing to really suffer, or be taught by `Ajahn Dukkha' as you put it well, is very common. === Peter: Too true. The 'Ajahn Dukkha' idea could easily lead to the extreme view of self-mortification, at least in its more subtle forms. I just felt that it was a more positive way of looking at Dukkha so as to counter the other extreme view/inclination that it is something wrong and needed avoiding: thus instead using it as a ready tool/indicator that the mind was off balance. Within the context of a balanced practice, which would include generous helpings of BrahmaVihara reflections, I would have thought it probably would be OK. === Sarah: I also read this in the article on samvega (sense of urgency) that Christine gave the link for and which we discussed under that heading. === Peter: This brings me to a point further on in your post. Like so many other posts, I haven't read this one. It isn't just writing that is an effort, reading is too. But I will now make a point of taking it in. === Sarah: You mention in your more recent post (in the context of the Bodhisatta's leaving his family and household/princely life): P:"This works because frustration, anguish, despair, etc. re-emerge and drive us onward, ever deeper into the investigation of the Buddha's Dhamma and Vinaya." ..... I think there's a difference between (a) understanding with panna (wisdom) whatever phenomena appear, including kilesa (defilements) such as anguish, despair and fear and (b)seeing these kilesa as being the driving force or sense or urgency that lead to wisdom developing. === Peter: I would agree. As I see it, understanding with wisdom is one thing, but the motivation to make the effort to do this is quite another. For some yogis, somewhere or other, Dukkha is present is some form or other, in their motivation, at some stage in their career. If instead, compassion (e.g. for all sentient beings) is their motivation, such a yogi will enjoy a much more happier career. However, for many of todays Westerners (well me anyway) such happiness, unknowingly, often brings a sense of guilt, whereas Ajahn Dukkha is for some strange reason much more acceptable. Hence the need for wise friends, to point out the absurdity of this. Cheers. === Sarah: In the Bhayabherava Sutta (Fear and Dread), MN4 which the extracts we were looking at were taken from, ... He then goes on to experience the jhanas, recollection of past lives and full enlightenment. ***** So of course there are conditions for all kilesa to arise for us as mere worldlings and we never know what our accumulations will bring at any moment. Any conditioned phenomena have to be known with detachment. This is the only way the path can develop. Understanding the unsatisfactory nature of all conditioned phenomena is different, I think, from having any idea that experiencing deep anguish and so on are necessary constituents or factors of the path. Surely it is the wisdom which develops in spite of the kilesa, rather than the reverse, that leads us to hear, consider and reflect further. === Peter: I can agree with this. My point was that Dukkha was a factor of motivation so as to apply the results of contemplation. The act of applying the conclusions of such contemplation is quite separate from the motivating factors. (Please be so kind as to remember that you are addressing the worlds number one procrastinator!-)) ==== E N D OF P A R T O N E 18588 From: peterdac4298 Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 2:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) P A R T T W O Sarah: In the commentary to the Cariya Pitaka (Treatise on the Paramis in B.Bodhi's Brahmajala Sutta and commentaries p272f) we read about the perfection of equanimity, the last perfection attained by the Bodhisatta: === Peter: I've been meaning to get this title from BPS for some time. Now I will, as soon as I finish this post! === ..... Sarah: I've rather lost my thread, revisiting the Jataka to check one or two points(always with a few tears;-)). I think my point was that the Bodhisatta had to have a lot of highly developed self-knowledge. The paramis can only be developed with wisdom. I believe that one of the conditions or qualifications for being a Bodhisatta is that in the lifetime the vow is made, he has to be capable of being enlightened in that same lifetime. The paramis are developed on top of this already high level of knowledge. ..... === Peter: I think this answers the question I would have asked, namely: what was the wisdom that the Bodhisatta had, that was not the enlightenment/awakening that he attained as Buddha? Your last para seems to say that the Bodhisatta had enough wisdom to get enlightened at the very outset of his Bodhisatta career. Perhaps this was due to his encounter with the Buddha of that eon, to whom he made this vow (another requirement, as I understand from elsewhere). If so, this would make him a very remarkable being indeed (prior to his awakening): presumably this also applied to Yasodhara and all the rest of his close associates too. I can now see the appeal to some notable people of our own eon who have announced their own aspiration to meet the future Buddha Metreya. Very inspiring indeed! === Sarah: One last comment I'd like to refer to briefly only. You said: P:"Meditation would seem to come quite easy to many children if approached in a skillful way. Any good Buddhist temple will have Sunday school lessons for children age from say six to twelve or so. The one in Wimbledon UK, Wat Buddhapadipa, has a very enthusiastic attendance. My own secular experience at around that age: I'd find myself just sat down, (in a bus of all places), when the most amazing feeling of a bliss-like- tranquillity would suddenly and unexpectedly well up, this happened on a couple of occasions around that time. I can still recollect the feeling after all this time." ***** This is a delicate subject. It's very tempting, I think, to consider such special experiences as being something akin to jhana. === Peter: I do agree. I hope I didn't give the impression that I had skills in meditation at the age of ten, or even now for that matter. Just an unexplained and unexpected upwelling of sensation akin to tranquility only in terms of 'flavour', that did not correspond with anything that was going on around me at that time. I can only remember that the mind was completely empty of all thought or mood. In later years, when hiking in open country for a few days, the mind would suddenly go completely empty. And on one such occasion, at what would have been in the middle of a conversation, except that it ended it! === Sarah: I think that only by understanding more about what tranquillity is, how it is conditioned and the understanding there must be of wholesome and unwholesome states, can we answer this question. I believe that the wisdom required and difficulty of jhana is often underestimated. === Peter: Quite so. The jhanas, as I have read about them, require a lot of skill and patience to develop. I have never, as yet, made any attempt to develop such skills, and am probably too old to start. === Sarah: Peter, you mentioned before about your difficulties in writing. May I just say that we would never have known and appreciate all your efforts in this regard. === Peter: Your support and encouragement are much appreciated. But the sad truth is that I cannot spell to save my life (spell checkers spare me from endless embarrassment (when I remember to use them)), nor can I tell my left hand from my right without a few moments to work it out: most awkward when navigating for others in heavy traffic! It takes me a day to read anything worthwhile, and if I don't get too ambitious and just keep my posting to perhaps one a day for most days, I'll probably get by. Even sadder, to my mind, is that I never get to read many of the posts on this list. I am perfectly sure that I am missing out on quite a lot. But I have learned to count my blessings. It would be rather grand to wave a magic wand and wish: May no other beings ever have anything worse to worry about! === Sarah ====== Cheers Peter 18589 From: robmoult Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 2:37pm Subject: Re: difficulty with Class Notes Hi Christine, Good News! The problem is not with you. I experience the same problem. I need to tinker a bit, so I expect the problem should be fixed today. Metta, Rob M :-) PS: Hope you had a good holiday season! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi RobM, > > I have been trying to download your Class Notes in the Files section > of dsg without success. I have Acrobat Reader 5 installed and > haven't had trouble with your previous versions, or with any other > PDF files. > When I try to download the Class Notes, Acrobat Reader appears and > goes through the motions, then presents me with a blank page showing > the address at the top and tells me it is 'done'. > Is it me? Is it the Class Notes? Is there a middle way? > > metta, > Christine 18590 From: robmoult Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 3:29pm Subject: Re: difficulty with Class Notes Hi Christine, Even better News! I think that the problem has been fixed. Please let me know if it still does not work. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Good News! The problem is not with you. I experience the same > problem. I need to tinker a bit, so I expect the problem should be > fixed today. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > PS: Hope you had a good holiday season! > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Hi RobM, > > > > I have been trying to download your Class Notes in the Files > section > > of dsg without success. I have Acrobat Reader 5 installed and > > haven't had trouble with your previous versions, or with any other > > PDF files. > > When I try to download the Class Notes, Acrobat Reader appears and > > goes through the motions, then presents me with a blank page > showing > > the address at the top and tells me it is 'done'. > > Is it me? Is it the Class Notes? Is there a middle way? > > > > metta, > > Christine 18592 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 5:10pm Subject: Way 35, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.47 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati... = "Experiencing the whole body I shall breathe in... breathe out, thinking thus, he trains himself." He trains himself with the following idea: I shall breathe in making known, making clear, to myself the beginning, middle, and end of the whole body of breathings in; I shall breathe out making known, making clear, to myself the beginning, middle and end of the whole body of breathings out. And he breathes in and breathes out with consciousness associated with knowledge making known, making clear, to himself the breaths." "To one bhikkhu, indeed, in the tenuous diffused body of in- breathing or body of out-breathing only the beginning becomes clear; not the middle or the end. He is able to lay hold of only the beginning. In the middle and at the end he is troubled. To another the middle becomes clear and not the beginning or the end. To a third only the end becomes clear; the beginning and the middle do not become clear and he is able only to lay hold of the breath at the end. He is troubled at the beginning and at the middle. To a fourth even all the three stages become clear and he is able to lay hold of all; he is troubled nowhere. For pointing out that this subject of meditation should be developed after the manner of the fourth one, the Master said: Experiencing... He trains himself." "Since in the earlier way of the practice of this meditation there was nothing else to be done but just breathing in and breathing out, it is said: He thinking, I breathe in... understands... and since thereafter there should be endeavor for bringing about knowledge and so forth, it is said, Experiencing the whole body I shall breathe in." 18593 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 9:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi all, There is a lot of discussion on this question of how the unconditioned and the conditioned fit together in the Visuddhimagga. Suffice it to say nibbana is not a mere cessation. It is a reality with its own characteristic (peace). The path leads to the discovery of nibbana by a process of profound disillusionment with conditioned reality. This discovery is likened to swinging across a river on a rope and letting go once we are over the farther bank. It is a definitive cessation because the latent tendencies (anusaya) are eradicated. Vism XXII 12: Here is a simile for this. An archer, it seems, had a target set up at a distance of eight usabhas (about 100 yards), and wrapping his face in a cloth and arming himself with an arrow, he stood on a wheel contrivance (a revolving platform). Another man turned the wheel contrivance, and when the target was opposite the archer, he gave him a sign with a stick. Without pausing after the sign the archer shot the arrow and hit the target. Herein, change-of-lineage knowledge is like the sign with the stick. Path knowledge is like the archer. Path knowledge's making nibbana its object without pausing after the sign given by change-of-lineage, and its piercing and exploding the mass of greed, hate and delusion never pierced and exploded before is like the archer's hitting the target without pausing after the sign. L: I interpret this to mean the act of apprehending nibbana eradicates the anusaya as per whichever of the four path moments it may be. Larry 18594 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why did Buddha concentrate? Last month someone asked why did Buddha continue to concentrate even after he had been enlightened. Here is a relevant passage... "Now, Brahmin, it might be that you think: 'Perhaps the recluse Gotama is not free from lust, hate, and delusion even today, which is why he still resorts to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.' But you should not think thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations." (The Buddha...Majjhima Nikaya Sutta # 4) TG 18595 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 9:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 34, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, I'm not sure what you are refering to: N: This whole passage quoted from the Path of Discrimination, does not belong to the sutta text L: I appended a Pm passage from a note by B. ~Nanamoli to clarify a point in Ven. Soma's text which was the same as one in Visuddimagga. One thing that is a little confusing is that in Vism the path is divided into sila, samadhi, and panna and apparently satipatthana is mostly discussed under the samadhi category. But we want to discuss it as panna. So a textual clarification would be helpful here. Personally, I like satipatthana as samadhi. Early on in the commentary it said body contemplation and feeling contemplation were concerned with developing calm and citta and dhamma contemplation were concerned with developing insight. So we might have to wait until we get to cittanupassana before we see anything like an insight. Several of the 16 topics of anapanasati seem to be insight oriented but I don't know if they are discussed in this commentary. Larry 18596 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 9:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) --- Dear Stephen and Howard In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: This intention is free: = controlled without a controller, +++++++++++++++++++++++ You say there is control without a controller. But where is this said in the texts? Of course when speaking conventionally the Buddha used words such as controlling faculties and we can too. The point is not whether we use conventional terms but the understanding. And in daily life when we drive to the garage it makes no difference whether we believe in self, think that we control it all or not. We can still do so. (we might be more relaxed if we understand anatta though) But when discussing profound matters such as the nature of the khandhas and no-self we should be cautious of saying there is control. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 Anatta-lakkhana Sutta "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' "Feeling is not self... "Perception is not self... "[Mental] fabrications are not self... "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'endquote http://www.abhidhamma.org/samyutta_nikaya_59xxii.htm There are simply conditioned phenomena that arise and perform their functions: When we are fast asleep the khandhas are still arising and passing away - no need to be watching them, trying to control or infuence them. The legs won't fall off (unless there are conditions for that to happen). Exactly the same when we are awake. We won't forget our name or where we live (unless conditions are such for this to happen). Indeed people have nervous breakdowns because they try to control. If they could start to let go of obsessive ideas about what they should and shouldn't do, and the fear (conditioned by clinging to self) that is distorting perception they would become sane in the truest sense. Because anatta-sanna , perception of anatta, is perhpas the most calming perception we can have. Takes a long time to develop though. Another point I would make is that dhammas are here now; the wishing to be aware of them is a different matter from being aware right now. It is fine if I plan to become a wise person in the future, or one with sila, or skilled in jhana; but what about this moment? Is there awareness that this is just thinking? This is what the path is I believe: seeing conditionality everywhere , as Ken often says. Then less concern about future or past, and less clinging to present too. _________ Howard: a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. """ ______ Sounds like Jon is a real no-control freak! Interestingly out the three of us I would estimate Jon is the most restrained in behaviour. Anyway, there is almost continually intention to do this and that and the way is certainly not to try to surpress intention (the quote I gave yesterday where the Buddha said that what one intends and plans is what leads to becoming is very deep - not meant to be copied so much as understood); but instead to understand those moments as they are right now. ========= Howard: ""it *is* wrong to take the literal incorrectness of conventional speech as a basis for saying that choices cannot be made, that nothing can be done, and that whatever will happen will happen, and that's that. The Buddha taught a program of training for us to put into practice. That is true. When our "understanding" of impersonality leads us to the point that we disbelieve the truth of it, it is time, I believe, to change our "understanding".""" __________ Your concerns here remind me (just a very little:))of a sutta. Once the Buddha was expounding in various ways about anatta: "Now at that time this train of thought arose in the awareness of a certain monk: "It seems, then, that form is not-self, feeling is not- self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, consciousness is not-self. So the actions done by what is not-self will touch what self? Then the Blessed One, having encompassed with his awareness the awareness of that monk, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a man -- his awareness immersed in ignorance & governed by craving -- might think that the Teacher's message can be slipped past in this way: 'It seems, then, that form is not-self, feeling ... perception ... fabrications ... consciousness is not-self. So what self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' SN XXII.82 The Buddha taught so much about kamma and the result of actions. But here he was explaining the path out of samsara and for that I believe the anattaness and uncontrollabilty of the khandhas is what is to be known. This is something Jon wrote that is worth reflecting on: "I'd like to suggest that the idea that awareness or understanding must be or is normally preceded by some form of volitional practice doesnot give due account to the conditioned nature of realities that is so central to the Buddha's teaching. .... It is a sobering thought (to me, anyway) that it is not the defilementsthat are so easily noticeable to us (and which we would very much like to be rid of) that are the real obstacles to the development of insight. It is our wrong view and ignorance -- aspects of our kilesa about which we have relatively very little idea -- that are the major hindrances. The development of the path might be a lot easier if it was a matter of somehow dealing with more obvious kilesa."""endquote And what Dan said about viriya in his unique way: "As an example, consider effort/energy/endeavour which is one of the components of each: the right exertions, the bases of power, the five faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the noble eightfold path. We read from the Dhammasangani (376): Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti? "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor?" "That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." Wrong effort?! Everything sounded pretty good up to that point! This is a description of the viriya cetasika arising with lobha-mula- cittani. It is interesting to read how it differs from the viriya cetasika arising with the sense-sphere kusala cittas: [Dhs. 13] "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which is mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of effort, power of effort, right effort -- this at that time is the faculty of endeavor." The only difference is the word "right" in the second paragraph contrasting with the "wrong" of the first. It's fine and dandy to toss around lists of the five this's and the four that's, but it is critical to be able to discern clearly when they are "right" or "wrong" as they arise. This hinges on development of discernment and understanding. `endquote by Dan RobertK 18597 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 10:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] NEO of The Matrix (Was:Re: Dhamma Issues...etc.) Hi James KC: Nibbana is an object of the mind before perluding to realising Nibbana during full Arahantship. I think I did not dispute that Buddha is not in Nibbana. Once a person is a Buddha, we could say that he is in Nibbana simply bc he must be there in order to describe it to us. However we also know that he has also to go through living in his body. His mind is in Nibbana but his karmic body must go through the process of decaying and dying until ParaNibbana. In that sense he is living in Samasara but the mind is in Nibbana. But to equate Samasara to be the same as Nibbana is too far stretch and conflicting bc one is based on conditions while the other is not. KC: Do we say that Buddha exist after ParaNibbana? We know that it is a question Buddha did not answer. If Buddha answer it, then the possibility of us linking to a *self* is very high which defeats his initial goal of telling us to get rid of a self. That is the danger which I feel Mahayana has to be careful of. Even linking it to the "True Nature" is like condoning a "self" belief. Not to answer is the best way to answer this question as we could see his conversation with the wanderer (forget the sutta already) and the "flame sutta". Even KKT mention the sutta which comes from the book "Treasury of Mahayana Suttas" and if I have not forgotton the title is "Sword of Wisdom" is talking about Nibbana or in more simplistic term, anatta. kind rgds KC Finally, he discovered the secret. That to `know' what > > he was seeking, he had to `become' what he was seeking. He had to > forsake `Gotama' and become Nibbana. Then, what he was seeking and > > what he was became one thing. He had reached Nibbana. Nibbana > wasn't an object of `the mind of Gotama' that `he' `knew'; his mind > > had become Nibbana. It had become free. `Gotama' didn't exist any > > longer; he was then The Buddha, the Enlightened One. He would no > longer be subject to birth, death, old age, sickness, or death > because those things were not born of his true nature, they were > born > of craving, ignorance, and desire to keep existing. When those > things were removed, he became his true nature. Existence and non- > existence don't apply to the state of Nibbana that was the Buddha; > those are features of the mind. Gotama had transcended himself, > achieved an exstasis, and become immeasurable. > > This is just my view. If you don't agree, okay. > > Metta, James > > 18598 From: Kenneth Ong Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 10:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Robert K KC: I still remember I discuss this issue before. I think I was wrong the previous times about cetana. You are right to say that there is no control over the khandas but these are for pple who have achieved a certain level of development. I do not know which level. In the meantime, there is a need to direct cetana or not Buddha will not talk about Sila, livelihood and sati. Or during his times, what is to be done what is not to be done bc he knows we are fallable Until we could do unprompted kusala behaviour and latent tendecies are not that strong, there is a need to direct cetana and that needs a certain form of directing cetana and hence Buddha talk about the Eight Noble path which are cater for both mundane and supramundane state. Ultimately, the Buddha path is no control when one developed from citta to maga citta, there is no need for any control as it becomes unprompted kusala behaviour like a tidal wave. kind rgds KC --- "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- > Dear Stephen and Howard > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > This intention is free: = controlled without a controller, > +++++++++++++++++++++++ > You say there is control without a controller. But where is this > said > in the texts? Of course when speaking conventionally the Buddha > used > words such as controlling faculties and we can too. The point is > not > whether we use conventional terms but the understanding. > And in daily life when we drive to the garage it makes no > difference > whether we believe in self, think that we control it all or not. We > > can still do so. (we might be more relaxed if we understand anatta > though) > > But when discussing profound matters such as the nature of the > khandhas and no-self we should be cautious of saying there is > control. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 > Anatta-lakkhana Sutta > "Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would > not > lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard > to > form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But > precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. > And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form > > be thus. Let this form not be thus.' > "Feeling is not self... > "Perception is not self... > "[Mental] fabrications are not self... > "Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this > consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be > possible > [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be > thus. > Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because > consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. > And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let > my > consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'endquote > http://www.abhidhamma.org/samyutta_nikaya_59xxii.htm > > > There are simply conditioned phenomena that arise and perform their > > functions: When we are fast asleep the khandhas are still arising > and > passing away - no need to be watching them, trying to control or > infuence them. The legs won't fall off (unless there are conditions > > for that to happen). Exactly the same when we are awake. > We won't forget our name or where we live (unless conditions are > such > for this to happen). Indeed people have nervous breakdowns because > they try to control. If they could start to let go of obsessive > ideas > about what they should and shouldn't do, and the fear (conditioned > by > clinging to self) that is distorting perception they would become > sane in the truest sense. Because anatta-sanna , perception of > anatta, is perhpas the most calming perception we can have. Takes a > > long time to develop though. > > Another point I would make is that dhammas are here now; the > wishing > to be aware of them is a different matter from being aware right > now. > It is fine if I plan to become a wise person in the future, or one > with sila, or skilled in jhana; but what about this moment? Is > there > awareness that this is just thinking? > This is what the path is I believe: seeing conditionality > everywhere , as Ken often says. Then less concern about future or > past, and less clinging to present too. > > _________ > Howard: a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah > a > little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire > > and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% > kind > of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be > exercised. """ > ______ > Sounds like Jon is a real no-control freak! Interestingly out the > three of us I would estimate Jon is the most restrained in > behaviour. > Anyway, there is almost continually intention to do this and that > and > the way is certainly not to try to surpress intention (the quote I > gave yesterday where the Buddha said that what one intends and > plans > is what leads to becoming is very deep - not meant to be copied so > much as understood); but instead to understand those moments as > they > are right now. > ========= > Howard: ""it *is* wrong to take the literal incorrectness of > conventional speech as a basis for saying that choices cannot be > made, that > nothing can be done, and that whatever will happen will happen, and > > that's > that. The Buddha taught a program of training for us to put into > practice. That is true. When our "understanding" of impersonality > leads us to the point that we disbelieve the truth of it, it is > time, > I believe, to change our "understanding".""" > __________ > > Your concerns here remind me (just a very little:))of a sutta. Once > > the Buddha was expounding in various ways about anatta: > "Now at that time this train of thought arose in the awareness of a > > certain monk: "It seems, then, that form is not-self, feeling is > not- > self, perception is not-self, fabrications are not-self, > consciousness is not-self. So the actions done by what is not-self > will touch what self? > Then the Blessed One, having encompassed with his awareness the > awareness of that monk, addressed the monks: "It's possible that a > > man -- his awareness immersed in ignorance & governed by craving -- > > might think that the Teacher's message can be slipped past in this > way: 'It seems, then, that form is not-self, feeling ... > perception ... fabrications ... consciousness is not-self. So what > self will be touched by the actions done by what is not-self?' SN > XXII.82 > > The Buddha taught so much about kamma and the result of actions. > But > here he was explaining the path out of samsara and for that I > believe > the anattaness and uncontrollabilty of the khandhas is what is to > be > known. > > This is something Jon wrote that is worth reflecting on: "I'd like > to > suggest that the idea that awareness or understanding > must be or is normally preceded by some form of volitional practice > > doesnot give due account to the conditioned nature of realities > that > is so > central to the Buddha's teaching. > .... > It is a sobering thought (to me, anyway) that it is not the > defilementsthat are so easily noticeable to us (and which we would > very much like to be rid of) that are the real obstacles to the > development of insight. It > is our wrong view and ignorance -- aspects of our kilesa about > which > we have relatively very little idea -- that are the major > hindrances. The development of the path might be a lot easier if > it > was a matter of somehow dealing with more obvious > kilesa."""endquote > > And what Dan said about viriya in his unique way: "As an example, > consider effort/energy/endeavour which is one of the components of > each: the right exertions, the bases of power, the five > faculties, the five strengths, the seven factors for Awakening, the > > noble eightfold path. We read from the Dhammasangani (376): Katamam > > tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti? "What at that time is the faculty > > of effort/energy/endeavor?" "That which is mental endeavor > (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting harder and harder, > endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking zeal, utmost > exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering endeavor, having > > sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not relinquishing the task, > discharging the task well, effort (viriya) as the faculty of > effort, > power of effort, wrong effort -- this at that time is the faculty > of > endeavor." > > Wrong effort?! Everything sounded pretty good up to that point! > This > is a description of the viriya cetasika arising with lobha-mula- > cittani. It is interesting to read how it differs from the viriya > cetasika arising with the sense-sphere kusala cittas: > [Dhs. 13] "What > at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? That which > is > mental endeavor (viriyarhambo), riddance of lethargy, exerting > harder > and harder, endeavoring higher and higher, striving, painstaking > zeal, utmost exertion, steadfastness, resoluteness, unfaltering > endeavor, having sustained desire (chanda) to strive, not > relinquishing the task, discharging the task well, effort (viriya) > as > the faculty of effort, power of effort, right effort -- this at > that > time is the faculty of endeavor." > > The only difference is the word "right" in the second paragraph > contrasting with the "wrong" of the first. It's fine and dandy to > toss around lists of the five this's and the four that's, but it is > > critical to be able to discern clearly when they are "right" > or "wrong" as they arise. This hinges on development of discernment > > and understanding. `endquote by Dan > > RobertK 18599 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Some interesting comments on Ethical View vs. Scientific View Hi Rob M, Just a few more brief points on this topic: --- "robmoult " wrote: > >Your post happened just after I went off-line. I did not intend to > question the value of the commentaries nor the value of the > Abhidhammattha Sangha. However, I feel it is important to see > them "as they truly are" and recognize the potential for papanca > that arises (I explain at the end of this post what I mean by > papanca in this context). ,,,, Points all well-taken as I think I indicated before. ..... > Even the "traditional view" recognizes that the Abhidhamma Pitaka > was not the word of the Buddha. In the "traditional view", the > Buddha delivered the Abhidhamma to an assembly of Devas for three > solid months during the seventh vassa (rainy season retreat) after > His enlightenment. Each day, the Buddha would come to earth to eat > and pass along to Sariputta, "This much has been covered thus > far...". Sariputta, being incredibly smart, filled in the details to > the "table of contents" provided by the Buddha and passed the > Abhidhamma to his 500 students (this was eventually written down as > the Abhidhamma Pitaka). In other words, there are three versions of > the Abhidhamma: > - The long version (delivered by the Buddha to the Devas) > - The short version (passed by the Buddha to Sariputta) > - The medium version (passed by Sariputta to his disciples and to us) ..... I understood it rather to be the other way round - that Sariputta was given the medium version and added the “table of contents” and so on. But you may be right in that the Buddha would need to say very little for Sariputta to get the full message, just as when he became enlightened. A few relevant quotes from the Atthasalini (Expositor p.20f) on this rather academic point: 1. “Sariputta, Generalissimo of the Law, went there, served the Supreme Buddha, and sat aside. Then to him the Teacher gave the method saying, ‘Sariputta, so much doctrine has been shown.’ thus the giving of the method was to the chief disciple, who was endowed with analytical knowledge, as though the Buddha stood on the edge of the shore and pointed out the ocean with his open hand. To the Elder also the doctrine taught by the Blessed One in hundreds and thousands of methods became very clear.” ..... 2. “The textual order of the Abhidhamma originated with Sariputta; the numerical series in the Great Book was also determined by him. In this way the Elder, without spoiling the unique doctrine, laid down the numerical series in order to make it easy to learn, remember, study and teach the Law. Such being the case, was the Elder the very first to understand the Abhidhamma? nay, it was the Supreme Buddha who first understood the Abhidhamma.” ..... 3. “..Abhidhamma is not the province of others; it is the province of Buddhas only. Such a discourse as the Abhidhamma can be taught by them only....” ..... 4. About the Patthana (last book of the Abhidhamma) “..Of these the twenty-two triplets and the hundred couplets taught by the omniscient buddha are the directly spoken words of the conqueror and form the table of contents for the seven books. “Then whence arose the other forty-two couplets? By whom were they laid down and taught? They originated with Sariputta, Generalissimo of the Law, having been laid down and taught by him. But he did not lay them down through his own self-evolved knowledge. They have been gathered from ..., in order to help students of the Abhidhamma in their references to the Suttantas. .....” ..... > Of course, one could argue that the Buddha was around for 38 years > after Sariputta passed the Abhidhamma to his students so the Buddha > must have known what was said and had an opportunity to correct any > errors. In any case, I see great value in both the Pitaka and the > commentaries (including the Abhidhammattha Sangha). It is clear that > they were written by people who were much smarter than I am. ..... We also read in many places that the Buddha made comments regarding his chief disciples like: “ ‘Bhikkhus, learned is Mahakaccana, profoundly wise is Mahakaccana. If you had asked me the same question, I would have answered exactly as he has done.’ Thus since the time when the Teacher gave his approval, the whole Suttanta became the word of the Buddha. And it is the same with the suttas expounded by Ananda and others.” ..... > Allow me to explain what prompted my original message. > > I was in Mumbai, India, riding in the back seat of a car. > I asked myself why I was so disconnected with the present moment and > I realized that I had fallen into a trap of "analysis paralysis"; I > was caught up in the intellectual aspects of the Abhidhamma so much > that I forgot the purpose of the Abhidhamma. > > Sarah, I seem to recall you mentioning that Khun Sujin had also > warned against getting caught up in the theory and losing > perspective on the present moment. ..... Exactly so...I think it’s really important to keep in mind the purpose of the study: i.e to detach from the idea of self and to understand realities/actualities at this moment. I appreciate your recent reflections in this regard. ..... > > I observed that the Abhidhamma Pitaka was already quite theoretical > and abstract and noticed that the commentaries and subcommentaries > seemed to be moving in a direction toward increasing theory (i.e. > more specific details of the citta-process, etc.) rather than closer > to the practical application of awareness of the present moment. ..... It depends how anything - a short sutta verse or a long commentary is read - with or without any understanding at the time. Whether reading commentaries or engineering manuals or just day-dreaming (as I found I was happily doing at the dentist’s this morning), it is very easy to be lost in proliferations and without any awareness. Perhaps whilst reading texts or other activities one associates with wholesome states, it’s easier to be fooled;-) We can see how easily the silabbataparamasa (clinging to rites and rituals) can slip in at these times. ..... > I concluded my original message with a conclusion that I would > continue to teach all the theory (including the stuff from the > commentaries and subcommentaries), but I will constantly remind the > students of why we are studying this stuff. This is part of my > effort to minimize pananca. > > By papanca, I meant becoming wrapped up in the theory and losing > sight of the practical. ..... I think I encouraged this in more detail when I last wrote. ..... > Looking back on my original message, this theme was not very clearly > expressed. I apologize. ..... Not at all. No one would ever doubt the value you place on the Abhidhamma texts, Rob and for my part I just appreciate your growing expression of the need to apply what we read and study to the present moment and the development of satipatthana. Sarah ===== 18600 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 0:33am Subject: Re: difficulty with Class Notes Hi Rob, Sorry - still doesn't work. Acrobat reader is now givig a message that the file has been damaged and cannot be repaired. I wonder if anyone else has been having trouble, or has anyone else been successful? I had a wonderful holiday season thank you Rob, and I hope you did also. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Even better News! I think that the problem has been fixed. > > Please let me know if it still does not work. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 18601 From: James Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 0:34am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > I disagree. > > My interpretation of "freed, dissociated, & released" in this > (Bahuna) sutta is different. > > "Freed, dissociated, & released" means that the three roots of > attachment, aversion and ignorance have been uprooted. > > Do you mean the Tathagata is putting up a show for Ananda? > > Do you mean that the Tathagata is putting up the world's greatest > show at his parinibbana? > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, You write: "Freed, dissociated, & released" means that the three roots of attachment, aversion and ignorance have been uprooted" How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'. Look at it this way, the aggregates and the round of becoming is like a prison. The Buddha realized this early on in life, that is why he wanted to be released from the prison. And so what happened? By his own efforts he became 'freed, dissociated, and released." He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy face'. I believe it is much deeper than that. You seem to believe it just affects the brain/mind, I believe it affects the whole being. Enlightenment is a transformation and release down to the molecular level of the entire person, not just the brain. Those who were around the Buddha saw this and felt it. He didn't have to convince 'those with little dust in their eyes'; he didn't have to play twenty questions to prove that he was enlightened. They knew it automatically. I don't know if you meditate, but if you do you will know what I am talking about. Usually, meditation is like sitting in a prison of skin, bones, and bloody guts. But, the more you do it, the more you become released. When wisdom or insight 'arises' in you, it doesn't just arise in your mind; it arises in your whole body. You know that release is possible with your entire body. This is not a trick of the mind, this is a reality. Unless you have experienced it, you will try to figure these things out with your mind. That is a fruitless endeavor. Was the Buddha 'putting on a show'? Gosh, I never said that! The Buddha acted with compassion for the benefit of the unenlightened-- if you want to see that as 'putting on a show', so be it. He did not purposefully startle people, tell them things they were unprepared for, demonstrate his powers, and he acted in a way that they could relate to. He did this out of compassion, not to 'put on a show.' The sutta you quote about Ananda rubbing the Buddha's aching back is quite interesting. To Ananda, the Buddha's back was aching, the Buddha was looking old, etc.; the Buddha told Ananda what was appropriate for him to hear. Do I believe the Buddha's back was really aching? No. I believe that is what Ananda projected onto the Buddha. For example, since we keep talking about the parinibbana of the Buddha. The Buddha died because he ate bad food, bad meat. Have you ever eaten bad meat? If you haven't, please don't ever. It is the absolute worse experience in the world!! Here is a quote about food poisoning: "Food poisoning refers to an acute illness caused by ingestion of food contaminated by bacteria, bacterial toxins, viruses, natural poisons, or harmful chemical substances. It is characterized by a short incubation period (1 wk or less). The symptoms, varying in degree and combination, include abdominal pain, vomiting, diarrhea, headache, and prostration; more serious cases can result in life- threatening neurologic, hepatic, and renal syndromes leading to permanent disability or death." Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had to rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he did not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually able to meditate and reach all four Jhanas? No, that would be quite impossible. In other words, at that time you quote the Buddha was humoring Ananda; but at the Buddha's parinibbana, the Buddha acted just in the way he was supposed to act. None of it was real to him. Metta, James 18602 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 1:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Swee Boon, --- "nidive " wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > I think the question is, when we read "The Tathagata > > is `deep' ..." is it referring to the present state or > > the future Parinibbana of the Tathagata? > > It refers to the parinibbana of the Tathagata. ..... I’m not sure this is right as I wrote before..... we may have to leave it for now. ..... > I think it is very clear that the intention of Vaccha in asking > whether "the Tathagata `reappears' or not" refers to the death of > the Tathagata. ..... agreed ..... > If the Tathagata was alive, the Tathagata `appears' (right before > the eyes of Vaccha). > > If the Tathagata was dead, does the Tathagata `reappear'? This was > the intention of Vaccha's question. ..... agreed .... > > Deep, Vaccha, is this phenomenon, hard to see, hard to realize, > > tranquil, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, > > to-be-experienced by the wise. > > This statement refers to nibbana. Nibbana is the unconditioned > phenomenon. ..... as you corrected later, this refers to the Dhamma and thereby to realizing nibbana (as in the SN quote you gave also). ..... > > "Even so, Vaccha, any physical form by which one describing the > > Tathagata would describe him: That the Tathagata has abandoned, its > > root destroyed, like an uprooted palm tree, deprived of the > > conditions of existence, not destined for future arising. > > The Tathagata, having realized the unconditioned phenomenon, > nibbana, has uprooted the roots for future arising. This refers to > the Tathagata alive. ..... agreed ..... > > Freed from the classification of form, Vaccha, the Tathagata is > deep, > > boundless, hard to fathom, like the sea. 'Reappears' doesn't apply. > > 'Does not reappear' doesn't apply. 'Both does & does not reappear' > > doesn't apply. 'Neither reappears nor does not reappear' doesn't > > apply. > > The Tathagata can only be freed from the classification of form at > death, parinibbana. While alive, the Tathagata is not yet freed from > form (though he has uprooted the roots by which form arises). The > five aggregates still remain in existence. ..... agreed. The phrase in brackets is the key, I think. .... > FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five > aggregates, there is no longer wisdom. > > FREED (note past tense) from the classification of the five > aggregates, there is no longer any more liberation from samsara. > > Once FREED (parinibbana), the Tathagata is deep, boundless, hard to > fathom, like the sea (note that this is a different description by > the Buddha than the one given for nibbana earlier in the sutta). > Which means that any way by which we `point' to the Tathagata, > that `pointing' doesn't apply. ..... I don’t have the Pali (and know little Pali myself). : Freed may also be present passive - i.e (he is)freed. BB translation gives: “The Tathagata has abandoned that material form by which one describing the Tathagata might describe him; he has cut it off at the root...” Note: present perfect tense, i.e up til the present. sub-commentary note “adds that the material form has been abandoned by the abandonment of the fetters connected with it, and it has thus become incapable of arising again in the future.” ..... > And, IMHO, the Tathagata, though freed from the classification of > the five aggregates, is not nibbana. We cannot `point' to the > Tathagata as nibbana. Nibbana itself is a phenomenon, the > unconditioned phenomenon. Whereas the Tathagata, freed, is no longer > any phenomenon. The Tathagata, freed, is non-phenomenon, for a lack > of a better word. ..... Agreed. In context, I think ‘freed’ refers to freed from all kilesa and thereby freed from any future becoming by way of having experienced the unconditioned. I quite appreciate your reasoning and support all your other comments here. .... > My own reflections and considerations. > Mostly translations of suttas. No access to commentaries. Reads ADL > and ATI. ..... I highly respect these and thank you for sharing with us. ..... > I think it is only proper to correct my mistakes. ..... My respect again. Sarah ===== 18603 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 1:27am Subject: Hanging around :-) Hi Antony, Glad you made it into the album at photo number 69! Hopefully others will follow your good example, and make a resolution to hang around in the gallery as well this New Year. Delightful to see another great Aussie smiling out at us, Antony :-) For those unused to navigating their way around dhammastudygroup, click on this link: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst (then click on 'show all', then click on any photo to 'enlarge' it.) metta, Christine 18604 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 2:08am Subject: Golden Lotus Hi Sarah, I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not sure if anyone sent you this previously... It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk" http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm metta, Christine 18605 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi, TG - In a message dated 1/8/03 12:35:11 AM Eastern Standard Time, TGrand458@a... writes: > > Last month someone asked why did Buddha continue to concentrate even after > he > had been enlightened. Here is a relevant passage... > > "Now, Brahmin, it might be that you think: 'Perhaps the recluse Gotama is > not > free from lust, hate, and delusion even today, which is why he still > resorts > to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest.' But you should not think > thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to > jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for > myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations." > (The Buddha...Majjhima Nikaya Sutta # 4) > > TG > > =========================== Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting "to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future generations. By example? By psychic influence? 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) 18606 From: Date: Tue Jan 7, 2003 11:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Robert (and Sarah, and Jon) - In a message dated 1/8/03 12:43:02 AM Eastern Standard Time, rjkjp1@y... writes: > Howard: a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a > little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire > and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind > of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be > exercised. """ > ______ > Sounds like Jon is a real no-control freak! Interestingly out the > three of us I would estimate Jon is the most restrained in behaviour. > ============================ I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon, Sarah, isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) With metta, Howard P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) /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) 18607 From: nidive Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 6:15am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James, > How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it > meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said > that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'. And how do you know that the "unrestricted awareness" refers to the "Pure Mind" concept of yours? > He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he > was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You > are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy face'. Yes, the Buddha was still in prison while alive. But he did not have attachment, aversion and ignorance with regard to this prison. He knew prison as prison. He had comprehended this prison to its very end. In this manner, *his mind* was freed, dissociated and released with regard to this prison. No new kamma was created with regard to this prison. The Buddha did not learn to deal with this prison after he was enlightened. At the point of enlightenment, the three roots are destroyed. Destroyed, the Buddha knows this prison as this prison. He did not need to put on a happy face for anyone, even himself. He felt physical pain, but he endured it. While enduring the pain, do you think he had a happy face at the same time? Or a sad face? No, he was tranquil, ever mindful of the pain. > Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had to > rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he did > not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually able > to meditate and reach all four Jhanas? Whether Ananda had rubbed the Buddha's back or not, the Buddha would still be ever mindful of the pain. The fact that Ananda had rubbed his back is inconsequential. By the way, the sutta I quoted did not say anything about back pain. And lastly, what is the difference between the "awareness" in this sutta below and the "unrestricted awareness" that we talked about? : When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse: He had no in-&-out breathing, the one who was Such, the firm-minded one, imperturbable & bent on peace: the sage completing his span. With heart unbowed he endured the pain. Like a flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16a.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18608 From: James Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 7:17am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > > How do you know that is what it means? If that is what it > > meant, that is what the Buddha would have said. No, he said > > that he dwells 'Freed, dissociated, and released'. > > And how do you know that the "unrestricted awareness" refers to > the "Pure Mind" concept of yours? > > > > He wasn't in prison anymore. What you are saying is that he > > was still in prison but he just learned to deal with it. You > > are suggesting that enlightenment is like 'putting on a happy > face'. > > Yes, the Buddha was still in prison while alive. But he did not have > attachment, aversion and ignorance with regard to this prison. He > knew prison as prison. He had comprehended this prison to its very > end. In this manner, *his mind* was freed, dissociated and released > with regard to this prison. No new kamma was created with regard to > this prison. > > The Buddha did not learn to deal with this prison after he was > enlightened. At the point of enlightenment, the three roots are > destroyed. Destroyed, the Buddha knows this prison as this prison. > He did not need to put on a happy face for anyone, even himself. He > felt physical pain, but he endured it. While enduring the pain, do > you think he had a happy face at the same time? Or a sad face? No, > he was tranquil, ever mindful of the pain. > > > > Now, you think that the Buddha's back hurt so bad that Ananda had > to > > rub it and yet when the Buddha was dying from food poisoning he > did > > not scream out in pain, did not act adversely, and was actually > able > > to meditate and reach all four Jhanas? > > Whether Ananda had rubbed the Buddha's back or not, the Buddha would > still be ever mindful of the pain. The fact that Ananda had rubbed > his back is inconsequential. By the way, the sutta I quoted did not > say anything about back pain. > > > And lastly, what is the difference between the "awareness" in this > sutta below and the "unrestricted awareness" that we talked about? : > > > When the Blessed One was totally Unbound, simultaneously with the > total Unbinding, Ven. Anuruddha uttered this verse: > > He had no in-&-out breathing, > the one who was Such, the firm-minded one, > imperturbable > & bent on peace: > the sage completing his span. > With heart unbowed > he endured the pain. > Like a flame's unbinding > was the liberation > of awareness. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16a.html > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, So, we come down to your opinion vs. mine. That is fine. Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience. Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby. So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body feel different, or the same? Metta, James 18609 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:29am Subject: Perfections Ch 7, Patience, no 11 Perfections Ch 7, Patience, no 11 The present which is superior is the Triple Gem. We have met each other life after life in the cycle of birth and death, in some lives as friends, in other lives as enemies or as parents and relatives. However, to be born as friends in the Dhamma who are cooperating to spread the teachings is most beneficial. Such a life is superior to other lives in the cycle of birth and death, where we were born elsewhere without such an opportunity. We read further on in the Commentary: As regards King Pukkusåti, he arranged for decorations beginning with the border area in the following manner: King Pukkusåti arranged that the city would be decorated so that the royal present from King Bimbisåra could be received. When the royal present arrived in Takkasilå it was a day of vigil (uposatha). The courtiers who received the royal present announced the contents of the royal official letter to the King. After the King had listened to this he considered the duties he had to fulfill towards the courtiers who had come to offer the royal present. He let the royal present be carried to the palace and he said, ²Let nobody enter here². He asked people to guard the gate, he opened the window (used for receiving at official occasions), he had the royal present placed on a high bed, and he himself sat down on a low seat. He broke the royal seal, and he took off the coverings. When he opened the boxes subsequently and saw the box made of bamboomatting, he considered, ³I believe that other Gems do not have such accompaniments, and thus we should listen to this Jewel. This Jewel was certainly born in the Middle Country.² When he had opened those boxes and broken the royal seal, he took away from both sides the delicate blanket made of animal hair, he saw the golden sheet and unrolled this. He considered: ³These letters are really beautifully carved out in all details: they are of equal size, neat and quadrangle. I will start to read them from the beginning.² An intense feeling of joy arose in the King when he read and reread about the excellent qualities of the Buddha who appeared in this world. The tips of the ninetynine thousand bodyhairs stood on end. Because of his extreme delight and rapture the King did not know whether he should stand or sit down. When intense rapture arose within the King he said: ²We heard the teachings which are difficult to come across, even in a hundred thousand aeons, and this could happen because of a friend.² When the King was unable to read on he sat down until his rapture quieted down. Then he started to read on about the excellent qualities of the Dhamma: ³The Dhamma that was wellspoken by the Buddha...² The King experienced intense rapture and he sat down again until the strength of his rapture quieted down. After that he read about the excellent qualities of the Sangha, ³The ariyan disciples practise in the right way...² and he experienced intense rapture in the same way. 18610 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing Larry, this whole passage is not in my Pali text, and the same for the following page. The Co just mentions that this is in the Visuddhimagga. Nina. op 08-01-2003 02:10 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on Breathing, p.47 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > Sabbakayapatisamvedi Assasissami... passasissamiti sikkhati... = > "Experiencing the whole body I shall breathe in... breathe out, thinking > thus, he trains himself." He trains himself with the following idea: I > shall breathe in making known, making clear, to myself the beginning, > middle, and end of the whole body of breathings in; 18611 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 2:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Kenneth Ong wrote: > Hi Robert K > > KC: I still remember I discuss this issue before. I think I was > wrong the previous times about cetana. You are right to say that > there is no control over the khandas but these are for pple who have > achieved a certain level of development. I do not know which level. > In the meantime, there is a need to direct cetana or not Buddha will > not talk about Sila, livelihood and sati. Or during his times, what > is to be done what is not to be done bc he knows we are fallable > Until we could do unprompted kusala behaviour and latent tendecies > are not that strong, there is a need to direct cetana and that needs > a certain form of directing cetana and hence Buddha talk about the > Eight Noble path which are cater for both mundane and supramundane > state. Ultimately, the Buddha path is no control when one developed > from citta to maga citta, there is no need for any control as it > becomes unprompted kusala behaviour like a tidal wave. > > > kind rgds > KC > > ++++++++++ Dear KenO, Thanks for coming into the discussion. Someone asked A. Sujin on a tape I heard, why she stressed anatta so much. She said that for those who have the ability to understand it this deepest aspect of the teachings can only be heard during a Buddhasasana. We can develop sila and samatha whether there exists the teachings of a buddha or not. I think it is not that one who learns about anatta necessarily neglects sila or samatha - rather they will drop away the wrong path (which can include a wrong approach to sila and samatha, silabbataparamasa). In thailand from childhood people chant "sabbe dhamma anatta": it may not be well comprehended but should we tell the monks not to teach it unless someone is at a certain stage? Can we choose when we will hear about anatta and its characteristic (no control)? RobertK 18612 From: Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing Thanks Nina, I see what you were saying now. Do you think this extra material is misleading? Larry ---------------- Nina: Larry, this whole passage is not in my Pali text, and the same for the following page. The Co just mentions that this is in the Visuddhimagga. Nina. 18613 From: Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Why did Buddha concentrate? In a message dated 01/08/2003 4:05:55 AM Pacific Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: << Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting "to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future generations. By example? By psychic influence? With metta, Howard >> I read "compassion for future generations" to mean that he is setting an example of what to follow/do. One resorting to a jungle-thicket would be doing so because it is an ideal abiding for: -- seclusion, concentration, and insight. TG 18614 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 34, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, maybe I was not clear, after the leopard passage, starting with nisidati pallankam (sits down, etc.), then digham va assasato, etc. , then he states: From patisambhida Magga, and after that sabbakayapatisamvedi...next pages, Passambhayam... until : indeed to the yogin training in... all these pages are not in my Pali text. Pali text says, pe, pe (etc.) and: in Visuddhimagga. I heard of a new translation, on Pali yahoo, here is a link you and Christine could try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Pali/files/thepalicentre/anapanasati.zip I am curious, but have no time, and my access is not so good. Insight is from the first to the last item in this sutta, it is all about satipatthana. I shall highlight a few things. op 08-01-2003 06:33 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > L: I appended a Pm passage from a note by B. ~Nanamoli to clarify a > point in Ven. Soma's text which was the same as one in Visuddimagga. One > thing that is a little confusing is that in Vism the path is divided > into sila, samadhi, and panna and apparently satipatthana is mostly > discussed under the samadhi category. But we want to discuss it as > panna. So a textual clarification would be helpful here. Personally, I > like satipatthana as samadhi. Early on in the commentary it said body > contemplation and feeling contemplation were concerned with developing > calm and citta and dhamma contemplation were concerned with developing > insight. So we might have to wait until we get to cittanupassana before > we see anything like an insight. Several of the 16 topics of anapanasati > seem to be insight oriented but I don't know if they are discussed in > this commentary. > 18615 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Golden Lotus Hi Christine, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you > asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not > sure if anyone sent you this previously... > It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana > Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk" > http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm ..... Exactly what I was looking for. The point of the story was that in this case, even Sariputta did not know what the suitable meditation object (of samatha) was. Only the Buddha knew....as it mentions, it turns out the monk had been a goldsmith for 500 existences and so was fascinated by the golden lotus. When the Buddha made it fade away, he realized the tri-lakkhana after developing jhana. The question at the time of the discussion was whether teachers really know what is suitable for students in this regard. Now Chris, we have a few more details, but I still can't see any sutta reference. If you or anyone else manages to track one down, pls let me know again;-) Thanks. Sarah ====== 18616 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon, > Sarah, > isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) ..... Showing restraint, my lips are sealed <---> (hope I get some brownie points for this;-)) > P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) ..... :-) always. Glad the cataract surgery went so smoothly - I was amazed that you were back on line the same day. Ok, Howard, now you’ve dragged me into the discussion, you’ll have to put up with a few more ‘no-control’ comments. Apologies in advance for any misunderstanding of your points below --- 1. H. to Ken: “We start right in the midst of samsara, right in the midst of this world of illusion, and “here” WE must ACT. The ultimate fact that such acting is a mere seeming, mere illusion, does not dictate inacction. The nonexistent “self” must engage in “unreal actions”. ..... S: This sounds like the argument KC also presented (I think) and which I’ve heard quite often from others - namely that there is one rule for us worldlings with wrong view of self and another for those without any illusions. In other words, self rules and acts until it is seen as the illusion. I believe this is contrary to the comment you’ve been making recently to effect that regardless of whether the Buddha taught the dhamma or whether we’ve ever heard it, the truth is the truth. In other words, regardless of any wrong view there may be of self acting, there never is any self to act. ***** 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as it seems, but to not take conventional action........” ..... S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’ and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself. ***** 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.” ..... According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of thing”. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part, along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is never exercised by any agent. “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who fulfil their own and others’ duties.” Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111) (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana) As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas. ***** 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people to address differing “ailments”. He also directed his followers to engage in various actions, i.e. to exercise their will”. ..... S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The instructions don’t change; the understanding does. ***** 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an actual pattern of relations holding among the notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the mind.” ..... S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in that case. ***** This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with light.” you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss agreements here;-) As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and sharing of understanding. Sarah * (quote of yours more fully) H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful, doesn't always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a substitute for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I see it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my opinion, though cold, dry intellectual examination may.” =============================================== 18617 From: James Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: When I give instructions to my students to > work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can > be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The > instructions don't change; the understanding does. Hi Sarah, Now honestly, when you give instructions to your students, do you really know that there is no `you' giving assignments to `them'? I would bet that you are stuck in self-view just like the rest of us unenlightened folk; if I am mistaken I apologize. But assuming that I am right, given that you are stuck in self-view, of what benefit does it serve you to say that there is no self when you don't know directly that there is no self? Is that a method of eliminating craving? Does it lead to insight? I don't understand the point of anyone talking like they are enlightened when they aren't. What is the point of that? Before the Buddha reached enlightenment, did he have self-view? From my studies he did. After all, he wanted to find out where his `self' was and why it was that he existed. Now, if Gotama had self-view, operated under self-view, did not know anything other than self-view, how was it that he could become enlightened? I would assume it was because we all can become enlightened with self- view. How? By OUR OWN efforts. If that weren't possible, Gotama Siddhartha wouldn't have become enlightened. He wouldn't have become the Buddha. So why did he teach anatta after he discovered it? First of all, he only taught it a fraction of how the Abhidhamma goes on about it. Secondly, he only taught it to those who were serious about renunciation and meditation, he did not teach it to lay people. In other words, he didn't want a teacher dispersing instructions to students thinking `there is no self in this process.' What is the point of that? That will lead the teacher and the students to confusion. I don't believe the teaching of anatta is supposed to be dispersed to everyone like a polio vaccination. It is only supposed to be followed by those people who dedicate the entirety of their lives to it. If anyone really wants to know non-self, they need to give up everything, shave their head, wrap themselves in a sheet, and go live in the jungle-- with nothing! Maybe then they can begin to understand non-self; but even then it is difficult! This preaching of nama/rupa, no control, anatta, only the present moment, etc., etc., etc., is putting the cart before the horse, in my estimation. We all need to start right where we are..just like Gotama did. If where we are is in the middle of suburban life, with a job, responsibilities, and little time or energy to meditate-- then we need to start there. Otherwise, all of this emphasis on anatta is like trying to `wish your self away'; which is another form of conceit. If you push down one problem, it will more than likely just pop up somewhere else. Just some ideas I thought I would share. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18618 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, I really liked the way you answered your own question and found your own reference to the point you were discussing with Rob K, i.e “textual reference to the point that the sotapanna magga citta eradicates ditthi”. I like the simile of the archer very much: “Vism XXII 12: Here is a simile for this. An archer, it seems, had a target set up at a distance of eight usabhas (about 100 yards), and wrapping his face in a cloth and arming himself with an arrow, he stood on a wheel contrivance (a revolving platform). Another man turned the wheel contrivance, and when the target was opposite the archer, he gave him a sign with a stick. Without pausing after the sign the archer shot the arrow and hit the target. Herein, change-of-lineage knowledge is like the sign with the stick. Path knowledge is like the archer. Path knowledge's making nibbana its object without pausing after the sign given by change-of-lineage, and its piercing and exploding the mass of greed, hate and delusion never pierced and exploded before is like the archer's hitting the target without pausing after the sign. ” ***** I also agree with your conclusion here, whereby ‘act’ is the magga citta accompanied by the 8-fold path factors: ..... “L: I interpret this to mean the act of apprehending nibbana eradicates the anusaya as per whichever of the four path moments it may be.” ..... While I’m talking to you, I understand the middle way to be the 5-fold or 8-fold path. So at any moment of satipatthana, it is the way. I wasn’t sure about some of your other comments on ways, though, such as the middle way being samsara, kamma and so on. You also mentioned that you ‘like satipatthana as samadhi’. I don’t understand this comment at all. There cannot be any way or satipatthana development without panna (wisdom) and indeed without satipatthana, there cannot be any insights (vipassana). However, there has to be right concentration accompanying moments of satipatthana. I think the Visuddhimaga discusses all kinds of wholesome states and mental development. We can see that all the phenomena discussed are namas and rupas. When you say ‘satipatthana is mostly discussed under the samadhi category’, I’m not clear. Perhaps you’d give a quote. Also, I think some of your comments suggesting that kayanupassana and vedanupassana ‘are associated more with cultivation of quietude while cittanupassana and dhammanupassana are associated more with the cultivation of insight” are rather misleading. I understand why you make these comments from your reading of ‘Way’, but repeatedly in the texts we are encouraged to develop awareness of all realities with detachment and without any selection. After signing off, I want to find and quote some earlier very helpful comments you made about the inventory of reality and understanding of self-view. This applies to all realities (the 5 khandhas as discussed under the 4 sections in ‘Way’) as I understand it. Sorry for yet another long post, Larry. I always start off intending to send you a short reply, but like we read in the chicken and egg sutta, it depends on conditions what turns out, regardless of the initial intention;-) Sarah ====== “L: I've been studying and contemplating on "views" and have found that the Purification of View in the Path of Purification is basically an inventorying of reality with the result that a self is not found there-in. So saying "there is no self" or "there is no self in reality" or "this part of reality is not self and any other part of reality is not self"amounts to the same thing. However, for me, in order for this inventory to be convincing I need to recognize that grasping "I am" is the reality of grasping a usually meaningless concept. So, self-view is actually a reality even though a self is not found when sought. Also I should add there is a big difference between the Purification of View and the eradication of view that is Stream Entry. Purification of View is somewhat on the level of being 'politically correct' while Stream Entry is a glimpse of nibbana. For more info on Purification of View see ch. XVIII Visuddhimagga.” ========================== 18619 From: Date: Wed Jan 8, 2003 11:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 1/9/03 2:52:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > > I can't wait to hear what Sarah has to say about this! (C'mon, > >Sarah, > >isn't Jon really a crypto-wild-man? ;-)) > ..... > Showing restraint, my lips are sealed <---> > (hope I get some brownie points for this;-)) > > >P.S. I hope you all can hear the affection in my voice. :-) > ..... > :-) always. > > Glad the cataract surgery went so smoothly - I was amazed that you were > back on line the same day. > > Ok, Howard, now you’ve dragged me into the discussion, you’ll have to put > up with a few more ‘no-control’ comments. Apologies in advance for any > misunderstanding of your points below --- > > 1. H. to Ken: “We start right in the midst of samsara, right in the midst > of this world of illusion, and “hereâ€? WE must ACT. The ultimate fact that > such acting is a mere seeming, mere illusion, does not dictate inacction. > The nonexistent “selfâ€? must engage in “unreal actionsâ€?. > ..... > S: This sounds like the argument KC also presented (I think) and which > I’ve heard quite often from others - namely that there is one rule for us > worldlings with wrong view of self and another for those without any > illusions. In other words, self rules and acts until it is seen as the > illusion. > ---------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no self who acts. There is no *acting*, if 'acting' implies a self/agent which acts. But there is intention which has consequences, and that, formulated conventionally, is what I mean by "acting". There is kamma and kamma vipaka. ----------------------------------------------------------- > > I believe this is contrary to the comment you’ve been making recently to > effect that regardless of whether the Buddha taught the dhamma or whether > we’ve ever heard it, the truth is the truth. In other words, regardless of > any wrong view there may be of self acting, there never is any self to > act. > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When the two modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of-the-mill worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to do any controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of intentional action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The dhammas which arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. Seeing and hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose what we see and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all three of these sentences are true . But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas are experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention can serve as a condition. Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional action which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for that matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there is, in reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action is impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that nobody is capable of following the Buddha's instructions. -------------------------------------------- > ***** > 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of > powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually > grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as > it seems, but to not take conventional action........â€? > ..... > S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’ > and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental > states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means > nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong > view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to time could be useful. --------------------------------------------------- > ***** > 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.â€? > ..... > According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of > thingâ€?. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring > about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of > whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part, > along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta > and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or > urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is > never exercised by any agent. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' to 'control' - I do *not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the intentional creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana (or, in the case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for a "controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as I'm concerned. ----------------------------------------------------- > > “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence > without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the > function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) > states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing > associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who > fulfil their own and others’ duties.â€? Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111) > > (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana) > > As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were > discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when > we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas. > ***** > 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people > to address differing “ailmentsâ€?. He also directed his followers to engage > in various actions, i.e. to exercise their willâ€?. > ..... > S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as > Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to > ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to > work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can > be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The > instructions don’t change; the understanding does. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I completely agree. ------------------------------------------------------ > ***** > 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an > actual pattern of relations holding among the > notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the > mind.â€? > ..... > S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual > sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a > pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point > because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or > hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral > visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be > nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in > that case. > ***** > This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d > also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points > of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really > appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you > make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis > and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with > light.â€? you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya > and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you > often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end > up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss > agreements here;-) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ > > As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and > sharing of understanding. > > Sarah > * (quote of yours more fully) > H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by > individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful, > doesn't > always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, > plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often > supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a > substitute > for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I > see > it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to > what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic > sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my > opinion, > though cold, dry intellectual examination may.â€? > ============================= 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) 18620 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 8:38am Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James, > Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience. > Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby. That's where the risk lies! What kind of insights do you perceive when you meditate? Things like 'Ananda projecting pain onto the Buddha'? It seems that you are trying to fit the Suttas into your meditation experiences. For me, I try to fit my meditation experiences into the Suttas. Whatever that is experienced during meditation that is not supported by the Suttas, I throw away. For example, I had experienced this so-called White Bright Radiant 'Mind', a.k.a. rigpa or whatever. Tibetan Buddhists (I had read a work on the so-called Book of the Dead) attribute this rigpa to one's true nature. But I rejected it. This rigpa is inconstant and a source of stress. It does not lead to liberation. This is not mine. > So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only > in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel > liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body > feel different, or the same? I do not know what kind of insight do you mean that is experienced by your body. But my body do feel rapturous (piti). It is like electricity running down the body and disappearing like a seawave. But this is not insight. As far as I know, insight only arises in the mind. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18621 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 8:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard and all, I would like to point to some passages about self-control: Dhammapada 12 The Self 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html Sutta Nipata I.10 Alavaka Sutta Endowed with these four qualities, -- truth, self-control, stamina, relinquishment -- a householder of conviction, on passing away, doesn't grieve. Now, go ask others, common priests & contemplatives, if anything better than truth, self-control, endurance, & relinquishment here can be found. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp1-10.html 103-105: Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one -- himself. Better to conquer yourself than others. When you've trained yourself, living in constant self-control, neither a deva nor gandhabba, nor a Mara banded with Brahmas, could turn that triumph back into defeat. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/08.html Metta, Victor > Howard: > No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When the two > modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of- the-mill > worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to do any > controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of intentional > action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The dhammas which > arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. Seeing and > hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose what we see > and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all three of > these sentences are true > . But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas are > experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention can serve > as a condition. Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional action > which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for that > matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there is, in > reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action is > impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that nobody is > capable of following the Buddha's instructions. > -------------------------------------------- > > > ***** > > 2. H to Ken: “..what I take exception to is the implication of > > powerlessness and hopelessness. It is all well and good to intellectually > > grasp that there is nothing but the present moment and that nothing is as > > it seems, but to not take conventional action........â€? > > ..... > > S: That would be wrong view. There will always be ‘conventional action’ > > and there is nothing ‘powerless’ or ‘hopeless’ about any wholesome mental > > states. If there is any idea that the ‘no-control aspect of anatta’ means > > nothing can be done or all is hopeless, this would be a dangerous wrong > > view. I haven’t seen it expressed by Jon, Rob or myself. > > > --------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to time could > be useful. > --------------------------------------------------- > > > ***** > > 3. H to Robert K: “..consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised.â€? > > ..... > > According to the conditional relations, no-control is “a 100% kind of > > thingâ€?. Outside of the various conditions which work together to bring > > about certain results, there is no other factor or agent, regardless of > > whether or not there is any insight. Cetana (volition) plays its part, > > along with all the other namas and rupas. Cetana arises with every citta > > and coordinates or directs the other mental factors. While it ‘wills’ or > > urges wholesome and unwholesome cittas (in the javana process), it is > > never exercised by any agent. > > > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' to 'control' - I do > *not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the intentional > creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana (or, in the > case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for a > "controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as I'm > concerned. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > > > > “..there is no such thing as volition in the four planes of existence > > without the characteristic of coordinating; all volition has it. but the > > function of ‘willing’ is only in moral (kusala) and immoral (akusala) > > states...It has directing as manifestation. It arises directing > > associated states, like the chief disciple, the chief carpenter, etc, who > > fulfil their own and others’ duties.â€? Atthasalini (1, part 1V, Ch 1, 111) > > > > (see Nina’s ‘Cetasikas’ for more details on cetana) > > > > As I wrote to Rob Ep in a post on sakkaya ditthi (self view), we were > > discussing in Thailand how easily one kind or other can slip in even when > > we’ve heard and considered so much about different namas and rupas. > > ***** > > 4. H to Rob K: “The Buddha made differeing statements to different people > > to address differing “ailmentsâ€?. He also directed his followers to engage > > in various actions, i.e. to exercise their willâ€?. > > ..... > > S: I agree with the first comment. With regard to the second, I think as > > Rob K suggested, it depends how we read and understand directions to > > ‘engage in various actions’. When I give instructions to my students to > > work harder, not forget their books and so on.....these instructions can > > be said and received both with and without any idea of self. The > > instructions don’t change; the understanding does. > > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > I completely agree. > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > ***** > > 5. H to Kom: On hearing a melody - “it is based on the existence of an > > actual pattern of relations holding among the > > notes.........pannati......is well-grounded.....useful information to the > > mind.â€? > > ..... > > S: I agree with your comments. I’d put it that depending on the actual > > sounds heard, the particular combination leads to pannatti forming a > > pattern of relations.....well-grounded and so on. It’s a good point > > because sometimes when people hear that seeing sees visible object only or > > hearing hears sound only, they then think this means some blank neutral > > visible object or sound without any variation. Clearly that would be > > nonsense and there would be no concepts and no functioning in the world in > > that case. > > ***** > > This last point was from another thread, but I thought I’d add it. I’d > > also like to say, Howard, that though I only ever seem to pick out points > > of yours that I may not agree with, you also write a lot which I really > > appreciate and fully support. For example, in your last post to Rob M you > > make some very helpful points about the limits of intellectual analysis > > and how “it has the capacity to generate...plenty of murkiness along with > > light.â€? you go on to explain how it is not a substitute for dhammavicaya > > and for sati and sampajanna and so on.* You put it all beautifully as you > > often do. I just mention this one example as I wouldn’t wish anyone to end > > up with the idea that we never agree. It’s just that we seldom discuss > > agreements here;-) > > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-) > ------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > As always, I greatly value all your sincere and honest comments and > > sharing of understanding. > > > > Sarah > > * (quote of yours more fully) > > H: “Just one more point: The intellectual analysis that we engage in, by > > individual thought and through our conversations, while often useful, > > doesn't > > always foster wisdom; it has the capacity to generate, I have no doubt, > > plenty of murkiness along with light. Intellectual analysis, while often > > supportive of the practice, is not the practice, and it is not a > > substitute > > for the enlightenment factor of investigation (dhammavicaya), which, as I > > see > > it, goes hand in hand with direct application of sati and sampaja~n~na to > > what actually arises from moment to moment. Investigation in the Dhammic > > sense will never run counter to the development of compassion in my > > opinion, > > though cold, dry intellectual examination may.â€? > > > ============================= > With metta, > Howard 18622 From: James Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > > Most of my evaluation comes from personal meditation experience. > > Though rudimentary compared to the Buddha, probably not too shabby. > > That's where the risk lies! What kind of insights do you perceive > when you meditate? Things like 'Ananda projecting pain onto the > Buddha'? > > It seems that you are trying to fit the Suttas into your meditation > experiences. > > For me, I try to fit my meditation experiences into the Suttas. > Whatever that is experienced during meditation that is not supported > by the Suttas, I throw away. > > For example, I had experienced this so-called White Bright > Radiant 'Mind', a.k.a. rigpa or whatever. Tibetan Buddhists (I had > read a work on the so-called Book of the Dead) attribute this rigpa > to one's true nature. But I rejected it. This rigpa is inconstant > and a source of stress. It does not lead to liberation. This is not > mine. > > > > So tell me, when you meditate do you find that insight arises only > > in your mind or through out your body? Does your whole body feel > > liberated at moments of insight, or just your mind? Do your body > > feel different, or the same? > > I do not know what kind of insight do you mean that is experienced > by your body. > > But my body do feel rapturous (piti). It is like electricity running > down the body and disappearing like a seawave. But this is not > insight. > > As far as I know, insight only arises in the mind. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Well, I see that you and I are quite different. I look at the suttas as only a rudimentary finger pointing the direction to go. They are not the destination and they do not contain everything there is to know. Not only did the Buddha not intend that, the passage of time and translation makes that impossible. If you want to adhere to the suttas like Holy Scripture, more power to you. I refuse to do that. I have a mind of my own. In meditation, you should not `reject' or `attach' to anything. You simply observe everything closely as non-self, (i.e. with equanimity). When the white light arises in your mind, there is no need to `reject' it, but there is no need to put special significance to it either. It is just there. Let it be. The electricity-like energy running through your body that disappears in waves is more than likely not piti. Piti is the feeling of intense joy as one begins the process of release of the aggregates. It is a factor of the mind, an emotion, and must be abandoned (not rejected, nor attached to) as one progresses to higher stages. What I believe you are experiencing is the beginning to a realization of the aggregates themselves, a precursor to piti. As your mind becomes more tranquil and refined, the waves of electricity-like energy you feel running through your body will become smaller and smaller. You will them begin to feel them as minute vibrations throughout the body. You will then see that the vibrations: phase `in-and-out'. This will bring about the first stages of the feeling of piti, but not the most powerful feelings. Those powerful feelings come when you begin to `know' the vibration- nature of the mind itself: consciousness, thoughts, feelings, and perception. However, in all of this vibration-mass of energy phasing in and out, the one thing that remains constant…at least for me…is awareness. Awareness of this process seems to be separate from the mind or the body. This is what I call `Pure Mind'. If there weren't a pure, unrestricted awareness, Nibbana wouldn't be possible. The reason I say that Nibbana affects the whole body is because this awareness isn't restricted to the head alone. It doesn't seem to `dwell' anywhere; the entire body, including the brain and its functions, dwells within it. It is unrestricted by space or time. If this matches sutta references or not, I don't care. I know what I know. As the Lord Buddha advised, 'Be a light unto yourself'. Metta, James 18623 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 35, Comm, Breathing op 09-01-2003 00:42 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Thanks Nina, I see what you were saying now. Do you think this extra > material is misleading? > Dear Larry, well it depends on the citta of the reader. Nina. 18624 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:12am Subject: right thinking Dear Christine, I saw that you mentioned right thinking, but I was so hurried, I threw it. This was my last day of hard work and tomorrow I can react. I would like to share something with you: in Bgk at the house of Kunying Nopparath we all read the Vibhangasutta and commentary and discussed right thinking. I look it up, Nina. 18625 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: right thinking Dear Nina, Thank you, I look forward to reading your post. I would really appreciate any clarification you may be able to give on 'right thought'. The previous message was at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/18585 metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > I saw that you mentioned right thinking, but I was so hurried, I threw it. > This was my last day of hard work and tomorrow I can react. I would like to > share something with you: in Bgk at the house of Kunying Nopparath we all > read the Vibhangasutta and commentary and discussed right thinking. I look > it up, > Nina. 18626 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:52am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello James, Swee Boon and any interested meditators. I have been following with great interest your exchanges, but particularly the recent ones about meditation. I stopped meditation in the formal sense over a year ago, but recently read an article that has given me further to consider. I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this article and share any considerations that may arise. (It is about ten pages long.) The article is called "Experiments in Insight Meditation" and is written by Rod Bucknell who was the translator of Ajahn Buddhadasa's 'Handbook for Mankind'. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/toc.htm#4 A little about the author: "Rod Bucknell first became seriously interested in Buddhism in the mid -1960's, when, during a visit to Thailand, he was introduced to the techniques of Insight Meditation. After spending a year in various Thai meditation centers and monasteries, he took ordination as a bhikkhu (monk) under the guidance of Ajahn Pannananda of Wat Cholapratan Rangsarit. He soon became interested also in the teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa, and, recognizing their potential value to westerners, began translating some of the Ajahn's more important works into English. During the four years he spent in the Sangha, he translated altogether six works of varying length, usually in close consultation with the Ajahn in order to ensure accuracy in the rendering of key concepts. Despite his return to lay life, he maintains a close interest - both scholarly and practical - in Ajahn Buddhadasa's teachings, and has published several related articles in religious studies journals. He is currently a lecturer in the Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, Australia." (actually, I think he is an assoc. prof. now.) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: 18627 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Golden Lotus Hi Sarah, The only connection I found was a reference to Dhammapada v. 285 It mentions a lily in the verse, but a lotus in the story attached, though not a golden lotus, or Sariputta. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Christine, > > --- "christine_forsyth " > wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > > > I was browsing the Useful Posts and came across one (16672) where you > > asked for a reference to the Buddha giving a monk a golden lotus. Not > > sure if anyone sent you this previously... > > It is mentioned at the link below - Fundamentals of Vipassana > > Meditation by Mahasi Sayadaw. Click on "The dull young monk" > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/fundamentals/fundamentals.htm > ..... > Exactly what I was looking for. The point of the story was that in this > case, even Sariputta did not know what the suitable meditation object (of > samatha) was. Only the Buddha knew....as it mentions, it turns out the > monk had been a goldsmith for 500 existences and so was fascinated by the > golden lotus. When the Buddha made it fade away, he realized the > tri-lakkhana after developing jhana. > > The question at the time of the discussion was whether teachers really > know what is suitable for students in this regard. > > Now Chris, we have a few more details, but I still can't see any sutta > reference. If you or anyone else manages to track one down, pls let me > know again;-) > > Thanks. > > Sarah > ====== 18628 From: Robert Eddison Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 0:12pm Subject: Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? TG: >> thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to >> jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant abiding for >> myself here and now, and I have compassion for future generations." Howard: > Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for elucidation, it >seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might have still had >preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over unpleasanat and >neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's resorting >"to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to future >generations. By example? By psychic influence? I would think by example. The same two benefits are stated in an expanded form by Mahaakassapa when the Buddha asks him why he continues with the practice of forest dwelling, wearing rag-robes and other forms of ascesis now that he is an old man and no longer has any personal need to live in this way. Kassapa's reply is ranked by the commentary as a lion's roar: "For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have compassion for later generations, thinking, 'May those of later generations follow my example! For when they hear, 'The enlightened disciples of the Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of forest dwelling, were almsfood eaters and spoke in praise of eating almsfood, were rag-robe wearers and spoke in praise of wearing rag-robes, were triple-robe users and spoke in praise of using the triple-robe, were of few wishes and spoke in praise of fewness of wishes, were content and spoke in praise of contentment; were secluded and spoke in favour of seclusion, were aloof from society and spoke in praise of aloofness from society, were energetic and spoke in praise of arousing energy,' then they will practise accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for a long time." (Ji.n.na Sutta, S ii 203. Bodhi, Connected Discourses I 667) Best wishes, Robert 18629 From: Peter Da Costa Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:29pm Subject: Wrong view Hi Jon Just to say that your comments below have been quite valuable in the time since receiving them. Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of how 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its remedy requires just simple knowing. In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now understand this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely aware, since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, if there is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing something. If it seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead (what ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly makes Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the current activity, or situation. Right now, I have decided to put my time into reading through Nina's AinDL as located on Zolag. I should have done this decades ago, but better late than never. I hope to be able to follow posts more closely and make contributions more in keeping with the tradition of the group. In appreciation Peter p.s. I've sent a cc to dsg. At 21:14 07/01/2003 +0800, you wrote: >Peter > >Delighted to hear that you are benefitting from the recent discussion. > > --- Peter Da Costa wrote: > Thank you Jon > Jon:- >There is of course no magic bullet, since the root cuse of our problems is >the accumulated ignorance and wrong view, which is so tenacious and deeply >ingrained. But just knowing that much can help. At least our >expectations are that much more realistic! > >Jon 18630 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:58pm Subject: Way 36, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on Breathing, p. 48 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Passambhayam kayasamkharam assasissamiti... passasissamiti sikkhati = "Calming the activity of the body I shall breathe in... breathe out, thinking thus, he trains himself." He thinks: " I shall breathe in and I shall breathe out, quieting, making smooth, making tranquil and peaceful the activity of the in-and-out-breathing body. And in that way, he trains himself." "In this connection coarseness, fineness and calm should be understood thus: Without contemplative effort, the body and the mind of this bhikkhu are distressed, coarse. When the body and the mind are coarse, the in-and-out-breathings too are coarse and proceed uncalmly; the nasal aperture becomes inadequate and he has to breathe through the mouth, too. But when the body and the mind are under control then the body and the mind become placid, restful. When these are restful, the breathings proceed so fine that the bhikkhu doubts whether or not the breathings are going on." "The breathing of a man who runs down from a hill, puts down a heavy burden from his head, and stands still is coarse; his nasal aperture becomes inadequate and he breathes through the mouth, too. But when he rids himself of his fatigue, takes a bath and a drink of water, and puts a wet cloth over his heart and is sitting in the shade, his breathing becomes fine, and he is at a loss to know whether it exists or not. Comparable to that man is the bhikkhu whose breaths become so fine after the taking up of the practice of contemplation that he finds it difficult to say whether he is breathing or not. What is the reason for this? Without taking up the practice of meditation he does not perceive, concentrate on, reflect on, or think over, the question of calming the gross activity of the breathing body, the breaths, but with the practice of meditation he does. Therefore, the activity of the breath-body becomes finer in the time in which meditation is practiced than in the time in which there is no practice. So the men of old said: "In the agitated mind and body the breath is of the coarsest kind. In the unexcited body, fully subtle does it wind." "How does he train himself with the thought: Calming the activity of the body, I shall breathe in... breathe out? What are the activities of the body? Those things of the body of breaths, those things bound up with that body, are the activities of the body. Causing the body-activities to become composed, to become smooth and calm, he trains himself... He trains himself thinking thus: Calming the body-activity by way of (quieting) the bodily activities of bending forwards, sidewards, all over, and backwards, and (by way of the quieting of) the moving, quivering, vibrating, and quaking of the body, I shall breathe in... I shall breathe out. I shall breathe in and I shall breathe out, calming the activity of the body, by way of whatsoever peaceful and fine body-activities of non-bending of the body forwards, sidewards, all over and backwards, of non-moving, non-quivering, non-vibrating, and non-quaking of the body."[19] 19. In the explanation of the contemplation on breathing, the passage beginning with "When breathing in long, how does he understand, 'I breathe in long'" and ending with the words "non-quaking of the body", consists of extracts from pages 272-277 of the Visuddhi Magga, Part 1. P.T.S. Edition. 18631 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 4:56pm Subject: Re: Wrong view --- Dear Peter, I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this piece from a talk A. Sujin gave: ""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other than the present one, since these appear to be more wholesome, one will never study the object which appears now. And how can one know their true nature when there is no study, no awareness of them? So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move one away to another object, that object satisfies one's desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can it be eradicated? One has to understand different degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, otherwise one does not know when there is lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which moves one away from developing right understanding of the present object.""endquote Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa wrote: > Hi Jon > > > Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of how > 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its remedy > requires just simple knowing. > > In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now understand > this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely aware, > since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, if there > is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing something. If it > seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead (what > ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' > noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant > signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly makes > Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the current > activity, or situation. 18632 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 5:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Sarah, Thanks for your comments. Unfortunately I can't respond to many of the questions you raised concerning what I wrote because I don't remember the context and anything more than a week old is no longer "me" :)) Of current interest, I am a little puzzled by how satipatthana is treated in the Visuddhimagga. It seems to be discussed mostly as a preliminary to jhana. However, there is also incidental mention of two vehicles, pure insight and jhana. I haven't made a thorough search yet, but so far I haven't found a description of what a pure insight vehicle is and I haven't seen "pure insight vehicle" equated with satipatthana. So, where is the insight in satipatthana in Visuddhimagga? Larry 18633 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:14pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Wrong view Dear Friends, For a long time I have been pondering if I should ask this question. Now that you have again mention the name of A. Sujin, I feel I should ask. I have never met or know a thing about Sujin, I have started asking a few Thai monks here and the USA what they think of her or if they could give me some information. The answers. They hate her, the reason is that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the Shanga. They gave me all kind of other things which I am compeled to be quiet. So can somebody tell me why is it that she is so much dislake it by the Thai Shanga. Venerable Yanatharo -----Mensaje original----- De: rjkjp1 [mailto:rjkjp1@y...] Enviado el: Viernes, Enero 10, 2003 11:57 a.m. Para: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Asunto: [dsg] Re: Wrong view --- Dear Peter, I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this piece from a talk A. Sujin gave: ""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other than the present one, since these appear to be more wholesome, one will never study the object which appears now. And how can one know their true nature when there is no study, no awareness of them? So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move one away to another object, that object satisfies one's desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can it be eradicated? One has to understand different degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, otherwise one does not know when there is lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which moves one away from developing right understanding of the present object.""endquote Robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Peter Da Costa wrote: > Hi Jon > > > Even attempts to rectify a given mental situation, regardless of how > 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for its remedy > requires just simple knowing. > > In other posts you assert that there is 'nothing to do'. I now understand > this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or be purely aware, > since these are the fundamental function of mind. In other words, if there > is no knowing or awareness then the mind is in fact doing something. If it > seems as though nothing at all is happening then it is either dead (what > ever that may be), or it is overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' > noise, just mass, random activity with no discernable, resultant > signal. Happily the remedy is in just that knowing. It suddenly makes > Dhamma universally applicable in daily life regardless of the current > activity, or situation. 18634 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 6:48pm Subject: No-control & Destiny Dear everybody, I have some questions and I'd like to hear your opinion. __If there is absolutely << no-control >> in the sense that everything happens (or arises) because of << conditions >> then what is the difference with << destiny, fate >> ? Because destiny also means that things happen outside of << our >> control. __If deep down we realize that we have no control over any situation, no free will to << do >> anything then we become calm and un-disturbed by whatever happens in life. Is this a correct approach to life? __Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by << conditions >> What do you think? Thanks. Regards, KKT 18635 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 7:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, Everyone will have different answers, so here are mine and then you can give us yours: KKT: __If there is absolutely << no-control >> in the sense that everything happens (or arises) because of << conditions >> then what is the difference with << destiny, fate >> ? Because destiny also means that things happen outside of << our >> control. L: There is no control and no destiny because there is no self. "No control" and "no doer" mean exactly the same as anatta. There is no difference. KKT: __If deep down we realize that we have no control over any situation, no free will to << do >> anything then we become calm and un-disturbed by whatever happens in life. Is this a correct approach to life? L: This is a good approach. The correct approach is the 8-fold path that leads to the end of dukkha. This end is without striving and possibly even without calm, insofar as calm is like a blanket. KKT: __Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by <> L: I think the Buddha taught one thing in many ways, all conventional. What does it mean to say "I understand" or "I don't understand"? You could look at the experience of understanding or bewilderment when it arises and see what is going on. Is there an "I" there? If not, where is the understanding or bewilderment? Larry 18636 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hello Robert, >Yes, names are not important - it is always whether there is >understanding of the actual moments. You say "intention is free" >because its not determined. You seem to believe that if there is no >free will that there must be determinism? I don't think so. Instead >there are complex conditions are both conditioned and conditioning. >Cetana, intention, is one of the mental factors that are part of >sankhara khandha . Leaving aside that each moment of sankhara khandha >is conditioned by past moments (e.g.anantarapaccaya ) each cetana >that arises is also conditioned by other elements that arise together >with it - (sahajata paccaya , conascence condition,) according to the >Abhidhamma. I'm not sure what we're up to here; I said that a choice or intention was indeed conditioned, and even multiply so. If our intentions weren't conditioned (= caused) they would be random, something that merely *happens*. But if they're determined then they're not free; that's the meaning of the word. So: one could have done otherwise, given the conditioning (which is contra-causal causality). Perhaps we're just discussing language. (One needs to be careful about 'conditioned and conditioning' to avoid causality backwards in time.) ["Determinism is the view that everything in the universe is determined to be what it is by come cause; and, given the prior existence of that cause, it could not be otherwise... If determinism is correct, then every even in the universe, throughout all future time, is necessarily determined in advance by the first state of the universe." Keith Ward, Key Words in Philosophy.] >> This is merely another way of saying that we're not automatons >> or marionettes. >Could we be puppets though? >http://www.abhidhamma.org/Patthana%203%20chapter_7.htm >In the "Kindred Sayings"(I, Sagåthå-vagga, V, Suttas of Sisters, § 9), >Neither self-made the puppet is, nor yet By other wrought is this ill- >plighted thing. >By reason of a cause it came to be, >By rupture of a cause it dies away. >Like a certain seed sown in the field, >Which, when it comes upon the taste of earth, >And moisture likewise, by these two grows, >So the five khandhas, the elements, >And the six spheres of sense >even all these, >By reason of a cause they came to be; >By rupture of a cause they die away.""" That's a good definition of determinism; no choice or intention, everything that happens is a result of causes over which we have no control. Consequently there's no religious life, no kamma. The very definition, also, of what it means to be inauthentic. I reject this passage either as written or as translated. It's also possible that puppet is being used in some special sense, like the extinguishing of fire is, in the suttas. Perhaps we can say, regarding the quotes below, that physical and chemical bodily events are necessary causes of intentions (because we are embodied, and choices work through neurons and such) but they are not sufficient causes; they are not fully explanatory of an intentional action. For that we require free choice which is conditioned but not determined, and need not be made by a Self. >From the VisuddhiMagga, chap. xi. And it is when the body is >impelled by the wind element that it performs its four functions > of walking, standing, sitting, or lying-down, or draws in and > stretches out its arms, or moves its hands and its feet. Thus > does this machine made of the four elements move like a > puppet, and deceives all foolish people with its femininity, > masculinity, etc"endquote. > From majjhima nikaya 82 p683 Bodhi > "Behold a puppet here pranked out, > a body built from sores, > sick, an object of concern, where no stabilty abides" > > "Just as a wooden puppet though unsubstantial, lifeless and > inactive may by means of pulling strings be made to move > about, stand up, and appear full of life and activity; just so are > mind and body, as such, something empty, lifeless and inactive; but > by means of their mutual working together, this mental and > bodily combination may move about, stand up, and appear full > of life and activity." > from the Satipatthana sutta atthakatta (sections on modes of > deportment)"Just as a ship goes on by winds impelled, > Just as a shaft goes by the bowstring's force, > So goes this body in its forward course > Full driven by the vibrant thrust of air. > As to the puppet's back the dodge-thread's tied > So to the body-doll the mind is joined > And pulled by that the body moves, stands, sits. > Where is the living being that can stand, > Or walk, by force of its own inner strength, >Without conditions that give it support? " >Acharn Sujin spoke to me while we were in Kaeng Krachan about that >anattaness of this world. She said there really are no people, no >Sujin, no Robert, no Nina. There are only momentary phenomena. It >sort of shocked me at the time because I was in a slight daydream >about a grilfriend , enjoying being lost in concept, I didn't want to >know the truth right then. Didn't want to think there was just >conditions, nama and rupa. But then sometimes there is awareness of a >dhamma, like hardness or lobha, and there is just a little insight >that it really is that way. You do see that saying there are no people because 'people' is a concept but saying there is hardness, when 'hardness' is equally a concept, is a contradiction? This is a repeat of KKT's banned quote; people aren't real so don't worry about how you treat them. You can't mistreat something that isn't real. Nor can you mistreat someone if you can't refrain from mistreating them; that is, if one has no control over the situation. BTW, if bathing in rivers purified one then fishes would be especially pure. If having no concepts (language) just immediate awareness of nama and rupa purified one then animals, who have no concepts, would exceed us in the holy life ;-) >> (Someone(s) have systematically gone through the suttas putting in >>standard formulas for jhana and the hindrances. This isn't too harmful. When >>we come to the abhidhamma since there were 5 hindrances they decided to >>have 5 levels of jhana. Neato. By this point not only did these systematizers and >>copyist have no experiences to get in the way of their catalogs they're >>were no longer even interested in having any; truth had ceased to be a >>hindrance to them.) >"truth had ceased to be a hindrance to them". You mean that >Buddhaghosa and the monks who recorded the early commentaries were >liars? "Have no experience to get in the way" : how do you know they >had no experience of Jhana? Since lying requires knowing the truth they weren't lying; experience was not a matter of interest to them, merely categorizing. (I haven't read much of Buddhaghosa on the jhana so I don't have any specific comment here.) If there are 4 jhana and 5 hindrances to simply say, 'Hey, lets have 5 jhana to match up with the hindrances!' is possible only in someone who hasn't had a ny experience, nor are they interested in anyone acquiring the experiences; just lists. This is Samma Samadhi that's being amputated here. I don't really want to do a post on jhana. If you've done even bit of meditating with concentration in mind it's not difficult to spot drivel. (As a rule of thumb: any contemporary author who defines the first jhana in terms of nimitta and begins talking of kasina meditation should be ignored.) >You mean that consciousness lasts? Yes; it's called the specious present. It's empirical and investigated. You mean it has *no* duration? Okay, then the question is: lets measure it. This has been done. >Where do you get ideas about anything being 'faster than the speed of >light" Citta, consciousness arises and passes away- it doesn't go >anywhere. it's certainly not speeding around the universe. Nor does >it last billions of years to come to the earth as scientists talk >about light travelling from other planets. Not part of Abhidhamma. This is somewhat awkward for me, but this is an oft made statement (direct quote) from a peer of yours and Acharn Sujin (whose first name begins with A). I shall be pleased to drop it. (The fastest any mental event can occur would be measured, at the very very outside, in thousands of a second; really, many hundreds for even a subliminal consciousness. Isn't that more than fast enough?) Of course we shall never agree on many points of significant importance to both of us. I want to say: on the Big Picture. But perhaps it's the little picture that really matters (as Sarah sort of noted, if I don't misrepresent her). The passing phenomena, in themselves. I am not especially happy with countra-causal causality, but it's the best I've seen anyone do. It's all too easy to use a personal pronoun to wash out the difficulty, clearly faced by the abhidhamma, of giving a precise account of cetana and other mental events as they occur without a Self. In this and many other respects I do admire and find abhidhammic analysis useful. (I tried to give some inner sense or feel of this with the Taoist notion of wu-wei, or not-doing; doing, but not self-doing; doing with the grain of reality, not for an individuated self.) Perhaps we can pursue the issue in this manner; as I noted in the second post, I will no longer do so in terms of the above. metta, stephen 18637 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:30pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hello Robert, >Dear Stephen and Howard >In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: >This intention is free: = controlled without a controller, >+++++++++++++++++++++++ >You say there is control without a controller. But where is this said >in the texts? The Buddha said that kamma is intention, did he not? "People have intentions then perform...kamma accordingly." A.III.415 The Buddha said if you're afraid of dukkha don't perform bad kamma, did he not? Ud.51 That entails one can refrain from performing bad kamma. And the Buddha exhorted us in many places to perform good kamma, did he not? Which means we're free to perform good kamma. Our intention is free, we can choose: = we have control. Since there's no self the conclusion above readily follows. >The point is not >whether we use conventional terms but the understanding. >And in daily life when we drive to the garage it makes no difference >whether we believe in self, think that we control it all or not. We >can still do so. (we might be more relaxed if we understand anatta >though) Belief isn't relevant. Control is. A robot could drive into a garage without any beliefs, subject only to conditions of programming. That doesn't describe a human situation. Show me how to drive into the garage with no control. Please don't use my garage;-) >But when discussing profound matters such as the nature of the >khandhas and no-self we should be cautious of saying there is >control. Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 >Anatta-lakkhana Sutta >"Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not >lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible [to say] with regard to >form, 'Let this form be thus. Let this form not be thus.' But >precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease. >And it is not possible [to say] with regard to form, 'Let this form >be thus. Let this form not be thus.' >"Feeling is not self... >"Perception is not self... >"[Mental] fabrications are not self... >"Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this >consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease. It would be possible >[to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my consciousness be thus. >Let my consciousness not be thus.' But precisely because >consciousness is not self, consciousness lends itself to dis-ease. >And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let my >consciousness be thus. Let my consciousness not be thus.'endquote >http://www.abhidhamma.org/samyutta_nikaya_59xxii.htm > > >There are simply conditioned phenomena that arise and perform their >functions: When we are fast asleep the khandhas are still arising and >passing away - no need to be watching them, trying to control or >influence them. The legs won't fall off (unless there are conditions >for that to happen). Exactly the same when we are awake. Pure determinism. Wow, what a relief to know that I'm not responsible for any of my actions since they're the result of conditions over which I had no control. Think you can use this to cop to insanity when you wreck my garage? ;-) The underlined portion above *defines the insanity plea* in California. "These words of the Buddha protect against overly extreme views that tend to see kamma only in terms of past kamma, portraying people as if they were passively lying around waiting for the fruits of their kamma to come knocking and determine their future. If this were the case, people need not think about improving or changing themselves. And this would be a most terrible mistake." Phra Prayudh Payutto, Buddhadhamma, p.149. Didn't Christine say that improving, changing, control, doing didn't really exist, were incompatible with anatta? Perhaps you should take your metaphysics more seriously. It's not that it's false, or leads to inaction: it's irresponsible. (Imagine telling such things to a battered woman. One such wrote dsg or dl this past year, as did others with mental problems — who, BTW, received completely inappropriate dhammic advice to psychiatric situations. I'm not putting up any more posts on this subject and I urge you to keep it in Pali, as it were, to avoid harming someone who might actually act on your advice.) >We won't forget our name or where we live (unless conditions are such >for this to happen). Indeed people have nervous breakdowns because >they try to control. If they could start to let go of obsessive ideas >about what they should and shouldn't do, and the fear (conditioned by >clinging to self) that is distorting perception they would become >sane in the truest sense. Someone who felt that they were a robot or puppet would be literally insane. I could introduce you to some autistic children who fit the bill. Someone who thought that they couldn't do anything, had no control over anything, that planning and improving were myths would be completely dysfunctional. It's just, fortunately, talk. I.e., "Ultimate Truths." >Because anatta-sanna , perception of >anatta, is perhaps the most calming perception we can have. Takes a >long time to develop though. I'd be very interested if you could sort of phenomenologically describe anatta-sanna. Does it make sense to do so, to ask for this description, in the context of walking down a street or among some trees? metta, stephen 18638 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 3:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? It occurs to me that the Buddha had a bad back; he was once in so much pain that he couldn't continue a talk. (D.iii.209) Now I'm *wondering* if the Buddha needed to attain a fairly high state of jhana as relief; wouldn't he have taken a vicodin or pain pill of some sort? Jhana is (sort of) it's equivalent for the time. I'm not sure if there's anything about this scenario that's at odds with being a Buddha. metta, stephen 18639 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:05pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Wrong view Dear Ven Yanatharo, --- "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > > The answers. They hate her, the reason > is > that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the > Shanga. ..... I understand your concern. I would be very surprised to hear anyone be able to directly quote any words from A.Sujin herself to suggest even mild disapproval or any aversion at all on this topic. Certainly in the nearly 30 years I’ve known her (including weeks staying under her roof at a time when I was young), I haven’t heard her even discuss Thai monks in particular and almost everything I have learnt about respect for the Sangha, I’ve learnt from her. I think that others here who have also known her for a long time and gone on numerous trips with her would say the same. Last year when we were in Thailand, I think someone may have raised some articles in the newspaper about corrupt Thai monks. I remember she made no comments and took no interest. Her concern is always to help others understand the dhamma whilst following whatever lifestyle (as monk or lay person) is suitable according to their inclinations. As for the response of the Thai monks you mention, I can’t comment. For myself, I find all the reminders about not returning ‘hate’ with ‘hate’, not reciprocating, developing metta, guarding the sense doors, seeing kamma as the cause of our own results and so on to be very helpful. As Victor just reminded us: 103-105: Greater in battle than the man who would conquer a thousand-thousand men, is he who would conquer just one -- himself. Better to conquer yourself than others. When you've trained yourself, living in constant self-control, neither a deva nor gandhabba, nor a Mara banded with Brahmas, could turn that triumph back into defeat. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/08.html ***** Perhaps it is thus more useful to consider our own mental states and responses when we hear rumours than to be overly concerned about the others’. Wishing you a happy and wise New Year and hoping that your toe has recovered. (Having had a few broken toes myself, I know it takes a long time. Perhaps you will have the good fortune to meet A.Sujin yourself one day. I have no doubt that this would very quickly settle your concerns in this regard. metta, Sarah ====== 18640 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 9:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view ---Dear Venerable yanatharo, In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: You asked about this on d-l list many months ago. I'd like to add to what I said. I've recently left thailand after a 3 month spell including visits to the center where Sujin teaches. I think almost every time I visited there were Thai monks in the audience listening and asking questions in the large hall. If they hated Sujin I don't think they would come to a center where she is the head teacher. It may be that some monks hate her (none have ever indicated this to me though - and I've spoken with a hundred or so) but then I have noticed that a fair percentage of monks in Thailand also don't like Abhidhamma. Before I heard of Sujin I met several Thai monks who were openly critical of Burmese monks based on this fact. As sujin is a leading exponent of Abhidhamma in Thailand this may be the reason. Also there are many ex-monks who now teach at the center (friends of Sujin) who have a deep knowledge of Vinaya and who encourage the study of it by laypeople. Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong for monks to accept money. As the foundation radio programs reach thousands I can imagine a few monks (who may be using money) being annoyed to be told by a follower that they heard on Sujin's program that they are wrong to take money. I was at a meeting with Sujin when one of the men at the center said some of the monks who come to the center buy the Cds (of Sujins talks) with their own money and he didn't like this. But the concensus was that it was not up to him (or us) to tell the monks what to do and that if the monks listened much to the CDS they would gain more respect for Dhammavinaya and stop using money by their own accord. Also Sujin has a refined understanding of Dhamma that she freely dispenses on the radio. There are, no doubt, monks who have a different understanding of Dhamma who might object to being told by over-enthusiastic listeners to the radio that "No, you are wrong, Acharn sujin said..." Last year Sujin was given an honorary degree by Mahamakut University: the monks university where advanced Pali ect is taught. This university is run by monks and no woman attend it. I understand that only two woman (sujin and the Kings daughter ) have ever received an honarary degree. I think it indicates that at least some knowledgeable monks don't hate Sujin. I asked her if I could add this to the preface of the new book (survey) but she said it was irrelevant. Not because of disdain but simply because it is not by honors or popularity that one can judge who follows Dhamma. Sujin can be direct about wrong view. About 5 years back I spoke to her about the Dhammakaya group after their abbot made an annoucement that there actually was a subtle self in Buddhism. She said to me that this was wrong view. I can imagine Thai people asking similar questions and then going and telling monks who hold such views that "Acharn Sujin said.....". Offense can be taken. I am sure that Sujin has much respect for those monks who follow and teach Dhammavinaya correctly. For example she told me about a well- known monk who runs a radio program (also on Abhidhamma) which she said was very good. His name slips me , it starts with a K. RobertK 18641 From: Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Christine, What sort of considerations did you have in mind? Larry ----------------- Christine: I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this article and share any considerations that may arise. 18642 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 10:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Yasodhara (rather large) Dear Peter, S:I'm combining your two posts. Hope it's not too confusing. I’ll start with the note from the end of your post and hope that’s OK. You wrote: ..... Peter: “Your support and encouragement are much appreciated. But the sad truth is that I cannot spell to save my life (spell checkers spare me from endless embarrassment (when I remember to use them)), nor can I tell my left hand from my right without a few moments to work it out: most awkward when navigating for others in heavy traffic! It takes me a day to read anything worthwhile, and if I don't get too ambitious and just keep my posting to perhaps one a day for most days, I'll probably get by....” ..... S:I think it’s helpful for others to read your comments and perhaps be inspired by the trouble you go to. I know quite a number of posters on DSG and I think we all have our own particular difficulties and obstacles with regard to writing in this forum. Whether they are physical problems, time constraints, various kilesa that play up such as impatience, expectations, attachments, aversions or whatever, I don’t believe anyone finds it easy. ..... Peter:“Even sadder, to my mind, is that I never get to read many of the posts on this list. I am perfectly sure that I am missing out on quite a lot. But I have learned to count my blessings. It would be rather grand to wave a magic wand and wish: May no other beings ever have anything worse to worry about!” ..... S: Just take your time, I suggest... I print out messages because I find it hard to read more than a paragraph or two on the computer screen. With regard to your left and right hand comments, it reminds me of the early days when I was learning Tai Chi. I’m really slow at being able to watch a demonstration by the teacher and then imitate it. I think it relates to hopeless spatial memory, i.e I always get lost in new places and can never retrace simple steps. So my early attempts at Tai chi were a source of great amusement to others and embarrassment(mana - conceit)to me. It was aggravated by the poetic Chinese used which was way over my head, but understood by everyone else. Anyway, I persevered, practised more than most and after a year was given a promotion to the front line. A few years later, I’m probably about the one only one who still practises the Tai chi regularly. So, in the grand scheme of things, whether we are quick or slow or what disabilities we have really doesn’t matter much. ***** P:> I believe 'sati' originally > meant 'memory' and that 'mindfulness' is a term coined by Rhys > Davids. I often wonder how Buddhism in the West would have > developed if he had chosen instead something like the > term 'recollectedness'. Perhaps he needed to include the concept > of 'clarity' and thus needed a new word that could contain both > ideas. Except that according to ~Naanamoli, in his 'Abhidhamma > Studies', memory = attentiveness + clarity: i.e. without clarity > being present at a moment of attention there will be no recollection > of it, (or something like that anyway). ..... S: I have no problem with ‘recollectedness’ unless someone has an idea of thinking or conventional memory when using it. ..... P: > I feel this way about a few other basic terms, and regret in > particular that 'proliferation' isn't made more use of, 'formations' > seems so dry and remote to my mind. Maybe RD needed to include the > concept of 'accumulation', which doesn't seem to be implied > in 'proliferation': (noo?) ..... S: Usually ‘proliferations’ is used for papanca, always in a negative sense. Formations is used for sankhara in the sense of phenomena being conditioned or ‘formed up’ as I understand. Accumulations are different again and usually relate to the collected wholesome and unwholesome states. > === > Peter: Too true. The 'Ajahn Dukkha' idea could easily lead to the > extreme view of self-mortification, at least in its more subtle > forms. I just felt that it was a more positive way of looking at > Dukkha so as to counter the other extreme view/inclination that it > is something wrong and needed avoiding: thus instead using it as a > ready tool/indicator that the mind was off balance. Within the > context of a balanced practice, which would include generous > helpings of BrahmaVihara reflections, I would have thought it > probably would be OK. ..... S: Sometimes a ‘balanced practice’ can again suggest a ‘doing’ or ‘selection’. I think it’s more helpful to see the value of understanding whatever reality appears as it is and the value of developing all kinds of wholesome states. As you say, it’s not a matter of avoiding, but of understanding. > === > Peter: This brings me to a point further on in your post. Like so > many other posts, I haven't read this one. It isn't just writing > that is an effort, reading is too. But I will now make a point of > taking it in. > === S: If you go to escribe and type in samvega (or any other key term you’re looking for), you’ll get the relevant posts up: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/ ..... > Peter: I would agree. As I see it, understanding with wisdom is > one thing, but the motivation to make the effort to do this is quite > another. For some yogis, somewhere or other, Dukkha is present is > some form or other, in their motivation, at some stage in their > career. If instead, compassion (e.g. for all sentient beings) is > their motivation, such a yogi will enjoy a much more happier > career. However, for many of todays Westerners (well me anyway) > such happiness, unknowingly, often brings a sense of guilt, whereas > Ajahn Dukkha is for some strange reason much more acceptable. ..... S: Perhaps we’re not used to recognising and seeing the danger in all kinds of aversion, including the guilt? Or we just think of dukkha dukkha (unpleasant bodily and mental feelings) without appreciating the inherent dukkha in each reality, including the beloved? Whatever we think are the motivations, I think it is the moment of awareness and understanding now of what appears that leads to more awareness and understanding in future. ..... P: > (Please be so kind as to > remember that you are addressing the > worlds number one procrastinator!-)) > ==== S: No evidence of this so far;-) ..... Peter: “I think this answers the question I would have asked, namely: what was the wisdom that the Bodhisatta had, that was not the enlightenment/awakening that he attained as Buddha? Your last para seems to say that the Bodhisatta had enough wisdom to get enlightened at the very outset of his Bodhisatta career. Perhaps this was due to his encounter with the Buddha of that eon, to whom he made this vow (another requirement, as I understand from elsewhere). If so, this would make him a very remarkable being indeed (prior to his awakening): presumably this also applied to Yasodhara and all the rest of his close associates too.” ..... S: Yes, see my other post with comments about the conditions for becoming a Bodhisatta. Prior to his enlightenment, of course this wisdom was not of vipassana or that which eradicated the idea of self. In a footnote to MN4, describing the Bodhisatta’s wisdom, BB writes: “~Nm originally had rendered this phrase as “perfect in understanding,” and the correspondng phrase in the preceding section as “perfect in concentration.” However, since it seems inappropriate to ascribe perfection in samadhi and panna to the Bodhisatta prior to his enlightenment, I have chosen to render the suffix ‘sampanna’ throughout as “possessed of.” MA explains that this is neither the wisdom of insight nor of the path, but the wisdom that defines the nature of its object (aaramma.navavatthaanapa~n~a).” ..... P: “I can now see the appeal to some notable people of our own eon who have announced their own aspiration to meet the future Buddha Metreya. Very inspiring indeed!” ..... S: Of course, as we know from suttas like the chicken and egg one or the wishing one, whether such an aspiration is met or not will depend on the conditions rather than the aspiration. === Peter: Quite so. The jhanas, as I have read about them, require a lot of skill and patience to develop. I have never, as yet, made any attempt to develop such skills, and am probably too old to start. === S: Again, I think any development of any wholesome states, depends on the understanding and conditions rather than the attempts and any skills. If there is a ‘blank mind’ but no precise knowledge of the object or nature of kusala and akusala, I don’t understand there can be any samatha development even in the beginning stages, but I don’t think you meant any differently. Greatly appreciating your contributions which are very encouraging as well. Sarah ====== 18643 From: James Date: Thu Jan 9, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello James, Swee Boon and any interested meditators. > > I have been following with great interest your exchanges, but > particularly the recent ones about meditation. I stopped meditation > in the formal sense over a year ago, but recently read an article > that has given me further to consider. > I wonder if either of you, or anyone else, has time to read this > article and share any considerations that may arise. (It is about > ten pages long.) The article is called "Experiments in Insight > Meditation" and is written by Rod Bucknell who was the translator of > Ajahn Buddhadasa's 'Handbook for Mankind'. > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/9280/toc.htm#4 > > A little about the author: > "Rod Bucknell first became seriously interested in Buddhism in the > mid -1960's, when, during a visit to Thailand, he was introduced to > the techniques of Insight Meditation. After spending a year in > various Thai meditation centers and monasteries, he took ordination > as a bhikkhu (monk) under the guidance of Ajahn Pannananda of Wat > Cholapratan Rangsarit. He soon became interested also in the > teachings of Ajahn Buddhadasa, and, recognizing their potential value > to westerners, began translating some of the Ajahn's more important > works into English. During the four years he spent in the Sangha, he > translated altogether six works of varying length, usually in close > consultation with the Ajahn in order to ensure accuracy in the > rendering of key concepts. Despite his return to lay life, he > maintains a close interest - both scholarly and practical - in Ajahn > Buddhadasa's teachings, and has published several related articles in > religious studies journals. He is currently a lecturer in the > Department of Studies in Religion at the University of Queensland, > Australia." > (actually, I think he is an assoc. prof. now.) > > metta, > Christine > Hi Christine, I read this article and I will give you my `considerations' or `impressions' of the material contained therein. This is not going to be easy to write out, as there are a lot of factors to consider, but I will try my best. If you want to follow up with more discussion, that would be fine. Overall, I feel that it is very unfortunate that Mr. Bucknell had such a poor introduction to Vipassana meditation as he experienced in Thailand. He is obviously eager, dedicated, and enthusiastic about the practice and the subject. What he was taught at the first center in Thailand was, in my estimation, very harmful to his later development and influenced his later development. A proper Vipassana teacher shouldn't direct the student toward focusing on any particular sensation or experience as `important'. For the teacher to tell him that he was having a `breakthrough' in mediation and to keep fostering a certain experience is not the right way. He discovered this himself and left the center in disgust. Unfortunately, that teacher gave him the wrong idea of Vipassana meditation. He came away with the impression that events that occur in the body or in the mind are significant and that if one could just `figure them out' insight will arise. This is wrong practice! Let me explain by responding to his new `experiments' in Vipassana mediation (which are not Vipassana mediation techniques, but are actually forms of bio-feedback and meta-cognition). His techniques of `Retracing', `The Inner Voice', `Link Watching', etc., are just different variations of the error in practice that he first picked up in Thailand. He is looking at his thoughts, trying to figure them out, putting special significance to certain events and combinations, and literally `driving himself crazy' with all of the resulting mental gymnastics! Did you feel a little manic reading about how his experiments progressed? I know I did! He got himself so entangled in layer after layer of mental pondering that he hardly knew up from down! Of course, after he got the technique down a bit, he was able to control his thinking to some extent. But not for very long…it always reverted back to his thinking getting out of control. Christine, I would not recommend that you follow any of these techniques. I believe that they could be quite dangerous as well as not being proper Vipassana mediation. You did not ask me to describe proper Vipassana mediation, only to respond to this article, so I will leave it at that. I don't want to tell you what you already know. But you may wonder, "Who is James to make this determination?" Well, since you gave Mr. Bucknell's qualifications in dhamma, I will give you a bit about my background. The following is a letter that the abbot of my temple wrote for me to become a Buddhist monk (which I ultimately didn't do because I do have problems with how the Sangha is being run…throughout the world. But some are better than others.): June 3, 2002 Phramaha Winai Booncham Abbot of Wat Promkunaram Ajahn Pasanno and Ajahn Jayasaro Wat Pah Nanachat Ban Bung Wai, Amper Warin Ubon Ratchathani 34310 Thailand Re: Mr. James Mitchell Dear Ajahan Pasanno and Ajahn Jayasaro: I am writing on behalf of Mr. James Mitchell who wishes to take residence at Wat Pah Nanachat to study and eventually become ordained as a Buddhist monk. Mr. James has been a Temple Disciple of Wat Promkunaram for seven years. During that time he was a student to Ajahn Somporn and assisted him in the leading of week, weekend, and daylong meditation retreats. His assistance was crucial in the translation of dharma talks/instruction and Vipassana meditation techniques. He is practiced in Samatha and Vipassana meditation and can teach the techniques of standing, walking, and sitting meditation to Americans unfamiliar with such techniques. His assistance helped to make the retreats helpful and popular for all participants. He is also very knowledgeable about Buddhism and has been a Buddhist, and has practiced meditation, for 15 years. His knowledge and background are unique for an American. Additionally, he has conducted his own, self-guided 10-day meditation retreat here at Wat Promkunaram. He is disciplined, knowledgeable, helpful, and sincere in his desire to learn and practice the teachings of the Buddha. His interest and ability lies in meditation, teaching meditation, and explaining the Buddha's teachings to those unfamiliar with them. He hopes to eventually help Westerners gain further understanding and appreciation of Buddhism. I believe your temple would be of great benefit to him as he pursues this noble goal. I recommend Mr. James Mitchell to become a novice at your temple with the goal of becoming ordained. Please contact me by mail to let me know if you can accommodate him within the next few months. He needs to make plans regarding his job and resolve his financial affairs. He is sincere in his desire and believes that your forest tradition will be of good benefit to him. I agree. Thank you for your attention to this letter and consideration of Mr. James Mitchell on my behalf. Have a good day. Sincerely, Pramaha Winai Booncham Abbot of Wat Promkunaram Actually Christine, it makes me sad to read this letter again. So many dreams unfulfilled. Oh well, such is karma. Metta, James 18644 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:33am Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, > __If deep down we realize that > we have no control over any situation, > no free will to << do >> anything > then we become calm and un-disturbed > by whatever happens in life. That is an assumption. > Is this a correct approach to life? No. > > > __Can we say that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding? > > On the first level He stressed people > to make effort, to exercise their > << free will >> as if there were > effectively a << doer or entity >> > capable of << doing >> anything. > > But on a higher level of understanding, > there were absolutely no-control, no free will, > no entity, no doer whatsoever. > Everything just happens by << conditions >> > The so-called "higher level of understanding" is a wrong view. The Buddha did not teach that. > > What do you think? > > Thanks. > > > Regards, > > > KKT Take care, Victor 18646 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:39am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi James (and Larry), Thanks for this honest post, and for sharing a little of your meditation and Dhamma experience via the Abbots' letter. Don't feel sad about your Thai experience James - dreams are unreal, always dissatisfying, never quite what one wanted, and they always end too soon - you have something far better to work with, real life. Just this moment, and then, just this moment ... My understanding of vipassana is that it is the direct analytical awareness of the totality of experience at a given moment: sensory perception, thinking, feeling, and acting. I think Vipassana is the seeing of this experience in its parts, as an impersonal process of activity. I quite enjoyed the article - seemed to fit the idea I had of vipassana, even if it was more of a 'practice' done at a special time than I do. Is your understanding of vipassana different to mine? I'd love to hear it...(and what about you, Larry - any thoughts?) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: 18647 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:26am Subject: Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi James (and Larry), > > Thanks for this honest post, and for sharing a little of your > meditation and Dhamma experience via the Abbots' letter. Don't feel > sad about your Thai experience James - dreams are unreal, always > dissatisfying, never quite what one wanted, and they always end too > soon - you have something far better to work with, real life. Just > this moment, and then, just this moment ... > My understanding of vipassana is that it is the direct analytical > awareness of the totality of experience at a given moment: sensory > perception, thinking, feeling, and acting. I think Vipassana is > the seeing of this experience in its parts, as an impersonal process > of activity. > I quite enjoyed the article - seemed to fit the idea I had of > vipassana, even if it was more of a 'practice' done at a special > time than I do. > Is your understanding of vipassana different to mine? I'd love to > hear it...(and what about you, Larry - any thoughts?) > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, I would not say that my understanding is different, or the same as yours. You don't give me enough to go on. If you wish to practice what this author suggests, I cannot stop you. Just be careful. Metta, James 18648 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 7:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view > Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong for monks to accept money. Money is used so extensively in everyday life. For example, the public transport system requires us to pay by cash or by stored-value card (in Singapore's context). Surely, if a bikkhu needs to travel on a daily basis, he would need money. It can't be the case that there would be laypeople who are so free to ferry the bikkhu on private transport. Private transport is very expensive in Singapore. Most people take public transport. I think that for certain cases, bikkhus do need to have money, money donated by laypeople. So long as the bikkhus spend the money within that which is allowed, I see no wrong for bikkhus to accept monetary donations. Please enlighten on why monetary gifts used for allowed purposes is wrong. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18649 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, Comm, Breathing, sati alone Dear Larry, op 03-01-2003 03:52 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: (snipped): It might also > be being suggested that mindfulness of breathing is a way of approaching > jhana. Both kayanupassana and vedananupassana are associated more with > the cultivation of quietude while cittanupassana and dhammanupassana are > associated more with the cultivation of insight. The predominate insight > of body mindfulness is concerned with "casting out the illusion > (vipallasa) of beauty" but I don't think that applies to mindfulness of > breathing. So I would say a quiet, tamed mind is what we are cultivating > here, so far. Nina: This was partly discussed with Sarah. You remembered rightly what we read before, sati being under the samadhi khandha of the eightfold Path. I quote again a Pali text, from the subco I quoted before, I think this answers the question whether there is development of vipassana in the case of body contemplation : And also: We also read that sati alone cannot abandon defilements: Now I can correct a former mistake: satiyeva (last year Nov): yeva is eva, meaning : alone, only. Sati alone. This was in another passage. This is also a reminder that just sati is not enough, in satipatthana sati sampajanna is essential. This term, sati sampajanna, is also used in samatha, because it denotes panna that is not theoretical. In samatha sati sampajanna has to be so keen that it discerns right at the present moment whether there is attachment to calm or panna that directly understands the meditation subject as a means to subdue defilements. For today this is enough, but of course there is a great deal more to say. Nina. 18650 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:06am Subject: right thinking Dear Christine, Right thinking, sammasankappa, of the eightfold Path is sometimes translated by right intention. However, no matter what term is used we should understand its characteristic, as we learnt in Bgk. Vitakka cetasika, thinking, hits or strikes the object citta cognizes. This is theory, we should understand this in practice. Seeing, hearing and the other sense-cognitions are not accompanied by vitakka. Seeing just sees, it arises on the eyebase, it does not need vitakka. The other cittas in that process need vitakka, they do not see, they do not arise at the eyebase. You remember, A. Sujin said, all the cittas other than the sense-cognitions are completely different, they need more cetasikas. Seeing only needs the minimum of seven cetasikas, all the others need more, they need vitakka (I am not speaking about jhanacittas). Gradually we can verify this. When we are thinking about different subjects vitakka performs its function, arising with each citta during the thinking. But thinking as used in conventional language is different from the cetasika vitakka arising at the moments which are not the sense-cognitions. A. Sujin and other teachers (including A. Supee) spoke for two hours in Parlement about this subject. We have to consider this subject and then it can be absorbed. Only theoretical understanding is not enough. Now about right thinking. Thinking can be akusala, and it can also be kusala, of different degrees. We read about the three ways of kusala thinking: thinking with detachment, nekkhamma, thinking free from illwill and free from cruelty. As to nekkhamma, this means, departing from kama. Kama has two meaning: kilesa kama, the sensuality that is defilements, and vatthu kama: the base, the object of sensuality. The Commentary to the Vibhangasutta, K.S. V, on the Way, Ch I, §8, Analysis, (dealing with the factors of the eightfold Path), states that nekkhamma vitakka it has the nature of departing from sensuousness, because it is opposed to sensuousness. We were reminded that it is alobha, arising with all kusala. And, when there is sati sampajanna, mindfulness and understanding of a nama or rupa appearing now, there is a degree of departing from kama at that moment. There is right thinking accompanying the citta with sati sampajanna. Long ago we discussed that satipatthana takes the spice out of life (with Ven. Dhammadharo, also with Sarah). We do not have to worry, even the sotapanna likes pleasant objects. The Commentary explains that in the beginning these three ways of kusala thinking are different. When Maggacitta arises, there is one kind of right thinking, since it cuts off the base of the three kinds of wrong thinking. It accomplishes the non-arising of them. Thus, this is the highest sammasankappa. You remember, we were reminded that without satipatthana we cannot understand the Tipitaka. We cannot understand what we read about right thinking and we may become confused. The same goes for thinking about intricate subjects of Dhamma, it will not be as helpful as awareness. I should remind myself to just be aware of what appears now, and then panna will take care; gradually there will be more understanding of points we used to find so difficult. There may be doubt about the person of the Buddha, is he still present? He is present in his teachings, "who sees the Dhamma, sees me". The sotapanna understands more of what Buddhahood means, he has a deeper understanding of the Dhamma and also of the person of the Buddha. I remember that you quoted from a Single Excellent Night: How can we understand this without satipatthana? No way, we just think of stories. There can be awareness of hardness, but instead of thinking about it, dwelling on it, there can be attention to the next dhamma that presents itself. I have to remind myself of this. I do not let go of what is past or what is just past. Nina. 18651 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] khanti Dear Azita, thank you for your good wishes and reminders. See below op 05-01-2003 04:43 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: I found this in my little > book from years ago. > 'Remember, the greatest intention [chanda] to > have, when kusala acts are performed, is the intention > to eradicate defilements. If intention is for good > results in the future then one can go on forever and > forever, but defilements will not be eradicated.' > However, chanda arises without 'us' doing > anything anyway - but still a good reminder. N: How good: without us doing kusala. I remember, it was repeated; do we develop satipatthana for our own sakes? It seems so often: we are doing this all for our own sake, but it must lead to detachment. A: And I also found this on patience: > 'Patience in reality, is many cetasikas, but > patience can help us to deal with a harmful person, > help us thro miserable conditions and in its highest > form, be patient for awareness to arise and experience > realities as they really are.' > I think the above must have followed on from a > discussion we were having because I have since learnt > that patience is one cetasika -Khanti. N: No, it is not one cetasika. Khanti includes patience towards a pleasant object, thus, alobha, and towards an unpleasant object, thus adosa. Not all paramis are separate cetasikas. Nina. 18652 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 10:48am Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: Robert: Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong for > monks to accept money. _________ > > Money is used so extensively in everyday life. > > > Surely, if a bikkhu needs to travel on a daily basis, he would need > money. > I think that for certain cases, bikkhus do need to have money, money > donated by laypeople. So long as the bikkhus spend the money within > that which is allowed, I see no wrong for bikkhus to accept monetary > donations. _________ Dear Swee Boon, I don't have much interest in telling monks what they should or shouldn't do. I had the idea it was against the vinaya for monks to carry money. But if you say it is fine then so be it. Robert 18653 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 0:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Wrong view --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " > wrote: > Robert: Students of Sujin's would know, for example, that it is wrong > for > > monks to accept money. > _________ > > > > Money is used so extensively in everyday life. > > > > > Surely, if a bikkhu needs to travel on a daily basis, he would > need > > money. > I think that for certain cases, bikkhus do need to have > money, money > > donated by laypeople. So long as the bikkhus spend the money within > > that which is allowed, I see no wrong for bikkhus to accept > monetary > > donations. > _________ Dear Swee boon, I thought you might like to read this article by a monk http://www.nibbana.com/pesala02.htm/ robert 18654 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 1:00pm Subject: He said ... I said Dear All, Rusty, my dog, came home last weekend after an operation and seven or eight weeks in kennels. His injured leg is bearing about three quarters of its normal weight load - perhaps it will never be 100% perfect. It is amazing what surgeons can do - he has had torn ligaments repaired and has an implant in his knee as the joint was showing arthritic changes. The reactions of my Christian, atheist and agnostic friends has been interesting. Many think I should have had Rusty 'put down' ('kindly' killed by someone else), and regard the amount of money spent on his operation and care in the kennels as something that should have been donated to the care of humans. It makes me feel uncertain about my actions. I have come to accept that all sentient beings are almost endlessly cycling through Samsara, and, I believe that, where possible, one should care for those one comes into contact with (whether in animal, human, bird, insect or fish form) to the best of one's ability. I explained this to one friend who understands a little about Buddhism, and has a growing interest. What he could not undersand was how I could then not be vegetarian. I said that the Buddha ate meat when given it, and had only forbidden the eating of meat if a person knew or suspected that the animal had been specially killed for them. My friend gently pointed out that using this as justification for an omnivorous diet could almost be considered hypocritical. To say this meant that the Buddha did not disapprove of the eating of meat was bordering on equivocation. It was clear to him from what I said that the Buddha was speaking to those who were beggars and who were eating, not for pleasure, but only for maintenance of the body, so therefore they should take what came without desire for something else and with no distinctions made. Ordinary people had a choice, and he saw no compassion or love in choosing to eat meat and knowingly encouraging an ever expanding industry, that caused fear-filled, painful deaths just to satisfy human tastes. I spoke about special dietary requirements for particular illnesses, and people living in areas where crops and vegetables could not be grown. He pointed to the common international transport of vegetables, grains and fruit. I put forward that sentient beings numbering in the thousands were killed per acre of vegetables ploughed, harrowed, fertilised, sprayed with insectisides, and harvested. He said that cows, pigs, sheep, fish and poultry (and even fertilised eggs) were intentionally 'bred and chosen for death' - whereas insects, worms, frogs, lizards, beetles etc. were mostly unintentional 'collateral damage' and should be more excusable from a Buddhist perspective. He asked - apart from legalities, cultural taboos, personal repugnance, and rationalising speciesist views - what then was the difference between breeding animals for consumption and breeding humans for that purpose - from a Buddhist point of view? I looked up the meaning of 'sentient being' in Nyanatiloka's dictionary - it wasn't there. I looked up satta, jiva, atta, puggala, and found only the impersonality of all existence. And so - I said, "I don't know". metta, Christine 18655 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:45pm Subject: Re: He said ... I said --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Christine, The Lord Buddha was only concerned with mastery of the mind. Eating meat or not eating meat doesn't affect one's ability to master the mind. However, if a monk knows that an animal has been killed for him/her that will affect the tranquility of the mind...and thus adversely affect mastery. Feelings of guilt, sadness, concern, greed, etc. can arise because of such knowledge. Therefore the Buddha declared that if a monk knew that an animal had been killed specifically for the sangha or him/her, they should refuse to eat that meat. This isn't hypocrisy; this is following a different set of standards that you and your friend were arguing. I hope Rusty makes a full recovery! Metta, James 18656 From: ven.yanatharo.bikkhu Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:42pm Subject: Thank you all Dear Sarah, Robert and others, thank you for all your replies, I do like what I see in this list that is why I read all your post. As a monk I do not take part because I am afraid to be misinterpreter. I will visit Sujin on my next trip to Thailand. Since you people mention dhammakaya, the Dhammakaya monks became very friendly with me and they invited me to all the ceremonies plus they invited me last February to go to Thailand for a cremation. Three months ago they asked me if I could give them $100.000 thouzand dollars for a building in Thailand. Of course I refused because now that I am a monk do not have money, all my millions are in a trust just in case I leave the order. Result , I have never hear from the Dhammakaya monks for the last three months. Metta. Ven. Yanatharo 18657 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:57pm Subject: buddhism Hello everyone, I'm Hilary Wong and I'm 11years old. I live in Hong Kong. My favourite subjects back in school are P.E,humanites and English. I have been reading a couple of the letters on Buddhism. After reading, a few questions about Buddhism popped into my mind. How does the rebirth work? How many lives has everyone got altogether? Where will it take place? Will even non-buddhists be reborn too? Looking foward to hear from you. Hilary 18658 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:00pm Subject: My letter to James Dear James, I hope you had a wonderful christmas and HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! Sorry, I didn't write to you for such a long time as I went to San Francisco and Vancouver for my christmas holidays. Ihad a great time there! I hope you are keeping well! By the way, where did you spent you christmas or New Years? Once again, thank you for the poems you sent me! I think you should try to become a poet writer! I have a question, does the Buddha make you happy? I think you are happy at everything you see and write! Iasked you this questions as I always think you are happy! Well, that's it for this letter! Remember to send me more happy poems Metta, Janice 18659 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:03pm Subject: My letter to Kom Dear Kom, I hope you had a wonderful christmas and HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! I went to San Francisco and Vancouver during the christmas holidays. I had a great time! I hope you are keeping well! Wheredid go for the christmas holidays? I wonder how does the Buddha creates different sounds in our ears? I am asking you this because you talked about the Buddha makes sounds about the different karmas! Well, that is it for this letter! Metta, Janice Chung 18660 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:07pm Subject: Re: Thank you all Hi Everybody, > Three months ago they asked me if I could give them $100.000 > thouzand dollars for a building in Thailand. Of course I > refused because now that I am a monk do not have money, > all my millions are in a trust just in case I leave the order. > Result , I have never hear from the Dhammakaya monks for the > last three months. Who are these Dhammakaya monks? What's wrong with them? Can anyone explain? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18661 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hi Christine, I thought you were asking if you should experiment and my thought was sure, why not. Happy meditating. Larry 18662 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:46pm Subject: Re: Thank you all Hi Swee Boon, There are 17 articles from the Bangkok Post on Dhammakaya at: http://buddhism.newstrove.com/ scroll almost half-way down. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi Everybody, > > > Three months ago they asked me if I could give them $100.000 > > thouzand dollars for a building in Thailand. Of course I > > refused because now that I am a monk do not have money, > > all my millions are in a trust just in case I leave the order. > > Result , I have never hear from the Dhammakaya monks for the > > last three months. > > Who are these Dhammakaya monks? > > What's wrong with them? > > Can anyone explain? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 18663 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 33, Comm, Breathing, sati alone Hi Nina, Thanks for the clarification. I would like to see more textual references to the practice of sati sampajanna. This (below) is very informative. Larry -------------------- Nina: In samatha sati sampajanna has to be so keen that it discerns right at the present moment whether there is attachment to calm or panna that directly understands the meditation subject as a means to subdue defilements. 18664 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:55pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Beth --- Beth wrote: <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< ... Hello all, Hello Jon, Co-dependent recovery is what one does in relation to understanding that one's life has become unmanagable and the understanding of the steps one needs to make to break free of certain self destructive cycles. A codependent person is one who has let another person's behavior affect him/her, and who is obsessed with controlling that person's behavior(definition from Codependent No More by Melody Beattie). My daily practice for at least the last two years continues to be analytical in regards to thoughts/feelings. To know where these arise, what if anything to do about them and letting go. When I first began I purposefully began my days with at least an hour of quiet, not letting myself get distracted by things outside myself. I then let any feelings come that I may have been surpressing, I might cry for a while or write about what's going on with me.After I finish, I let myself know that I am loved, and forgive myself as well as those who may have offended me( I also extend loving wishes their way). Throughout my days if any anxious/fearful/anger filled thoughts come my way, I let those go and focus on what is going on at the moment (doing dishes for example). ~peace, Beth Let none find fault with others; let none see the omissions and commissions of others. But let one see one's own acts, done and undone. Dhammapada 4:50 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks for sharing your thoughts on daily practice (and another useful Dhammapada verse). The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various kinds. He also taught that it is only by developing awareness and understanding of these dhammas, and seeing their true nature, that the root cause of our problems, namely ignorance about the true nature of things, can be overcome. There are many dhammas apart from those that comprise thoughts and feelings (two things that you particularly mention). Right now, for example, there are dhammas that are both experiencing and being experienced through the various sense-doors. At any given time, dhammas are present as potential objects of awareness. We do not have to direct our attention towards, or focus on, or a particular dhamma or aspect of our life. We talk quite a lot here about these dhammas and their characteristics, because although they are present now, they are not seen for what they are, due to our deeply ingrained ignorance and wrong view. I hope you find the discussion helpful in lifting the covers off these dhammas. Jon 18665 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 4:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Ethical View vs. Scientific View (a big post) Wendy --- Uan Chih Liu wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > Maybe I'm confused about kusala vs. akusala afterall. I always > thought > kusala/akusala is not intellectual considerations. Just because > one > finds the temperature just right, it does not make vipaka kusala. > One > cannot make an akusala vipaka kusala or vice versa. I always > thought > that a true understanding of whether a vipaka is kusala or akusala > grows with wisdom just like you mentioned in your last paragraph. > Or am I mis-understanding that as well? I think I may have confused you by being less specific than perhaps I should have. My apologies for that. Yes, kusala/akusala vipaka has nothing to do with whether the object being experienced is one that is liked or disliked. However, in the case of experience through the body-door (uniquely), the actual moment of sense-door contact is accompanied by bodily feeling that is either pleasant or unpleasant, depending on whether the object is inherently pleasant (i.e., is kusala vipaka) or unpleasant (i.e., is akusala vipaka). So an experience through the body door that is accompanied by painful bodily feeling is akusala vipaka. Now the point at which 'the weather' becomes too hot or too cold, so that it is accompanied by painful bodily feeling, varies from one person to the next, in the exact same weather conditions. This is why I made the comment that the vipaka differs in the 2 cases. > Just like what I raised in this group before, how can one tell > whether > anyone's understanding is purely intellectual consideration or > wisdom. > I don't see this case is any different. My point is one cannot > take > weather simply as environment either when it may be in fact > ecological > event. Yes, it may be environment only in one case, and ecological > event > at another moment. One will know only when understanding of the > situation comes with wisdom. To my understanding, what wisdom will know is the true nature of the presently appearing dhamma. That may be, for example, the heat/cold experienced through the body-sense that is brought about by 'the weather', or it may be the attachment or aversion that arises following that experience. These are examples of 'dhammas' (fundamental phenomena). Dhammas are described as the 'field' of wisdom, since they are what wisdom may directly experience. They include the different kinds of consciousness occurring through the 5 sense-doors, and the objects of those consciousnesses. Dhammas also include the consciousness that occurs through the mind-door. 'Consciousness' here includes the accompanying mental factors. It's a big subject, but it helps to have a good grasp of exactly what are the 'things' that wisdom 'knows', and what things are not dhammas and so not capable of being the object of insight/wisdom of the level of satipatthana/vipassana. I hope this post is less confusing than my last. ;-) Jon 18666 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 5:08pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, You wrote: ------- Dear everybody, I have some questions and I'd like to hear your opinion. __If there is absolutely << no-control >> in the sense that everything happens (or arises) because of << conditions >> then what is the difference with << destiny, fate >> ? Because destiny also means that things happen outside of << our >> control. ---------- KH: Paramattha dhammas arise because of conditions. Illusory dhammas (concepts), owe their illusory existence to illusory causes, eg, control, free-will, fate, destiny. When we mix absolute reality and illusory reality in the same sentence, it can sound as though conditionality means fate or destiny. (To some people it sounds as though conditionality means `free-will' or `control.') --------- KKT: __If deep down we realize that we have no control over any situation, no free will to << do >> anything then we become calm and un-disturbed by whatever happens in life. Is this a correct approach to life? -------- KH: If we realise there is no control over conditioned reality then, yes, there is calm at the moment of realisation. There will also be an increased tendency for calm to arise in the future. ---------- KKT: __Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by << conditions >> What do you think? ---------- KH: I think he taught only the higher level. (Everyone else, including all the other great thinkers in history, taught only the lower level.) BUT, we must not be confused by the Buddha's frequent use of conventional (lower), language in teaching absolute (higher), reality. Kind regards Ken H 18667 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 6:32pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear everybody, > > > I have some questions and > I'd like to hear your opinion. > > > __If there is absolutely > << no-control >> in the sense > that everything happens (or arises) > because of << conditions >> > then what is the difference > with << destiny, fate >> ? > Because destiny also means that > things happen outside of << our >> control. > > > __If deep down we realize that > we have no control over any situation, > no free will to << do >> anything > then we become calm and un-disturbed > by whatever happens in life. > > Is this a correct approach to life? > > > __Can we say that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding? > > On the first level He stressed people > to make effort, to exercise their > << free will >> as if there were > effectively a << doer or entity >> > capable of << doing >> anything. > > But on a higher level of understanding, > there were absolutely no-control, no free will, > no entity, no doer whatsoever. > Everything just happens by << conditions >> > > > What do you think? > > Thanks. > > > Regards, > > > KKT Hi KKT, I am going to give you my perspective on these questions; a perspective quite separate from the Abhidhamma. A perspective based on the Vinaya Pitaka and the Sutta Pitaka. The Buddha taught that there is no self; that is a given. Did he also teach that there is no control? No. Although it may seem logical to conclude that no self equals no control, it doesn't equate. The Buddha taught that self-mastery would lead to selflessness; he did not teach that self-denial would lead to selflessness. If anyone can read the Vinaya Pitaka, with its 234 rules of discipline for monks and laypeople, with consequences for breaking the rules, and can say that the Buddha believed that we have no control over the choices we make in our lives, I don't know what to say for them. People also cannot say that the dhamma is descriptive rather than prescriptive. The Buddha went to great lengths to prescribe appropriate ways for people to behave in a variety of circumstances. So where is this idea of `no control' coming from? Well, obviously it is coming from the Abhidhamma. This idea of no control is a reductionism theory based on the reductionism of the Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma goes to great length to prove that there is `no self' by reducing the sensory world to what it deems are the lowest units of reduction: called `dhammas'. As the famous chariot metaphor explains, the `chariot' cannot be found in the wheels, the axle, the pole, etc, of a chariot. It is just an assembly of parts. The Abhidhamma also reduces everything in the sensory world to various `dhammas' and shows that none of them are `the self'. Therefore `the self' doesn't exist. And because the self doesn't exist, there is no `agent' to `decide' courses of action. Everything is quite out of our hands and there is no control. There is only moment after moment of existence without future moments being born and the past moments no longer existing (this Abhidhamma reductionism extends to time as well). What is wrong with this theory? In my estimation, it is far too simplistic because it doesn't explain how all of these parts come together to create the `illusion' of self-hood. If you don't pinpoint the cause, the result is quite irrelevant. For example, yes, the chariot is not just the wheel, or the axle, or the pole, etc., but if you put all the parts together in a particular way and it is a chariot...but not forever. And while the `self' cannot be found in any of the aggregates individually, put all together in a particular way they create the `illusion' of a self. The Buddha wanted us to realize that there was `no self' in this conglomeration of aggregates because that `illusory' self is unstable, impermanent, and unsatisfactory. I will do another post later that explains how the suttas explain how the aggregates come together to create an illusionary self and how self-mastery, as opposed to self-denial, is the only way to end that process and reach Nibbana. I have already put out a lot of ideas for one post. :-) Metta, James 18668 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 2:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello Christine, I wondering if you have ever read R. Bucknell's (and someone else, can't go check) "The Twilight Language?" He ties "retracing" and "linking" into a general interpretation of Buddhadhamma that is quite interesting; so, at least at the time he authored the book, he felt that these two techniques were *very* important. And, he argues, probably taught by the Buddha. (If you don't do "formal" meditation you're not a Buddhist, just a Buddhist scholar. And in your case a quite good one. But I'll give you credit for former practice;-) BTW, I joined dl a bit over a year ago when my formal practice fell apart, to try and sort things out.) metta, stephen 18669 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Dear everyone, Many thanks to Larry, Victor, Ken and James for sharing your thoughts. I know this is a difficult subject which requires deep reflection. We can put all in one block << anatta/no-self, no-control, destiny, free-will, conditions >> because they are all related. Personally, I believe in the theory of << many levels of understanding >> to explain many difficult points which seem << apparently >> contradictory in the Buddha's teaching. Again, thanks to everybody. Metta, KKT 18670 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] He said ... I said Hi, Christine - I'm replying just to the first part of your post. In a message dated 1/10/03 4:02:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Rusty, my dog, came home last weekend after an operation and seven or > eight weeks in kennels. His injured leg is bearing about three > quarters of its normal weight load - perhaps it will never be 100% > perfect. It is amazing what surgeons can do - he has had torn > ligaments repaired and has an implant in his knee as the joint was > showing arthritic changes. > The reactions of my Christian, atheist and agnostic friends has been > interesting. Many think I should have had Rusty 'put down' ('kindly' > killed by someone else), and regard the amount of money spent on his > operation and care in the kennels as something that should have been > donated to the care of humans. It makes me feel uncertain about my > actions. I have come to accept that all sentient beings are almost > endlessly cycling through Samsara, and, I believe that, where > possible, one should care for those one comes into contact with > (whether in animal, human, bird, insect or fish form) to the best of > one's > ability. ============================ This is the way I feel about the matter: 1) Your dog is a sentient being who is in your care. You are caring for him lovingly. 2) Your dog has been with you, I presume, for a while at this point. You love him, and he, I'm sure, loves you. Why is he not worthy of your kind attention? 3) The money that you have spent - spent out of love and compassion - is, in fact, *your* money, earned by you and not by someone else who thinks they have a better way to spend your hard earned funds. 4) To hell with them! ;-)) 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) 18671 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 8:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Hello Stephen, I am torn between saying "Stephen, how ungenerous of you! I am deeply hurt!" OR, "Pull the other leg, mate, - it plays Waltzing Matilda!". :-) If the definition of a Buddhist is "one who perfectly follows the Teachings of the Buddha", then there aren't any buddhists in the world. If the definition is "one who 'tries' to follow the Teachings" then I am one of those. Do you have a saying in Yankee-land that sounds like, 'Put up - or shut up?' It means 'Saying it doesn't make it so, bring forward your proof, or drop the subject'. :-) I haven't read that book you mention - can you quote anything relevant and Sutta related from it? I look forward to some irrefutable proof from the Suttas, that 'one is not a buddhist if one does not do formal sitting meditation'. Or, flowers chocolates and an abject apology... :-) And Stephen .... tell me I'm not a Buddhist one more time and it's pistols at dawn. Oh, hang on, I think that splintering sound was one, and possibly two, of the precepts ... metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello Christine, > I wondering if you have ever read R. Bucknell's (and someone else, can't go > check) "The Twilight Language?" He ties "retracing" and "linking" into a > general interpretation of Buddhadhamma that is quite interesting; so, at > least at the time he authored the book, he felt that these two techniques > were *very* important. And, he argues, probably taught by the Buddha. > (If you don't do "formal" meditation you're not a Buddhist, just a Buddhist > scholar. And in your case a quite good one. But I'll give you credit for > former practice;-) > BTW, I joined dl a bit over a year ago when my formal practice fell apart, to > try and sort things out.) > metta, stephen 18672 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] He said ... I said Hi Howard, :-) I thank you for your support - and I'm SURE I just heard Rusty mutt-er, "Good bloke, that Howard!" :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > This is the way I feel about the matter: > > 1) Your dog is a sentient being who is in your care. You are caring > for him lovingly. > 2) Your dog has been with you, I presume, for a while at this point. > You love him, and he, I'm sure, loves you. Why is he not worthy of your kind > attention? > 3) The money that you have spent - spent out of love and compassion - > is, in fact, *your* money, earned by you and not by someone else who thinks > they have a better way to spend your hard earned funds. > 4) To hell with them! ;-)) > > With metta, > Howard 18673 From: James Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello Stephen, > > I am torn between saying "Stephen, how ungenerous of you! I am > deeply hurt!" OR, "Pull the other leg, mate, - it plays Waltzing > Matilda!". :-) > > If the definition of a Buddhist is "one who perfectly follows the > Teachings of the Buddha", then there aren't any buddhists in the > world. If the definition is "one who 'tries' to follow the > Teachings" then I am one of those. > > Do you have a saying in Yankee-land that sounds like, 'Put up - or > shut up?' It means 'Saying it doesn't make it so, bring forward > your proof, or drop the subject'. :-) I haven't read that book you > mention - can you quote anything relevant and Sutta related from > it? I look forward to some irrefutable proof from the Suttas, > that 'one is not a buddhist if one does not do formal sitting > meditation'. Or, flowers chocolates and an abject apology... :-) > > And Stephen .... tell me I'm not a Buddhist one more time and it's > pistols at dawn. Oh, hang on, I think that splintering sound was > one, and possibly two, of the precepts ... > > metta, > Christine Hi Christine, LOL! Yea, I think Stephen is pulling your leg (does it really play 'Waltzing Matilada'? I love that song!:-) It is quite permissible for one to take a break from formal meditation for a week, a month, a year, or several years and still be considered a practicing Buddhist. Sometimes it is necessary to re-group and build Right View and Right Understanding before meditation will begin again. I think you should follow your instincts in this regard. Metta, James 18674 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:48pm Subject: [dsg] Re: My Conclusions On Nibbana (Long) Thank you James, you are a true gentleman - we'll send metta to Stephen. :-) I'll work very hard on my Right View and Right Understanding for you. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Hello Stephen, > > > > I am torn between saying "Stephen, how ungenerous of you! I am > > deeply hurt!" OR, "Pull the other leg, mate, - it plays Waltzing > > Matilda!". :-) > > > > If the definition of a Buddhist is "one who perfectly follows the > > Teachings of the Buddha", then there aren't any buddhists in the > > world. If the definition is "one who 'tries' to follow the > > Teachings" then I am one of those. > > > > Do you have a saying in Yankee-land that sounds like, 'Put up - > or > > shut up?' It means 'Saying it doesn't make it so, bring forward > > your proof, or drop the subject'. :-) I haven't read that book > you > > mention - can you quote anything relevant and Sutta related from > > it? I look forward to some irrefutable proof from the Suttas, > > that 'one is not a buddhist if one does not do formal sitting > > meditation'. Or, flowers chocolates and an abject apology... :-) > > > > And Stephen .... tell me I'm not a Buddhist one more time and > it's > > pistols at dawn. Oh, hang on, I think that splintering sound was > > one, and possibly two, of the precepts ... > > > > metta, > > Christine > > Hi Christine, > > LOL! Yea, I think Stephen is pulling your leg (does it really > play 'Waltzing Matilada'? I love that song!:-) It is quite > permissible for one to take a break from formal meditation for a > week, a month, a year, or several years and still be considered a > practicing Buddhist. Sometimes it is necessary to re-group and > build Right View and Right Understanding before meditation will > begin again. I think you should follow your instincts in this > regard. > > Metta, James 18675 From: Date: Fri Jan 10, 2003 9:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi all, A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be seen in the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima-Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm This is a debate between Aggivessana, the Nigantha's son, and the Buddha. Here are a couple of excerpts: Aggivessana: Good Gotama, a comparison occurs to me. Buddha: Say it Aggivessana. A: Like these seed groups and vegetable groups that grow and develop, established and supported on earth . So also all powerful work, that has to be done, should be done, established and supported on earth. In the same manner this person, established in matter, with the material self accrues merit or demerit. This feeling person established in feelings accrues merit or demerit. The perceiving person established in perceptions accrues merit or demerit. The determining person established in determinations, accrues merit or demerit. The conscious person established in consciousness, accrues merit or demerit.. B: Aggivessana, do you say Matter is my self. Feelings are my self. Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Conscioussness is my self.? A: Good Gotama, I say. matter is my self. Feelings are my self. Perceptions are my self. Determinations are my self. Consciousness is my self, so also this large crowd says it. Aggivessana, you say that, matter is your self, do you wield power over that matter, as may my matter be thus, and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, feelings are your self, do you wield power over those feelings, as may my feelings be thus, and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you that say, perceptions are your self, do you wield power over those perceptions, as may my perceptions be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier, does not agree with what you say now.. Aggivessana, you, say that determinations are your self, do you wield power over those determinations, as may my determinations be thus and not otherwise. No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. Aggivessana, you, say that consciousness is your self, do you wield power over that consciousness, as may my consciousness be thus and not otherwise? No, good Gotama. Attend carefully and reply Aggivessana. What you said earlier does not agree with what you say now. What do you think, Aaggivessana, is matter permanent or impermanent? Impermanent good Gotama. That impermanent thing, is it unpleasant or pleasant? Unpleasant good Gotama. That impermanent, unpleasant, changing thing, is it suitable to be considered; that is mine, that I be, that is my self? No good Gotama.. Aggivessana, are feelings—are perceptions,--are determinations,--is consciousness permanent or impermanent? Impermanent good Gotama. That impermanent thing is it unpleasant or pleasant? Unpleasant, good Gotama.That impermanent, unpleasant, changing thing, is it suitable to be considered, that is mine, that I be, that is my self? No, good Gotama..Aggivessana, a certain one clinging to unpleasantness, over powered by it, pressed down by it and reflecting it's mine, would think it's my self. Would he accurately understand unpleasantness by himself or ward it off and abide? Good Gotama, how could it be. No, good Gotama, that would not happen. 18676 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 0:50am Subject: Re: Thank you all --- Dear Venerable Yanatharo, I understand your reluctance to say too much on this forum. Monks are the senior community of Buddhists which gives them special responsibilities (but we welcome your comments of course when you think it appropriate). I think you will be very welcome when you visit Sujin- there are other good teachers at the center too but she is the only one who speaks fluent English. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "ven.yanatharo.bikkhu" wrote: > Dear Sarah, Robert and others, thank you for all your replies, I do like > what I see in this list that is why I read all your post. As a monk I do not > take part because I am afraid to be misinterpreter. 18677 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:13am Subject: My letter Dear James: Thank You for the teaching me about the eight fold path. What gifts do you like? Who gave it to you? Have you enjoyed New Years? What does un-sharp mind mean? (In your letter) Please write to me! With Love, Janet 18678 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:16am Subject: Wish you all the best for the new year! Dear James, Thankyou for the letter that you sent me. It was great. You really explained alot of things about the difference between Buddhism and Christianity and Heaven and Hell. Do you believe that the Buddha is actually up above you always looking at you? Hope you had a great time at Christmas and wish you all the best for the new year. Take care Love Sandy 18679 From: Beth Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 3:01am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jonothan Abbott wrote: Beth, Thanks for sharing your thoughts on daily practice (and another useful Dhammapada verse). The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various kinds. He also taught that it is only by developing awareness and understanding of these dhammas, and seeing their true nature, that the root cause of our problems, namely ignorance about the true nature of things, can be overcome. There are many dhammas apart from those that comprise thoughts and feelings (two things that you particularly mention). Right now, for example, there are dhammas that are both experiencing and being experienced through the various sense-doors. At any given time, dhammas are present as potential objects of awareness. We do not have to direct our attention towards, or focus on, or a particular dhamma or aspect of our life. We talk quite a lot here about these dhammas and their characteristics, because although they are present now, they are not seen for what they are, due to our deeply ingrained ignorance and wrong view. I hope you find the discussion helpful in lifting the covers off these dhammas. Jon *************************** Hello Jon, Thank you for your reply :-) I do find the discussion very helpful although I may not understand all at this point. ~peace, Beth 18680 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:01am Subject: A Recommended Article Hi, all - I just finished reading the section on Right Intention in the following and was impressed. For those of you who have not seen this work by Bhikkhu Bodhi, I pass on the url for your consideration: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18681 From: James Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 7:19am Subject: Re: My letter to --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > I hope you had a wonderful christmas and > HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! Sorry, I didn't > write to you for such a long time as I went to San > Francisco and Vancouver for my christmas holidays. > Ihad a great time there! I hope you are keeping well! > By the way, where did you spent you christmas or New > Years? Once again, thank you for the poems you sent > me! I think you should try to become a poet writer! > > I have a question, does the Buddha make you happy? I > think you are happy at everything you see and write! > Iasked you this questions as I always think you are > happy! > > Well, that's it for this letter! Remember to send me > more happy poems > > Metta, > Janice Hi Star Kid Janice! I am very glad that you had such a good holiday! It is always fun to travel isn't it? I hope you learned a lot about the places you went. San Francisco and Vancouver are too entirely different places! You had an interesting holiday! Some might assume I like San Francisco but I don't really like it too much. It is very hilly and the buildings are too close together for me. I like the spread out landscape and open skies of Arizona, where I live. I haven't been to Vancouver, but I have been to Montreal and Toronto. Canada is really nice and Canadians are really nice too, actually sometimes too nice for us rude Americans! ;-) Janice, I'm not the one who wrote the poems I sent to you. I do write poetry, but it isn't usually funny. The poetry I write is usually about emotions or Buddhism. But I did write one kinda funny poem once about my car. I drive a New Beetle, one of the bright yellow ones! ;-): Because I cannot be a Buddhist monk My parents won't allow me. I cannot wear a yellow robe The Thai community would give me. I over-compensate for this I guess With my bright, yellow Beetle…fit for me. It is my Super-Duper MONK MOBILE!! So, kindly please, don't rear-end me!! Hehehe…kinda goofy I know, but fun. You ask about my happiness. Does the Buddha make me happy? Sure he does! Am I happy all the time? Of course not. Janice, there are two kinds of happiness in the world: the kind that lasts and the kind that doesn't. The Buddha taught us all how to have the kind of happiness that lasts; society tries to teach us about the kind that doesn't last. Let me give you two examples of what I am talking about. Let's say you go to a pizza parlor with your friends, play lots of games, tell each other jokes, and laugh and have a lot of fun. Gosh, you can just be hysterically happy at a time like that can't you? But then when you go home, your friends have gone home, and the pizza parlor is closed, where is your happiness then? It is gone. That is the kind of happiness that doesn't last. But think about a time you did something nice for someone: returned an item to someone that they lost, helped a fellow classmate with their homework, or got an A+ on a work assignment because you worked hard on it. All of those things will make you feel very happy also, won't they? And each time you think about them or remember them afterwards, you feel happy again. That is the kind of happiness that lasts. Granted, the kind of happiness that lasts isn't as strong as the kind of happiness that doesn't, but you get more return…'more bang for your buck'! ;-). The Buddha taught us all how to build a kind of happiness that comes from inside and isn't dependent on doing things or getting things. It is a kind of happiness that never goes away. Now, some Buddhists believe that in order to have the one type of happiness you have to give up the other. In other words, in order to have the happiness that lasts you have to give up the happiness that doesn't last. I don't agree with that. I think you can have both types of happiness. There is plenty of happiness to go around! ;-) Thank you again for you letter, Janice. I hope you have a lot of fun in the New Year, do your work, and are very happy…all the time. Love, James Ps. Here are some more poems for you. I didn't write them, so they are a bit better! ;-) How to Torture Your Teacher (Mrs. Abbot) by Bruce Lansky Only raise your hand when you want to sharpen your pencil or go to the bathroom. Repeat every ten minutes. Never raise your hand when you want to answer a question: instead, yell, "Oooh! Oooh! Oooh!" and then, when the teacher calls on you, say, "I forgot what I was going to say." Lean your chair back, take off your shoes, and put your feet on your desk. Act surprised when the teacher puts all four legs of your chair back on the floor. Drop the eraser end of your pencil on your desk. See how high it will bounce. Drop your books on the floor. See how loud a noise you can make. Hum. Get all your friends to join in. Hold your nose, make a face, and say, "P.U.!" Fan the air away from your face, and point to the kid in front of you. On the last day of school, lead your classmates in chanting: "No more pencils! No more books! No more teachers' dirty looks!" Then, on your way out the door, tell the teacher, "Bet you're looking forward to summer vacation this year. But I'll sure miss you. You're the best teacher I've ever had." ------------------- Most Outstanding Students of the Year Awards* by Bruce Lansky I'm making this announcement to honor STAR KIDS's best. I think you will all agree they rose above the rest. Our most outstanding artist is Christopher McKnight. He's the one who painted all the classroom blackboards white. Our most outstanding sportsman is Stephen Montague. He scored a basket for his team-- and the opponents', too. The student teachers like the best is Alexander Brash. Most kids give teachers apples. But Alex gave them cash. The winner for attendance is Mary Anne McKay. She came to school on every, single day of Christmas holiday. Congratulations, winners! Let's all give them a cheer-- the STAR KIDS students of the year! --------------- What I Found in My Desk by Bruce Lansky A ripe peach with a ugly bruise, a pair of stinky tennis shoes, a day-old ham-and-cheese on rye, a swimsuit that I left to dry, a pencil that glows in the dark, some bubble gum found in the park, a paper bag with cookie crumbs, an old kazoo that barely hums, a spelling test I almost failed, a letter that I should have mailed, and one more thing, I must confess, a note from my teacher, Mrs. Abbot: Clean This Mess!!!! 18682 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: wrong view, misunderstandings. Venerable Bhikkhu, op 10-01-2003 03:14 schreef ven.yanatharo.bikkhu op sanz@n...: For a long time I have been pondering if I should ask this > question. Now that you have again mention the name of A. Sujin, I feel I > should ask. I have never met or know a thing about Sujin, I have started > asking a few Thai monks here and the USA what they think of her or if they > could give me some information. The answers. They hate her, the reason is > that according to all the Thai monks, she is the one who hates the Shanga. > They gave me all kind of other things which I am compeled to be quiet. So > can somebody tell me why is it that she is so much dislake it by the Thai > Shanga. Nina: It is unfortunate that there are so many misunderstandings in the world, and unnecessary. When I was in Thailand recently, I saw monks sitting at the Foundation and listening to A. Sujin and to the teachers who asist her. The venerable patriarch of Thailand approves of the foundation, this appeared when it was inaugurated a few years ago. Also in the past there were monks attending her lectures, all the time. A. Sujin recently went with a group to Wat Dong Devi, a place I also know. The Abbot is a very remarkable, serious, excellent monk. He is always most interested in what A. Sujin says, has great respect for her teaching of Dhamma. I went many times to India with A. Sujin and my Thai friends. In Saranath relics of the Buddha are kept in the temple and they are only showed to the public once a year. But each time A. Sujin comes, the monks make it a special occasion for the group and allows us to pay repect to the relics. Several times now A. Sujin went down to the crypt where they are kept and then they were placed on her head and she came out with the relics on her head. Then we all were allowed to pay respect and have the relics placed on our heads. The head monk is always full of kindness to A. Sujin and all of us. Each time we offer a sanghadana to 150 foreign monks there. A. Sujin explained: when it is sangha dana you offer to the sangha and do not show preference to a particular monk. A few years ago I joined a tour to Cambodia, where A. Sujin was the main lecturer. The patriarch of Cambodia was present in the main temple, and so were many monks. We went to all the temples of Pnom Pen and all the time many monks were present, intently listening. The people welcomed A. Sujin at each temple with flowers, calling loudly anumodanyia, it was overwhelming. Also at Anchor Wat many monks had come to greet Acharn, although the journey from Pnom Pen was very long. They had wanted to hear Dhamma talk from her but because of circumstances it was not possible. A. Sujin is full of metta, karuna, works non stop for Dhamma, not for her own sake. I have known her for more than thirty years and when living in Thailand we visited many temples, also in the provinces, and talked with many monks. If people have doubts about her, they should meet her, to see for themselves the truth about her. She just could not hate anybody. She has the greatest respect for the Sangha. If a person comes to her for advice about becoming a monk, she explains that it is important to know one's real accumulations, that one should scrutinize oneself and be very honest as to one's accumulations and one's motives. It may be possible that this point may have been misinterpreted by some. I hope I can help to clear this up. Misunderstandings should be cleared up, and as soon as possible. Nina. 18683 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:36am Subject: no expectations Dear Jonothan, I am always on the look out for reminders from you. They are concise and very effective. I appreciate this one I saved: the accumulated ignorance and wrong view, which is so tenacious and deeply >ingrained. But just knowing that much can help. At least our >expectations are that much more realistic!> Yes, it helps. Through satipatthana we see more and more our ignorance and wrong view. That subtle feeling of self, always present, developing understyanding for one's own sake. Thank you, I am hungry for more of this, Nina. 18684 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 11:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi all, Contemplating the Culasaccaka Sutta further has changed my mind on the free-will question. The way I interpret it in conjunction with the refutation of nihilism and eternalism is that the Buddha is saying kamma is real but always operates with a belief in an unreal self. The "no control" point is that we cannot control the result of kamma enough to make that result last. Seeing this can give us an insight into anatta and the end of kamma. For example, contemplating body maintenance problems we can glimpse that body is not self. Contemplating the impermanence of pleasant feeling, we can glimpse that feeling is not self. Contemplating memory problems, we can glimpse that understanding is not self. Contemplating emotional problems, we can glimpse that the emotional personality is not self. Contemplating eye-consciousness problems, we can glimpse that consciousness is not self. Contemplating that neither the best engineering in the universe nor the best meditative discipline in the universe can produce a lasting result, we can glimpse that science and concept are not self. Even kamma itself eventually comes to an end in nibbana. No matter what we do or what our special skill or virtue is, it is not self because we cannot make it last. I don't see any indication here that the Buddha is saying we have no choice or saying "no control" = "no choice". Therefore, I would say the Buddha is advocating free-will, based on this and other suttas. However, I think he is also saying free-will is limited by deterministic laws: bad intentions only produce bad results and all results are impermanent and therefor not self. Plus he is saying all kamma is based on a self view. So no matter how virtuous one may be, there will always be problems. Seeing that kamma is not self is the end of kamma and the end of problems. Does anyone know of a sutta where the Buddha says we have no choice and therefor no free-will? Larry 18685 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 0:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Larry and all, One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction arises. The argument that the Buddha used in refuting Aggivessana's self- view is reductio ad absurdum: if each and every aggregate is your self, then you, the body, the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation, would have power over your self. However, that contradicts the fact that each and every aggregate has no control over itself. A lot of people take the reductio ad absurdum argument that the Buddha used as: one has no control over the body, the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation. A question for reflection: What is the assumption when we say we have no control over the body, the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation? Metta, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be seen in > the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm 18686 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/11/03 3:58:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Larry and all, ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five khandhas. Is that your intention? ******************************************* > > One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, > observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path > is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. > > Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is > impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over > itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. > > When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction > arises. > **************************************** With metta, Howard (The rest of your post follows below, Victor.) > > The argument that the Buddha used in refuting Aggivessana's self- > view is reductio ad absurdum: if each and every aggregate is your > self, then you, the body, the feeling, the perception, the > consciousness, the formation, would have power over your self. > However, that contradicts the fact that each and every aggregate has > no control over itself. > > A lot of people take the reductio ad absurdum argument that the > Buddha used as: one has no control over the body, the feeling, the > perception, the consciousness, the formation. > > A question for reflection: > What is the assumption when we say we have no control over the body, > the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation? > > Metta, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > >Hi all, > > > >A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be > seen in > >the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > >http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm > > /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) 18687 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:04pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Howard, There is no need to get into that kind of speculation. It's not good for yourself. :-) Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 1/11/03 3:58:10 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > Hi Larry and all, > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an argument > in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five khandhas. Is that > your intention? > > > ******************************************* > > > > One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, > > observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path > > is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. > > > > Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is > > impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over > > itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. > > > > When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction > > arises. > > > **************************************** > > With metta, > Howard > > (The rest of your post follows below, Victor.) > > > > > The argument that the Buddha used in refuting Aggivessana's self- > > view is reductio ad absurdum: if each and every aggregate is your > > self, then you, the body, the feeling, the perception, the > > consciousness, the formation, would have power over your self. > > However, that contradicts the fact that each and every aggregate has > > no control over itself. > > > > A lot of people take the reductio ad absurdum argument that the > > Buddha used as: one has no control over the body, the feeling, the > > perception, the consciousness, the formation. > > > > A question for reflection: > > What is the assumption when we say we have no control over the body, > > the feeling, the perception, the consciousness, the formation? > > > > Metta, > > Victor > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > > >Hi all, > > > > > >A good example of what the no-control argument is about can be > > seen in > > >the Culasaccaka Sutta, MN 35. > > >http://metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/2Majjhima- > > Nikaya/Majjhima1/035-culasaccaka-sutta-e1.htm > > 18688 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny LOL! ;-)) With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/11/03 5:06:03 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > There is no need to get into that kind of speculation. It's not > good for yourself. :-) > > Take care, > Victor > /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) 18689 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 2:52pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello > The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various > kinds. That is not what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that body is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations are not self, consciousness is not self. Regards, Victor 18690 From: christineforsyth Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 3:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hello Larry (and Victor), (Victor, in the last 'round' on Anatta you didn't answer the direct question as to whether you believed there was 'something' standing behind the impermanent aggregates ... like a Soul, or universal Self. It may be worthwhile to draw to your notice (as Howard has just done) that mostly your arguments in any thread seem to try to support this conclusion, and many times when you are asked about it, you use deflection(as you have just done), without answering transparently. Do you believe the Buddha taught that a permanent, unchanging soul or self exists? I don't. And I think all traditions agree on this point.) Larry, don't you think that No-self means there is no 'one' to have Free Will? My dictionary meaning of Free Will is: 'Loosed from any limitation, or condition, uncontrolled, unrestricted, unconditional.' But the Buddha says: "This being that becomes, from the arising of this, that arises; This not being, that does not become; From the ceasing of this, that ceases." The importance of understanding relations, or conditionality, is clearly indicated in the Buddha's own words. On a number of occasions the Buddha specifically associated the understanding of conditionality with the attainment of liberation. Don't you think that in saying that there is Control and Free Will (whatever that may be) OR in saying there is No control and No free will, one is operating under the sway of different extremes of self view? i.e. A Self who can either have control or not have control. Anatta and Dependant Origination are bound together - just cause and effect - conditionality. No I, no me, no you, no One, no continuing personality, no doer, no actor, no Watcher. Not understanding this continues the weary wandering through Samsara. I liked the Culasaccaka sutta Larry. Another relevant one is MN148 The Chachakka Sutta 'The six sets of six'. Its divisions are Synopsis, Enumeration, Demonstration of Not Self, The Origination of Personality, The Cessation of Personality, The Underlying Tendencies, The Aandonment of the Underlying Tendencies, Liberation. (B. Nanamoli B.Bodhi 1995) I think you would find it very worthwhile, as I did, to read through the Useful Posts under "Anatta - no control?". http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > Contemplating the Culasaccaka Sutta further has changed my mind on the > free-will question. The way I interpret it in conjunction with the > refutation of nihilism and eternalism is that the Buddha is saying kamma > is real but always operates with a belief in an unreal self. The "no > control" point is that we cannot control the result of kamma enough to > make that result last. Seeing this can give us an insight into anatta > and the end of kamma. For example, contemplating body maintenance > problems we can glimpse that body is not self. Contemplating the > impermanence of pleasant feeling, we can glimpse that feeling is not > self. Contemplating memory problems, we can glimpse that understanding > is not self. Contemplating emotional problems, we can glimpse that the > emotional personality is not self. Contemplating eye-consciousness > problems, we can glimpse that consciousness is not self. Contemplating > that neither the best engineering in the universe nor the best > meditative discipline in the universe can produce a lasting result, we > can glimpse that science and concept are not self. Even kamma itself > eventually comes to an end in nibbana. No matter what we do or what our > special skill or virtue is, it is not self because we cannot make it > last. > > I don't see any indication here that the Buddha is saying we have no > choice or saying "no control" = "no choice". Therefore, I would say the > Buddha is advocating free-will, based on this and other suttas. However, > I think he is also saying free-will is limited by deterministic laws: > bad intentions only produce bad results and all results are impermanent > and therefor not self. Plus he is saying all kamma is based on a self > view. So no matter how virtuous one may be, there will always be > problems. Seeing that kamma is not self is the end of kamma and the end > of problems. > > Does anyone know of a sutta where the Buddha says we have no choice and > therefor no free-will? > > Larry 18691 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 3:47pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor Thanks for these comments. This is an area well worth discussing further. Just to clarify where our difference lies, I wonder how you would feel about the following statement: "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Jon --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > > The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > > around us is in fact dhammas (fundamental phenomena) of various > > kinds. > > That is not what the Buddha taught. The Buddha taught that body is > > not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations > are not self, consciousness is not self. > > Regards, > Victor 18692 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Christine, You drew the conclusion yourself, not me. I did not answer your question because I see your question as to be put aside. Why? Because it involves speculation, and it springs from speculation. That kind of discussion and the kind of question that you ask me are not beneficial at all. Taking a metaphysical position only leads to stress/unsatisfactoriness/dukkha. It is not conducive to the cessation of stress/unsatisfactoriness/dukkha. Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christineforsyth " wrote: > Hello Larry (and Victor), > > (Victor, in the last 'round' on Anatta you didn't answer the direct > question as to whether you believed there was 'something' standing > behind the impermanent aggregates ... like a Soul, or universal > Self. It may be worthwhile to draw to your notice (as Howard has > just done) that mostly your arguments in any thread seem to try to > support this conclusion, and many times when you are asked about it, > you use deflection(as you have just done), without answering > transparently. Do you believe the Buddha taught that a permanent, > unchanging soul or self exists? I don't. And I think all traditions > agree on this point.) 18693 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello No problem, Jon. About the statement, the Buddha did not teach that what we take for ourselves are the five aggregates. It is not necessary to say what we take for ourselves are the five aggregates. If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view. The aggregates are not what you are. They are not yours. They are not your self. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks for these comments. This is an area well worth discussing > further. > > Just to clarify where our difference lies, I wonder how you would > feel about the following statement: > > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each > of these khandhas is not self." > > Jon 18694 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Dear everyone, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: Howard: Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five khandhas. Is that your intention? KKT: I just like to add some more info on this subject. Among the 18 Buddhist schools of the pre-Mahayanic era (i.e. the first 500 years after Buddha's Parinibbana) there was an important school which is worth to be mentioned. This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) Its name comes from the word Pudgala = person, individual. This school defended a thesis on the existence of a << pudgala >> which is << NOT OF THE 5 KHANDHAS >> but << NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE 5 KHANDHAS >> Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) of Jainism. This is this Pudgala that goes from one life to another (rebirth) reaps its own kamma-vipaka and even enters into Nibbana ! This school was strongly criticised by other Buddhist schools as heresy (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) Despite those criticisms, Pudgalavada flourished widely over more than 10 centuries. On the 7th century AD, the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang observed that there were more than 1,351 monasteries in India sheltering approximately 66,500 Pudgalavadin monks against 728 monasteries and 68,300 monks of all other schools (Hinayana & Mahayana) This proves that the problem of Anatta is not an easy one to understand :-)) Peace, KKT 18695 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 1:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, KKT (and Victor) - Yes, I thought of the personalists also while engaged in my recent conversation with Victor. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/11/03 7:47:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, phamdluan@a... writes: > > Dear everyone, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > Howard: > Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an > argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five > khandhas. Is that your intention? > > > > > KKT: I just like to add some > more info on this subject. > > Among the 18 Buddhist schools > of the pre-Mahayanic era > (i.e. the first 500 years > after Buddha's Parinibbana) > there was an important school > which is worth to be mentioned. > > This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) > > Its name comes from the word > Pudgala = person, individual. > > This school defended a thesis > on the existence of a <> > which is <> > but <> > Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) > of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) > of Jainism. > > This is this Pudgala that goes > from one life to another (rebirth) > reaps its own kamma-vipaka > and even enters into Nibbana ! > > This school was strongly criticised > by other Buddhist schools as heresy > (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) > > Despite those criticisms, Pudgalavada > flourished widely over more than > 10 centuries. On the 7th century AD, > the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang > observed that there were more than > 1,351 monasteries in India sheltering > approximately 66,500 Pudgalavadin monks > against 728 monasteries and 68,300 monks > of all other schools (Hinayana &Mahayana) > > > This proves that the problem of Anatta > is not an easy one to understand :-)) > > > Peace, > > > KKT > > /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) 18696 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 7:17pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Howard, How did you get that idea? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, KKT (and Victor) - > > Yes, I thought of the personalists also while engaged in my recent > conversation with Victor. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 1/11/03 7:47:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, > phamdluan@a... writes: > > > > > Dear everyone, > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > > > > > Howard: > > Victor, the following three paragraphs of yours constitute an > > argument in favor of the existence of a self outside of the five > > khandhas. Is that your intention? > > > > > > > > > > KKT: I just like to add some > > more info on this subject. > > > > Among the 18 Buddhist schools > > of the pre-Mahayanic era > > (i.e. the first 500 years > > after Buddha's Parinibbana) > > there was an important school > > which is worth to be mentioned. > > > > This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) > > > > Its name comes from the word > > Pudgala = person, individual. > > > > This school defended a thesis > > on the existence of a <> > > which is <> > > but <> > > Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) > > of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) > > of Jainism. > > > > This is this Pudgala that goes > > from one life to another (rebirth) > > reaps its own kamma-vipaka > > and even enters into Nibbana ! > > > > This school was strongly criticised > > by other Buddhist schools as heresy > > (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) > > > > Despite those criticisms, Pudgalavada > > flourished widely over more than > > 10 centuries. On the 7th century AD, > > the Chinese pilgrim Hsuan-tsang > > observed that there were more than > > 1,351 monasteries in India sheltering > > approximately 66,500 Pudgalavadin monks > > against 728 monasteries and 68,300 monks > > of all other schools (Hinayana &Mahayana) > > > > > > This proves that the problem of Anatta > > is not an easy one to understand :-)) > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > KKT 18697 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 7:57pm Subject: Re: Wrong view Hi ven.yanatharo.bikkhu and Robertk Much appreciation for bringing Ajahn Sujin's truly inspired reflections to the notice of dsg's messages. She is indeed a remarkable teacher and I am sure we all feel most fortunate, if not blessed, to have encountered her and her disciples through dsg. Thank you Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1 " wrote: > --- Dear Peter, > I liked what you said below and thought you might appreciate this > piece from a talk A. Sujin gave: > > ""..if one thinks that one should rather have objects other > than the present one, since these appear to be more > wholesome, one will never study the object which > appears now. And how can one know their true nature > when there is no study, no awareness of them? > So it must be the present object, only what appears now. This is more > difficult because it is not the object of desire. If desire can move > one away to another object, that object satisfies one's > desire. Desire is there all the time. If there is no > understanding of lobha (desire) as lobha, how can > it be eradicated? One has to understand different > degrees of realities, also lobha which is more subtle, > otherwise one does not know when there is > lobha. Seeing things as they are. Lobha is lobha. > Usually one does not see the subtle lobha which > moves one away from developing right understanding of the > present object.""endquote > Robertk > 18698 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:03pm Subject: A book about Buddhism tales Dear Everyone who is interested in a Buddhist book, A few weeks ago, I was reading a book called "Twenty Jataka tales". This book is about Buddhism and this book is similar to the americans "Aesop's Fables". My favorite story in this book is called "The fairy and the hare" and "The masters test". The fairy and the hare is about a group of friends (animals). One day the hare, which was the leader of them told all his friends that they will find some food and give the food to the people that they meet and on the next day, if they still have some food then they could eat the food. While everyone was finding food, the hare couldn't find anything so he decided to kill himself for "It" to eat. Then later, a beggar who was actually a fairy, went around and asked everyone for food but she wouldn't take it until she came to Hare. The hare told her that he would kill himself for her to eat and so the beggar(fairy) made some fire but when the hare jumped into the fire he didn't die. The beggar told him that she was actually a fairy and that she was checking his generosity. There was one part in the story that i didn't understand. Why didn't the fairy take the food that all the other animals offered. if any of you understand, please reply and tell me... Thx, From, Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont (my VERY long name...hahaa..) 18699 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:10pm Subject: hi...i like your poems!!! Dear James (A.K.A the person who likes poems), Hi james! im very sorry that i didnt write so often anymore. I was REALLY busy lately and so i didnt have time. Well i was wondering if do you have any kids, age?, sex?, name? I have 3 brothers and all of them are VERY annoying... their names are: Kane/14/M Mark/5/M Sean/2/M I hope you got this other letter about a book (Jataka Tales)....Did you read it? Which one do you like? I have to go now..BYE! From Jan C. P.S: i love all your peoms...dont you ever run out? Well if you didnt plz write me some more!!! THANKS!!!! 18700 From: James Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 8:22pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear everyone, > > > Many thanks to Larry, Victor, Ken > and James for sharing your thoughts. Hi KKT and All, Well, here is the second part of the post I promised. I know you already thanked me, and everyone for our contributions, maybe hoping that would shut me up (???), but I'm not done! ;-) You can't get off that easy! ;-) Okay, I already said that I don't believe in Abhidhamma reductionism because I believe it is too simplistic. I know that this is hard to believe with its extensive lists and Pali terms so long I wonder if the writer accidentally leaned on his/her keyboard! ;-) But I think it is an oversimplification of the matter at hand. Even though the Abhidhamma demonstrates that the self doesn't exist in all of these `dhammas', it still doesn't account for the fact that the unenlightened think they have a self. It doesn't explain how all the pieces fit together to create the illusion of self-hood. I believe its main purpose is to convince people that they don't have a self. Like if they read all of this stuff about nama/rupa, cittas, and `ad nauseum' dhammas, and each of these things having the characteristics of anatta, impermanence, and dukkha, they will naturally abandon the idea of self. Ohhhh…if it were only that simple! The problem that the Abhidhamma doesn't seem to take into account is that the five aggregates exist for the sole purpose of creating the illusion of a lasting and permanent self! Does anyone really think that kind of power can just be explained away and thus made ineffectual? If so, I have some beachfront property here in Arizona I have to sell them! ;-) Form, consciousness, thoughts, perception, and feelings are all focused on the task of creating a false sense of a permanent, lasting self. These aggregates are fueled by ignorance (an not stupidity, but wrong view), desire for existence, and craving. This is what the Buddha taught in the Sutta Pitaka. To use a metaphor for this process (one of my favorite things…if you haven't noticed), imagine each aggregate as a laser machine standing side-by-side in a circle that is shooting its laser into the center. In the center of these lasers a hologram is being formed. That hologram is the illusion of `self'. These lasers are being fueled by ignorance, desire for existence, and craving. Each laser forms a part of the hologram so that it is quite 3-D and life-like. These lasers project life form after life form with birth, disease, old age, and death, which is part of the `script' on which they run. The lasers stay the same, but the form they create changes… therefore there are different lives. This holographic form is inconstant, suffering, and incomplete. Are we the lasers? No. Are we the holograms they create? No. Are we the fuel that supplies them? No. There is no `self' in this process…the self is an illusion created by the process. Where does the fuel come from? What started this process? Even the Buddha couldn't answer that; he just knew it had to be stopped. The way it has to be stopped is to develop `self-mastery' by following the Eightfold Path. All parts of the path must be followed in order to stop identifying with the projection formed by the aggregates and see the `big picture'. When the three poisons are stopped, the image projected by the aggregates also stops. Even if the fuel is lessened, the image becomes less strong and less believable. Of course this is just a metaphor and doesn't completely describe the process. After all, it is a very complicated one. This is how I choose to view the process of becoming. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18701 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 5:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Victor, Can you control yourself enough to be happy all the time? No. I think that is what the Buddha is saying. Do we control our destiny by making choices? Yes. I think the Buddha is also saying this. Are we the prisoner of our choices? Yes. No matter what choice we make the outcome is dukkha. Is there an escape from choice? Yes, nibbana. I think the Buddha is saying all this. Larry ---------------------- Victor: One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. 18702 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 6:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Christine, I've snipped some of your questions and comments for discussion: C: Larry, don't you think that No-self means there is no 'one' to have Free Will? L: Yes. No on has free will and actually seeing that is the end of free will, aka choice. C: My dictionary meaning of Free Will is: 'Loosed from any limitation, or condition, uncontrolled, unrestricted, unconditional.' But the Buddha says: [dependent arising]. L: My dictionary meaning of free will is the ability to choose between kusala or akusala activities. I think the Buddha says we can do this. C: Don't you think that in saying that there is Control and Free Will (whatever that may be) OR in saying there is No control and No free will, one is operating under the sway of different extremes of self view? L: I am saying there is free will but no control. However, the answer to your question is, yes. Any choice assumes a self view. When we really see there is no self all choosing ceases and we become free from kamma. By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever. Thanks for the reference to MN 148. I'll look into it. Does it say we can't choose between kusala and akusala? This is kind of a convoluted argument. If it doesn't make sense we could just discuss one point at a time. What do you disagree with? Larry 18703 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 9:43pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor First, a clarification. You say: << If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view.>> I of course didn't say that, although I find it an interesting area and I may respond separately on this point. What I said was: "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Both parts of this statement are, to my understanding, a part of what the Buddha taught. The Buddha was at pains to point out that this very moment, whatever we may take it to be, in reality is nothing other than the khandhas and, furthermore, that every aspect of the present moment (except for concepts/pannatti) falls within the rubric of the 5 khandhas and hence shares the common characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. To say, "The Buddha taught that the 5 khandhas are not self" is correct as far as it goes. However, it leaves open the question of how the khandhas relate to the present moment and to the development of the understanding of their being not self. Is there anything here you would disagree with? Jon --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > No problem, Jon. About the statement, the Buddha did not teach > that > what we take for ourselves are the five aggregates. It is not > necessary to say what we take for ourselves are the five > aggregates. If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that > view. The aggregates are not what you are. They are not yours. > They are not your self. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > Victor > > > > Thanks for these comments. This is an area well worth discussing > > further. > > > > Just to clarify where our difference lies, I wonder how you would > > feel about the following statement: > > > > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that > each > > of these khandhas is not self." > > > > Jon 18704 From: Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/11/03 10:17:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > How did you get that idea? > > Regards, > Victor > ================================== I never quite seem to know whether you are "speaking" with tongue in cheek. The conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas, of course, made me think of the Pudgalavadins. 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) 18705 From: christineforsyth Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hello Larry, and all, To discuss some of the knotty issues about Anatta, No control or Free Will would be very worthwhile, as I still have so much to learn. As well, kusala and akusala and how we tell just which type is present has always been a difficulty for me. I remember, in particular, my struggle with emotions like 'righteous' anger before I could accept there wasn't any such thing, just a common old defilement called dosa; and the ongoing attempts to see 'mana' in all its forms. So often I mistake akusala states of consciousness for kusala states. I would also be interested to hear more of what you are saying about kamma - I'm not quite clear on this point about controlling the result of kamma: Larry: "By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever." Are you speaking of kammically neutral actions? Perhaps this is another instance of mundane and supramundane mental states? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Christine, I've snipped some of your questions and comments for > discussion: > 18706 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Howard, How did you reach that conclusion? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 1/11/03 10:17:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > > > How did you get that idea? > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > ================================== > I never quite seem to know whether you are "speaking" with tongue in > cheek. The conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas, of course, made me > think of the Pudgalavadins. > > With metta, > Howard 18707 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 10:56pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view Peter --- Peter Da Costa wrote: > Hi Jon ... <> I like the way you put this, 'just simple knowing'. It is 'just knowing' because there is nothing *to be done* in the way of a specific 'practice'. It is 'simple knowing' in the sense that, as Nina points out in her very helpful translation of the commentary from the Satipatthana Sutta, it is bare attention (Pali: satima) accompanied by understanding (Pali: sampajanna). <> Yes, 'just that knowing' is the only remedy that is a true, permanent remedy. It is of course a very long-term prospect, and can only be developed by minute increments in a single given lifetime. But any sort of more immediate remedy is only a patch-up by comparison. There will continue to be plenty of those 'no-knowing' moments for the foreseeable future, but we have to take ouselves as we are. This is where the parami's of patience, determination and the rest come in. <> Right on. And when you think about it, this is as it should always have been! <> I think ADL is a very good choice. Please feel free to share with us any comments or queries you may have. Further discussion is always of benefit (for everyone, and especially the lurkers). Jon 18708 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 11, 2003 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Robert - ... ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, then, almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most people think of willing as something that a "self" does, and I conjecture that this is a reason for Buddhists to look askance at cetana. I cannot give you chapter and verse, Robert, but my impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, is that a number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have read enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect in this, then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. ----------------------------------------------------- I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I stand accused of here ;-)) I think the crux of your comments is: "most people think of willing as something that a "self" does ... [Jon and others] consider that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. " (I take you to be using 'willing ' and 'volition' interchangeably here). As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the idea that 'volition can be exercised'. It has a perfectly valid and understandable meaning when used in its ordinary, conventional sense. As Stephen has pointed out, most drivers manage to avoid running into the garage most of the time, and they are able to do this because they exercise care (a kind of volition) in driving. This is beyond argument; nor is there anything inherently unwholesome about conventional volition. The question on which you and I have had many exchanges in the past (and are yet to agree ;-)) is what the Buddha meant when he spoke of 'arousing effort' etc. in the context of the 4 samma-paddhanas/Right Effort of the path/performing kusala. Was he referring to conventional 'willing'/'volition'? To my understanding he was likely to be referring exclusively to effort of the wholesome kind, i.e., as a wholesome (kusala) quality/mental factor accompanying a mind-state that is kusala. This is because any intention/willing at a time when there is no kusala, whether to make kusala occur or to have less akusala, etc, is more than likely, given our inherent tendencies, to be wishful thinking or some other aspect of akusala. On the other hand, every moment of wholesome mindstate (kusala citta) is accompanied by wholesome effort (viriya) and intention (cetana), and these factors are in turn further developed by the development of wholesome mind-states. The way I see it, the more that a particular form of kusala has been developed and become part of one's inherent tendencies, the greater the accumulations of 'right effort' for that particular kind of kusala, and consequently the more natural or (in conventional terms, and paradoxically) effort-less the performing of that kusala becomes. (And also, the less one will be tempted to think in terms of conventional volition as a means of further development of that kusala). Any common ground here, Howard ;-))? Jon 18709 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 3:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Jon, You write much about kusala. What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may talk.) Does a category have knowable properties? Herman PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Robert - > ... > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, > then, almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most > people think of willing as something that a "self" does, and I > conjecture that this is a reason for Buddhists to look askance at > cetana. I cannot give you chapter and verse, Robert, but my > impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, is that a > number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, > and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great > fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have > read enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect > in this, then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I stand accused of here > ;-)) > > I think the crux of your comments is: > "most people think of willing as something that a "self" does ... > [Jon and others] consider that, because there is no self, volition > cannot be exercised. " > > (I take you to be using 'willing ' and 'volition' interchangeably > here). > > As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the > idea that 'volition can be exercised'. It has a perfectly valid and > understandable meaning when used in its ordinary, conventional sense. > As Stephen has pointed out, most drivers manage to avoid running > into the garage most of the time, and they are able to do this > because they exercise care (a kind of volition) in driving. This is > beyond argument; nor is there anything inherently unwholesome about > conventional volition. > > The question on which you and I have had many exchanges in the past > (and are yet to agree ;-)) is what the Buddha meant when he spoke of > 'arousing effort' etc. in the context of the 4 samma-paddhanas/Right > Effort of the path/performing kusala. Was he referring to > conventional 'willing'/'volition'? > > To my understanding he was likely to be referring exclusively to > effort of the wholesome kind, i.e., as a wholesome (kusala) > quality/mental factor accompanying a mind-state that is kusala. This > is because any intention/willing at a time when there is no kusala, > whether to make kusala occur or to have less akusala, etc, is more > than likely, given our inherent tendencies, to be wishful thinking or > some other aspect of akusala. > > On the other hand, every moment of wholesome mindstate (kusala citta) > is accompanied by wholesome effort (viriya) and intention (cetana), > and these factors are in turn further developed by the development of > wholesome mind-states. > > The way I see it, the more that a particular form of kusala has been > developed and become part of one's inherent tendencies, the greater > the accumulations of 'right effort' for that particular kind of > kusala, and consequently the more natural or (in conventional terms, > and paradoxically) effort-less the performing of that kusala becomes. > (And also, the less one will be tempted to think in terms of > conventional volition as a means of further development of that > kusala). > > Any common ground here, Howard ;-))? > > Jon 18710 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Herman Nice to hear from you again. --- "Egberdina " wrote: > Jon, > > You write much about kusala. And about akusala (with which I'm more familiar;-)). > What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may > talk.) Good, I look forward to talking. I agree that it's best to agree terms first. From my reading, the terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are mostly used in the context of either kusala and akusala citta or kusala and akusala vipaka. The meaning differs with the context. I take your enquiry to be about the former (i.e., kusala and akusala citta). By 'knowable properties' I take you to be asking about the characteristic common to all kusala cittas that can be known by panna (understanding). I believe it takes a certain level of panna to know kusala from akusala. According to my studies, the difference would have to do with the accompanying mental factors. All kusala cittas are accompanied by passaddhi (calm, tranquillity), so I guess I would give this quality as the main 'knowable property' of kusala citta. How am I doing so far? Jon > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. Sounds ominous, Herman! But welcome back, nonetheless. PS You asked: > Does a category have knowable properties? For reasons already given, I don't regard 'kusala' in the context of 'kusala citta' to be a mere category. 18711 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Robert Ed, TG & Howard Thanks for the interesting discussion. Just to add 1 further passage, this from the commentary to TG's Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4) as cited in a note to the MLDB translation (Bh. Bodhi), note 68: "MA: He has "compassion for future generations" insofar as later generations of monks, seeing that the Buddha resorted to forest dwellings, will follow his example and thus hasten their progress towards making an end of suffering." This seems to accord with the passage from the Ji.n.na Sutta cited by Robert (below). Jon --- Robert Eddison wrote: > TG: > > >> thus. It is because I see two benefits that I still resort to > >> jungle-thickets resting places in the forest: I see a pleasant > abiding for > >> myself here and now, and I have compassion for future > generations." > > Howard: > > > Both of these reasons are interesting. Each calls for > elucidation, it > >seems to me. The first reason *suggests* that the Buddha might > have still had > >preferences - specifically the preference for pleasant over > unpleasanat and > >neutral. The second leaves open the question of *how* the Buddha's > resorting > >"to jungle-thicket resting places in the forest" was of service to > future > >generations. By example? By psychic influence? > > > I would think by example. The same two benefits are stated in an > expanded > form by Mahaakassapa when the Buddha asks him why he continues with > the > practice of forest dwelling, wearing rag-robes and other forms of > ascesis > now that he is an old man and no longer has any personal need to > live in > this way. Kassapa's reply is ranked by the commentary as a lion's > roar: > > "For myself I see a pleasant dwelling in this very life, and I have > compassion for later generations, thinking, 'May those of later > generations > follow my example! For when they hear, 'The enlightened disciples > of the > Buddha were for a long time forest dwellers and spoke in praise of > forest > dwelling, were almsfood eaters and spoke in praise of eating > almsfood, were > rag-robe wearers and spoke in praise of wearing rag-robes, were > triple-robe > users and spoke in praise of using the triple-robe, were of few > wishes and > spoke in praise of fewness of wishes, were content and spoke in > praise of > contentment; were secluded and spoke in favour of seclusion, were > aloof > from society and spoke in praise of aloofness from society, were > energetic > and spoke in praise of arousing energy,' then they will practise > accordingly, and that will lead to their welfare and happiness for > a long > time." > > (Ji.n.na Sutta, S ii 203. Bodhi, Connected Discourses I 667) > > Best wishes, > > Robert 18712 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:51am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jon, There are two points I would like to make: 1. You said that: "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Whom is the pronoun "we" referring to? Is it referring to you and me? Or is it referring to you and some others? Or is it referring to everyone? If you take the five aggregate for yourself, I would suggest you abandon the view "the aggregates are self." 2. Concept is impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. It is not self. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > First, a clarification. You say: > << If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view.>> > > I of course didn't say that, although I find it an interesting area > and I may respond separately on this point. > > What I said was: > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each > of these khandhas is not self." > > Both parts of this statement are, to my understanding, a part of what > the Buddha taught. > > The Buddha was at pains to point out that this very moment, whatever > we may take it to be, in reality is nothing other than the khandhas > and, furthermore, that every aspect of the present moment (except for > concepts/pannatti) falls within the rubric of the 5 khandhas and > hence shares the common characteristics of anicca/dukkha/anatta. > > To say, "The Buddha taught that the 5 khandhas are not self" is > correct as far as it goes. However, it leaves open the question of > how the khandhas relate to the present moment and to the development > of the understanding of their being not self. > > Is there anything here you would disagree with? > > Jon 18713 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 2:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/12/03 1:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > Hi Howard, > > How did you reach that conclusion? > > Regards, > Victor ============================= WHICH conclusion, Victor? And is what you are asking about? The *means* used to reach a conclusion, the "machinery"? And are you implying *ever* so subtlely something about a presumed agent which does things? Victor, the Socratic method wears thin after a while, especially when it is not executed sufficiently well to elicit the desired responses. I wish, if just for a brief while, you were to say straight out exactly what you mean and what you are driving at. With metta, Howard > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Victor - > > > >In a message dated 1/11/03 10:17:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>How did you get that idea? > >> > >>Regards, > >>Victor > >> > >================================== > > I never quite seem to know whether you are "speaking" with > tongue in > >cheek. The conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas, of > course, made me > >think of the Pudgalavadins. > > > >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) > > > > /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) 18714 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 7:27am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 12 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 12 Then he read about the meditation subject of Mindfulness of Breathing, and finally he attained the fourth and the fifth stage of jhåna. The King spent his time with the happiness of jhåna. Other people could not see him, except for the royal page. About one month passed in this way. The citizens assembled at the royal courtyard and announced with acclamations: ³Since the day the King has received the royal present he has not looked anymore at the city nor at the shows of the dancing girls nor has he given judgement. May the King return the royal present to his friend.² The citizens said further: ³Usually Kings try to deceive even with presents. They try to get hold of the kingdom of other Kings. What should our King do?² The King heard the sound of acclamations and he considered: ³Shall we maintain the Kingdom or shall we maintain the teachings?² After that he thought, ³We shall maintain the teachings of this Teacher.² He took his sword which he kept on a bed and cut off his hair. He requested his royal page to get at the market two yellow robes and an earthenware alms bowl. He dedicated himself to the Teacher with the words, ³Arahats in the world, we dedicate ourselves in going forth.² He put on one yellow robe and then donned another one. He carried his bowl on his shoulder and left his palace. The citizens saw three dance girls standing at the three doors, but they could not recognize the King who came out of the palace. They thought that he was a Silent Buddha who had come to preach Dhamma to the King. King Pukkusåti left his royal palace and all his possessions in order to go forth. He must have had the utmost patience to change his usual way of life and status, in order to be able to realize the four noble Truths. If one has not accumulated such patience one is not able to act like King Pukkusåti. We read further on: The son of a prominent family (the King who had gone forth as a monk [11) thought, ³Our teacher left the homelife and went forth alone, he went on his way alone. I feel shame and awe with regard to the Teacher. I heard that after our Teacher had gone forth he did not go on a vehicle and he did not use any footwear, not even one layer, nor did he use a paper sunshade.² That son of a prominent family thought, ²I am travelling far and therefore I should not go alone. I shall follow a group of merchants.² When the son of a prominent family who was delicate by nature walked on very hot ground, the soles of both of his feet were with pus and wounds, and therefore, he experienced painful feeling. When the merchants had set up a camp, and sat down to rest, the son of a prominent family went away to sit at the root of a tree. There was nobody there to take care of his legs or massage his back. That son of a prominent family attained the fourth jhåna with Mindfulness of Breathing and he could thus suppress the hardship of his journey, his tiredness and agitation. He spent his time with the joy of jhåna. Footnote 11. Son of a noble family is used commonly to refer to the monk who is actually the Buddha¹s son. 18715 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon (and all) - In a message dated 1/12/03 2:26:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Robert - > ... > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I was conjecturing as to why cetana is spoken of little, and, > then, almost always only negatively. I think it is true that most > people think of willing as something that a "self" does, and I > conjecture that this is a reason for Buddhists to look askance at > cetana. I cannot give you chapter and verse, Robert, but my > impression, and I don't think that I'm wrong in this, is that a > number of people on this list, you a little bit, Sarah a little more, > and Jon even moreso, and others (all of whom I admire and have great > fondness for) consider that no-control is a 100% kind of thing, and > that, because there is no self, volition cannot be exercised. I have > read enumerable posts on DSG to convince me of this. If I'm incorrect > in this, then I am very pleased. If I'm correct, well, so it is. > ----------------------------------------------------- > > I'm just trying to figure out exactly what I stand accused of here > ;-)) > > I think the crux of your comments is: > "most people think of willing as something that a "self" does ... > [Jon and others] consider that, because there is no self, volition > cannot be exercised. " > > (I take you to be using 'willing ' and 'volition' interchangeably > here). > > As far as I'm concerned, there's absolutely nothing wrong with the > idea that 'volition can be exercised'. It has a perfectly valid and > understandable meaning when used in its ordinary, conventional sense. > As Stephen has pointed out, most drivers manage to avoid running > into the garage most of the time, and they are able to do this > because they exercise care (a kind of volition) in driving. This is > beyond argument; nor is there anything inherently unwholesome about > conventional volition. > > The question on which you and I have had many exchanges in the past > (and are yet to agree ;-)) is what the Buddha meant when he spoke of > 'arousing effort' etc. in the context of the 4 samma-paddhanas/Right > Effort of the path/performing kusala. Was he referring to > conventional 'willing'/'volition'? > > To my understanding he was likely to be referring exclusively to > effort of the wholesome kind, i.e., as a wholesome (kusala) > quality/mental factor accompanying a mind-state that is kusala. This > is because any intention/willing at a time when there is no kusala, > whether to make kusala occur or to have less akusala, etc, is more > than likely, given our inherent tendencies, to be wishful thinking or > some other aspect of akusala. > > On the other hand, every moment of wholesome mindstate (kusala citta) > is accompanied by wholesome effort (viriya) and intention (cetana), > and these factors are in turn further developed by the development of > wholesome mind-states. > > The way I see it, the more that a particular form of kusala has been > developed and become part of one's inherent tendencies, the greater > the accumulations of 'right effort' for that particular kind of > kusala, and consequently the more natural or (in conventional terms, > and paradoxically) effort-less the performing of that kusala becomes. > (And also, the less one will be tempted to think in terms of > conventional volition as a means of further development of that > kusala). > > Any common ground here, Howard ;-))? > > Jon > ===================================== You make it clear in the foregoing that it is your understanding that we can and do (conventionally) exercise volition - sometimes usefully and often times not so usefully, and I stand disabused of my impression that "willing" is deemed impossible by you. I also agree - certainly - that volition exercised under the sway of dominating akusula conditions is not an instance of right effort. I think that probably where we differ is in the status of right effort. I see it as specific conventional mental activity, whereas I *think* you see it as something else. From my perspective, the following excerpts taken from ATI show right effort to be quite conventional and to be something that one really has to *work* at with diligence and considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of concentration and mindfulness. [I do think, however, that the *habits* of mindfulness, wise attention, and right effort can be cultivated so that, after a while they become more and more automatic, requiring less and less reminding of oneself and less and less "girding for battle"]. My apologies to all for this being a lengthy post. I didn't wish to cut out any of Jon's post, I did want to make the above remarks, and the excerpts to follow are a small part of a large article, which I thought better to directly include rather than giving the url for the entire article. The excepts follow at the end of this post. With metta, Howard ****************************** Passages from the Pali Canon § 49. There are these four right exertions. Which four? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. These are the four right exertions. Just as the River Ganges flows to the east, slopes to the east, inclines to the east, in the same way when a monk develops & pursues the four right exertions, he flows to Unbinding, slopes to Unbinding, inclines to Unbinding. > > > -- SN XLIX.1 § 50. There are these four exertions. Which four? The exertion to guard, the exertion to abandon, the exertion to develop, & the exertion to maintain. And what is the exertion to guard? There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or variations by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. (Similarly with the ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.) This is called the exertion to guard. And what is the exertion to abandon? There is the case where a monk does not acquiesce to a thought of sensuality that has arisen [in him]. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, wipes it out of existence. He does not acquiesce to a thought of ill will... a thought of harmfulness... any evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen [in him]. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, wipes them out of existence. This is called the exertion to abandon. And what is the exertion to develop? There is the case where a monk develops the mindfulness factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the investigation of qualities factor for Awakening... the persistence factor for Awakening... the rapture factor for Awakening... the serenity factor for Awakening... the concentration factor for Awakening... the equanimity factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is called the exertion to develop. And what is the exertion to maintain? There is the case where a monk maintains a favorable theme of concentration -- the skeleton perception, the worm-eaten perception, the livid perception, the festering perception, the falling-apart perception, the bloated perception. This is called the exertion to maintain. [§30] These are the four exertions. > Guarding & abandoning, > developing & maintaining: > these four exertions, taught > by the Kinsman of the Sun > [the Buddha]. A monk who strives > ardently at them > reaches the ending > of stress. > >> -- AN IV.14 > /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) 18716 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 8:19am Subject: RE: [dsg] My letter to Kom Dear Janice, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > I hope you had a wonderful Christmas and HAPPY > NEW YEAR TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY! I went to San > Francisco and Vancouver during the Christmas holidays. Thanks for the good wish. I had a great Christmas and New Year (more dhamma discussions / trip to LA). I am glad you like San Francisco and Vancouver: they are both very pretty cities. > I wonder how does the Buddha creates different > sounds in our ears? I am asking you this because you > talked about the Buddha makes sounds about the > different karmas! > The Buddha doesn't create sounds in our ears. How could he? He has already passed away completely. He doesn't speak, nor does he have any body or mind like we do. The Buddha teaches that seeing, hearing, tasting, smelling, and touching are results of karma. When you hear a pleasant sound (like somebody praises you), hearing (although not the sound) is a result of good karma. When you hear an unpleasant sound (like somebody saying something not too nice to you), hearing is a result of bad karma. Each one person sees, hears, tastes, smells, and touches things that are different from another person. This is because each person has his/her own karma that was done in the past and in the present. You may be seeing what I write now, but your friend might be busy reading a book, or watching TV, or playing game. Everyone has their own karma and results of karma. I hope this answers your questions. If not, please do let me know. I like the ending of your letter. Metta. Kindness (Metta), Compassion (Karuna), Sympathetic Joy (Mudita), and Equanimity (Upekkha): these are the four divine abidings with which one can live happily in this very life. kom 18717 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. > Welcome back Herman! 18718 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] A Recommended Article --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > I just finished reading the section on Right > Intention in the > following and was impressed. For those of you who > have not seen this work by > Bhikkhu Bodhi, I pass on the url for your > consideration: HREF="http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html"> > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/waytoend.html > That section on right intention is awesome. Here's an excerpt: Since the most important formulation of right view is the understanding of the Four Noble Truths, it follows that this view should be in some way determinative of the content of right intention. This we find to be in fact the case. Understanding the four truths in relation to one's own life gives rise to the intention of renunciation; understanding them in relation to other beings gives rise to the other two right intentions. When we see how our own lives are pervaded by dukkha, and how this dukkha derives from craving, the mind inclines to renunciation -- to abandoning craving and the objects to which it binds us. Then, when we apply the truths in an analogous way to other living beings, the contemplation nurtures the growth of good will and harmlessness. We see that, like ourselves, all other living beings want to be happy, and again that like ourselves they are subject to suffering. The consideration that all beings seek happiness causes thoughts of good will to arise -- the loving wish that they be well, happy, and peaceful. The consideration that beings are exposed to suffering causes thoughts of harmlessness to arise -- the compassionate wish that they be free from suffering. 18719 From: peterdac4298 Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view Jon: >Further discussion is always of benefit (for everyone, and >especially the lurkers). Hi Jon Thank you for your inspiring encouragement. May the lurkers remain a worthy object of our compassion. May they always be a motive for future posting. Cheers Peter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Peter > > --- Peter Da Costa wrote: > > Hi Jon > ... > < how 'skillful' the remedy, can be seen as a predicament, which for > its remedy requires just simple knowing.>> > > I like the way you put this, 'just simple knowing'. It is 'just > knowing' because there is nothing *to be done* in the way of a > specific 'practice'. It is 'simple knowing' in the sense that, as > Nina points out in her very helpful translation of the commentary > from the Satipatthana Sutta, it is bare attention (Pali: satima) > accompanied by understanding (Pali: sampajanna). > > < understand this to mean that there is nothing to do but just know or > be purely aware, since these are the fundamental function of mind. > In other words, if there is no knowing or awareness then the mind is > in fact doing something. If it seems as though nothing at all is > happening then it is either dead (what ever that may be), or it is > overwhelmed with background noise, or 'white' noise, just mass, > random activity with no discernable, resultant signal. Happily the > remedy is in just that knowing.>> > > Yes, 'just that knowing' is the only remedy that is a true, permanent > remedy. It is of course a very long-term prospect, and can only be > developed by minute increments in a single given lifetime. But any > sort of more immediate remedy is only a patch-up by comparison. > > There will continue to be plenty of those 'no-knowing' moments for > the foreseeable future, but we have to take ouselves as we are. This > is where the parami's of patience, determination and the rest come > in. > > < regardless of the current activity, or situation.>> > > Right on. And when you think about it, this is as it should always > have been! > > < Nina's AinDL as located on Zolag. I should have done this decades > ago, but better late than never. I hope to be able to follow posts > more closely and make contributions more in keeping with the > tradition of the group.>> > > I think ADL is a very good choice. Please feel free to share with us > any comments or queries you may have. Further discussion is always > of benefit (for everyone, and especially the lurkers). > > Jon 18720 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:18am Subject: Re: right thinking Hi Nina, Thank you for your post. It triggered lots of other reflections, seemingly only slightly related. I found the subject matter 'right thinking' quite difficult because it is so different to my conventional ideas of the term. I've been reading Ch. 8 in Cetasikas, but kept getting interrupted and having to start again. (one of 'those' weekends.) As well, I find I will need to read the post and the chapter over a few times more and consider them in small portions due to their impersonal language, and my slowness at understanding. (satipatthana :-)) I don't know what it was in the post, but reading about the two cetasikas vitakka and vicara brought anatta to mind more clearly. (Maybe 'thinking' is to me the essence of 'my being'? who knows...) The wandering thoughts revolved around: Even though I no longer believe I am a 'creation' of a God, it occurred to me that I had continued to believe that *I* was here for a 'reason', that *I* existed for a 'purpose', that *I* was part of a 'grand plan', that the current, individual *I* had great importance. Considering this, *I* felt suddenly that life really has no point or purpose - that it just 'is' because of whatever has gone before. That just as in the uncountable lives in the past, in the uncountable future ones *I* will not be a 'human-in-exile' embodied in another form enduring different Planes of existence. *I* don't own any form. Bodies, gender, species, personality, consciousness - like everything, are all anatta, don't last, aren't peaceful, are not desirable. How trite this looks in print - but it made a significant impact when I was driving on the Motorway at 110 kms.p.h. :-) So - no need to want to be anywhere or anyone else. There is only ever just this moment. I too will remind myself to just be aware of what is appearing now, and again .. now - and trust that panna will be growing little by little. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Christine, > Right thinking, sammasankappa, of the eightfold Path is sometimes translated > by right intention. 18721 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hello Herman, Good topic 'kusala' and 'akusala'. Bigger than it looks at first. Larry and I are touching on this as well, so we might stroll along with you and Jon for a while if you don't mind - Happy New Year. :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Jon, > > You write much about kusala. > > What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may talk.) > > Does a category have knowable properties? > > > Herman > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. 18722 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 2:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Howard, How did you reach the conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas? Please remember that it was you who reach that conclusion, not me. Read Dhammapada 12. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html I believe it will help you understand how the pronoun "self" is used. There is no need to get into all the speculation and assumption that you are implying. The speculation, assumption, and self-view only lead to stress. Discussion on them is not beneficial at all. Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > In a message dated 1/12/03 1:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > > > > > Hi Howard, > > > > How did you reach that conclusion? > > > > Regards, > > Victor > ============================= > WHICH conclusion, Victor? And is what you are asking about? The > *means* used to reach a conclusion, the "machinery"? And are you implying > *ever* so subtlely something about a presumed agent which does things? > Victor, the Socratic method wears thin after a while, especially when > it is not executed sufficiently well to elicit the desired responses. I wish, > if just for a brief while, you were to say straight out exactly what you mean > and what you are driving at. > > With metta, > Howard 18723 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > Nice to hear from you again. > Thank you, and thank you for your well-considered reply. > --- "Egberdina " wrote: > > Jon, > > > > You write much about kusala. > > And about akusala (with which I'm more familiar;-)). > > > What are the knowable properties of kusala (only so that we may > > talk.) > > Good, I look forward to talking. I agree that it's best to agree > terms first. > > From my reading, the terms 'kusala' and 'akusala' are mostly used in > the context of either kusala and akusala citta or kusala and akusala > vipaka. The meaning differs with the context. I take your enquiry > to be about the former (i.e., kusala and akusala citta). > > By 'knowable properties' I take you to be asking about the > characteristic common to all kusala cittas that can be known by panna > (understanding). I believe it takes a certain level of panna to know > kusala from akusala. > > According to my studies, the difference would have to do with the > accompanying mental factors. All kusala cittas are accompanied by > passaddhi (calm, tranquillity), so I guess I would give this quality > as the main 'knowable property' of kusala citta. > > How am I doing so far? I am sure you are doing just fine. I am trying to get my understanding of the terms in line with the common understanding. I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I do not understand why kusala is therefore not a category. A citta is an irreducible experience, whose qualities can be known. A citta is then categorised according to the plane of existence , the moral nature, and/or the underlying motivation. These divisions are conceptual are they not? By which I mean, one can not experience "wholesomeness", but one can experience calm and tranquility. Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > Jon All the best Herman 18724 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 4:19pm Subject: Way 37, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on Breathing, p.49 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Indeed, to that yogi training in respiration-mindfulness according to the method taught thus: "He, thinking 'I breathe in long,' understands when he is breathing in long... Calming the activity of the body... I breathe out, thinking thus, he trains himself" [digham va assasanto digham assasamiti pajanati... passambhayam kayasankharam passasissamiti sikkhati], the four absorptions [cattari jhanani] arise in the respiration sign [assasapassasanimitte uppajjanti]. [Tika] In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga nimitta]. Having emerged from the absorption, he lays hold of either the respiration body or the factors of absorption. There the meditating worker in respiration [assasapassasa kammika] examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karajja kaya]. The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these [cattari mahabhutani upadarupañca]. [T] The worker in respiration examines the respiration while devoting himself to the development of insight through the means of corporeality. [T] The basis, namely, the coarse body, is where the mind and mental characteristics occur. Thereupon, he, the worker in respiration, cognizes the mind (nama) in the pentad of mental concomitants beginning with sense-impression. The five beginning with sense-impression are sense-impression, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are taken here as representative of mind. 18725 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - The three premisses of yours that I think imply the existence of a self outside of the khandhas were the following: 1) One can control oneself. Without exercising of self-control, observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. 2) Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over itself. The five aggregates have no control over themselves. 3) When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction arises. I understood the 1st of these to say that there is something - someting you refer to as "one" - which exercises control over itself. (Inasmuch as you do not accept the conventional / ultimate distinction, I presume that you really mean there is some thing which exercises such contol.) The 2nd of these says that this thing which exercises control is not any (element of) the five khandhas. These two, together, already say that there is something which exercises control, but is different from any of the five khandhas. That would be the alleged self outside of the khandhas the existence of which I claim is being implied. Your 3rd statement in facts only emphasizes the part of the conclusion that the alleged self asserted by the first sentence cannot be identified with the khandhas. Now, it may be that I am misunderstanding the meaning of your 1st premiss. Exactly what do you mean - exactly, please - by saying one can control oneself? What is this "one"? Are you simply speaking conventionally, and mean by this that within any given psychophysical stream of experience moments of willing can and do occur which have consequences? If that isn't what you mean, what *do* you mean? It is what *I* mean when I say that we can exercise self-control (or any sort of control). I do not mean literally that there is some agent exercising control. [If there were, then, indeed, it would be contradictory to identify it with any of the khandhas.] If you *do* mean there is such an agent, could you please give some indication of what the nature of that agent is? With metta, Howard P.S. With regard to your statement "The speculation, assumption, and self-view only lead to stress. Discussion on them is not beneficial at all.": I am not speculating, making an assumption, or putting forward a self-view. I'm merely quoting your own premisses [speculations on your part?], asking you exactly what you mean by them, particularly the first, and also stating what they, as I understood them, directly imply. In a message dated 1/12/03 5:33:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Howard, > > How did you reach the conclusion of a self outside of the khandhas? > > Please remember that it was you who reach that conclusion, not me. > > Read Dhammapada 12. > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp1/12.html > I believe it will help you understand how the pronoun "self" is used. > > There is no need to get into all the speculation and assumption that > you are implying. > > The speculation, assumption, and self-view only lead to stress. > Discussion on them is not beneficial at all. > > Take care, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Victor - > > > >In a message dated 1/12/03 1:55:08 AM Eastern Standard Time, > >yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > > >> > >> > >>Hi Howard, > >> > >>How did you reach that conclusion? > >> > >>Regards, > >>Victor > >============================= > > WHICH conclusion, Victor? And is what you are asking about? > The > >*means* used to reach a conclusion, the "machinery"? And are you > implying > >*ever* so subtlely something about a presumed agent which does > things? > > Victor, the Socratic method wears thin after a while, > especially when > >it is not executed sufficiently well to elicit the desired > responses. I wish, > >if just for a brief while, you were to say straight out exactly > what you mean > >and what you are driving at. > > > >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) 18726 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi, Herman (welcome back!) and Jon - In a message dated 1/12/03 7:02:33 PM Eastern Standard Time, hhofman@t... writes: > > I am sure you are doing just fine. I am trying to get my > understanding of the terms in line with the common understanding. > > I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I do not > understand why kusala is therefore not a category. > > A citta is an irreducible experience, whose qualities can be known. > > A citta is then categorised according to the plane of existence , the > moral nature, and/or the underlying motivation. > > These divisions are conceptual are they not? By which I mean, one can > not experience "wholesomeness", but one can experience calm and > tranquility. > > Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more > elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. > > I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > > > >Jon > > All the best > > > Herman > > ====================================== The following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary sure seems to me to indicate that kusala cittas constitute a (rather precisely defined) category of mindstates: > kusala: 'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > (skillful) Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Atthasálini), are: > of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, skillful. > It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skillful', when the term > is applied to states of consciousness.It is defined in M. 9 as the 10 > wholesome courses of action (s. kammapatha). In psychological terms, > 'karmically wholesome' are all those karmical volitions (kamma-cetaná) and > the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, which are > accompanied by 2 or 3 wholesome roots (s. múla), i.e. by greedlessness > (alobha) and hatelessness (adosa), and in some cases also by non-delusion > (amoha: wisdom, understanding). Such states of consciousness are regarded > as 'karmically wholesome' as they are causes of favourable karma results > and contain the seeds of a happy destiny or rebirth. From this explanation, > two facts should be noted: (1) it is volition that makes a state of > consciousness, or an act, 'good' or 'bad'; (2) the moral criterion in > Buddhism is the presence or absence of the 3 wholesome or moral roots (s. > múla).The above explanations refer to mundane (lokiya, q.v.) wholesome > consciousness. Supermundane wholesome (lokuttara-kusala) states, i.e. the > four paths of sanctity (s. ariyapuggala), have as results only the > corresponding four fruitions; they do not constitute karma, nor do they > lead to rebirth, and this applies also to the good actions of an Arahat > (Tab. I, 73-80) and his meditative states (Tab. 1, 81-89), which are all > karmically inoperative (functional; s. kiriya).Kusala belongs to a > threefold division of all consciousness, as found in the Abhidhamma (Dhs.), > into wholesome (kusala), unwholesome (akusala) and karmically neutral > (avyákata), which is the first of the triads (tika) in the Abhidhamma > schedule (mátiká); s. Guide, pp. 4ff., 12ff; Vis.M. XIV, 83ff. ============================ 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) 18727 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:33pm Subject: Time Travel Dear Sarah and all, In Dipa Ma’s Life Story condensed from "Knee Deep in Grace: The Extraordinary Life and Teaching of Dipa Ma" "In 1963, her teacher Munindra began to instruct her in the ancient Indian siddhis, or practice of spiritual powers. She was selected not only for her extraordinary concentration but also for her impeccable morality. Dipa Ma, Hema, and three of their daughters were introduced to dematerialization, body-doubling, cooking food without fire, mind-reading, visitation of the heaven and hell realms, time travel, knowledge of past lives, and more. Dipa Ma was the most adept of all Munindra’s students. Her mastery of the siddhis was tested by skeptical observers and researchers and left them astounded." http://www.dharma.org/~amys/bio.html What is meant by time travel? Thanks / Antony. 18728 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 6:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi all, It looks like we are getting into the anxiously awaited (by me) section on insight here. I just have a couple of questions. "There the meditating worker in respiration [assasapassasa kammika] examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karajja kaya]. The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these [cattari mahabhutani upadarupañca]." Are we switching from "minding" the body of the breath to examining the whole body? Is the whole body the object of insight in the remainder of this section? "Thereupon, he, the worker in respiration, cognizes the mind (nama) in the pentad of mental concomitants beginning with sense-impression." [T] "The five beginning with sense-impression are sense-impression, feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are taken here as representative of mind." L: Why is there a pentad of mental concomitants instead of the usual 4? Thanks. Larry 18729 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 1:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Time Travel Hello Antony, I can't answer your exact question but Dipa Ma was closely associated with Sylvia Boorstein who I heard speak recently. She stated that Dipa Ma could walk through walls. (BTW, I did my senior thesis on the philosophy of time travel; I believe that the paradoxes are resolvable so it's theoretically possible. But I find claims such as these risible.) metta, stephen 18730 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 7:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi Howard, I didn't understand this definition. Are an arahant's consciousness and deeds kusala but kammicly neutral? If so, what is the meaning of kusala in this case? Larry 18731 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 5:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Christine, You ask about how to discriminate between akusala and kusala. I expect Nina will have something to say on this. Personally, I think the best way to begin is to just use conventional values, common sense, and whatever insight may arise. In this group I think the bias is on the side of being too harsh on oneself. I don't think goodness is particularly rare or uncommon. You don't have to be a saint to offer a kindness and continually denigrating oneself is sometimes a way of sneaking in the back door of a supposedly elite goodness. Specifically, what I mean by choosing kusala is following the Buddha's instructions to the best of one's ability. C: I'm not quite clear on this point about controlling the result of kamma: Larry: "By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever." Are you speaking of kammicly neutral actions? Perhaps this is another instance of mundane and supramundane mental states? L: Could you rephrase this question. I'm not sure what you are asking. By "no control" I mean something like this: I feel dirty and ugly so I take a shower and feel clean and handsome. But that clean and handsome won't last very long so "clean and handsome" is not who I am, not my self, precisely because it doesn't last. Clean and handsome is a kammic consequence of the virtue (kusala) of cleanliness. Because it doesn't last, it makes me sad (dukkha). If I were an arahant, I wouldn't think "I feel dirty" or "I feel clean" because I wouldn't have a sense of "I" and the impermanence of cleanliness would not make me sad precisely because of that absence of an "I". I would, however, probably be meticulous about following conventional values of cleanliness for the good of others. So, yes, I am talking about mundane and supramundane. We can choose to do good. That choosing is kamma process and assumes a nonexistent self. The choosing is real but the self is not. Once we make a choice we can't control the result by making it last forever. It is dukkha. If we really were convinced there is no self [a supramundane insight] there would be no hopeful choosing or resultant disappointment. Freewill is basically acting on desire. Reading this over, I can see this still isn't very clear. I have a feeling there are disconnections in the logic I'm not seeing. Maybe someone else can straighten it out. Larry 18732 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 8:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: < snip > C: I'm not quite clear on this point about controlling the result of kamma: Larry: "By "no control" I mean we cannot control the result of kamma to the extent that it becomes a self, i.e., permanent. However, we can choose between kusala and akusala and making that choice *to a certain extent* controls the result of kamma. But we can't make it last forever." Are you speaking of kammicly neutral actions? Perhaps this is another instance of mundane and supramundane mental states? L: Could you rephrase this question. I'm not sure what you are asking. By "no control" I mean something like this: I feel dirty and ugly so I take a shower and feel clean and handsome. But that clean and handsome won't last very long so "clean and handsome" is not who I am, not my self, precisely because it doesn't last. Clean and handsome is a kammic consequence of the virtue (kusala) of cleanliness. Because it doesn't last, it makes me sad (dukkha). If I were an arahant, I wouldn't think "I feel dirty" or "I feel clean" because I wouldn't have a sense of "I" and the impermanence of cleanliness would not make me sad precisely because of that absence of an "I". I would, however, probably be meticulous about following conventional values of cleanliness for the good of others. So, yes, I am talking about mundane and supramundane. We can choose to do good. That choosing is kamma process and assumes a nonexistent self. The choosing is real but the self is not. Once we make a choice we can't control the result by making it last forever. It is dukkha. If we really were convinced there is no self [a supramundane insight] there would be no hopeful choosing or resultant disappointment. Freewill is basically acting on desire. Reading this over, I can see this still isn't very clear. I have a feeling there are disconnections in the logic I'm not seeing. Maybe someone else can straighten it out. KKT: Your explanation is very good, Larry. So there would be << choice without the sense of self >> KKT 18733 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 9:51pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Time Travel Hi Antony, --- Antony Woods wrote: > What is meant by time travel? ..... I'm sorry - no idea. I also don't know anything about Dipa Ma and I don't recall Munindra even mentioning her name to me. Always good to see yr around and thx for sharing the pic. Sarah ====== 18734 From: Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 8:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, KKT: Your explanation is very good, Larry. So there would be << choice without the sense of self >> L: I'm not sure "choice" is the right word. I may have heard this described as "auspicious coincidence". Larry 18735 From: Antony Woods Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:07pm Subject: Re: Time Travel Dear Stephen and all, This quote from Bhikkhu Nanamoli was on my mind: "When the seen, heard, sensed and cognized (see Udana I,10**) are misperceived to be (this that I see,...., that I think about, is that man, so-and-so, that thing of mine), to have temporal endurance and reality, it is because the three periods of time, these three modes by which we subjectively process our raw world in perceiving it, have been projected outwards by ignorance on the raw world and misapprehended along with that as objectively real. That is how we in our ignorance come to perceive things and persons and action." (from "Does Saddha mean Faith?" in "Pathways of Buddhist Thought" Wheel 52/53, bps@m...) ** http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/udana/ud1-10.html 18736 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 12, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Dear All, --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Just to add 1 further passage, this from the commentary to TG's > Bhayabherava Sutta (MN 4) as cited in a note to the MLDB translation > (Bh. Bodhi), note 68: > > "MA: He has "compassion for future generations" insofar as later > generations of monks, seeing that the Buddha resorted to forest > dwellings, will follow his example and thus hasten their progress > towards making an end of suffering." > > This seems to accord with the passage from the Ji.n.na Sutta cited by > Robert (below). > > (Ji.n.na Sutta, S ii 203. Bodhi, Connected Discourses I 667) ..... Also in MN 32, Mahagosinga Sutta, we read the discussion between the leading disciples, including Ven Sariputta, Maha Mogallana, Maha Kassapa and Ven Ananda, about ‘what kind of bhikkhu could illuminate the Gosinga Sala-tree Wood’. Maha Kassapa praises forest dwelling, being of few wishes, content, secluded, energetic, attaining virtue, concentration and wisdom. Mogallana praises discussion between two bhikkhus on abhidhamma and the Sariputta praises ‘mastery over the mind’. When the conversation is repeated to the Buddha, he says they have all spoken well, ‘each in his own way’. He then adds that the monk resolved not to leave his sitting position until his ‘mind is liberated from the taints’ illuminates the wood. We know MahaKassapa led an exemplary life, aloof from society, wearing rag robes and content with little until he died at 120 yrs old, setting an example for other monks. We know he was always guided by compassion for monks and lay people, concerned for the preservation of the Teachings and was opposed to any minor rules being left out at the First Council so as not to discourage lay supporters. ..... In the Sammohavinodani (Dispeller of Delusion, PTS, Classification of the Jhanas,1799f) there is some detail about all the terms used in the descriptions such as ‘secluded’,’forest’, ‘tree root’, ‘jungle thicket’ and so on. Under ‘vivitta.m (‘secluded’) we read that forest dwelling is not for everyone: ..... “What does he show by vivitta.m (‘secluded’)? He shows a suitable abode as a place of training for a course of practice (yoga) for that bhikkhu. For a forest dwelling is appropriate for one who has within him a certain number of qualities. But for one in whom they are not, it is inappropriate, since for such a one dwelling in the forest is like the jungle dwelling of black monkeys, bears, hyenas, leopards, deer and so on. Why? Because of having entered it on account of a need (cf Mi 19). For there is no benefit based on a forest dwelling at all for him. He fouls both forest dwelling and the forest dwellers and he creates distrust in the dispensation. But it is appropriate only for one in whom there are a certain number of qualities. For in a forest dwelling he establishes insight, reaches Arahatship and attains complete extinction; he glorifies all forest dwellings, he washes the head of forest dwellers and he extends the whole dispensation. That is why the Master said: ‘He frequents a secluded abode’ and so on, showing a suitable abode as a place of training for a course of practice for such a bhikkhu.” ...... I think the phrase ‘for such a bhikkhu’ is important. We have to know our own ‘qualities’ and what is ‘appropriate’. In the MN sutta referred to (MN 19, Dvedhavitakka Sutta, transl by B.Bodhi), appropriately for other current discussions, it is about wrong and right thought (vitakka) and it discusses the 3 kinds of Right Thought - of renunciation, non-ill will and non-cruelty. It discusses the point about accumulating wholesome states after clearly distinguishing between kusala (wholesome) and akusala (unwholesome) states when they arise. This clear knowledge of the distinction was developed whilst he was an ‘unenlightened Bodhsatta’: “Bhikkhus, whatever a bhikkhu frequently thinks and ponders upon, that will become the inclination of his mind. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of renunciation, he has abandoned the thought of sensual desire to cultivate the thought of renunciation, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of renunciation. If he frequently thinks and ponders upon thoughts of non-ill will...upon thoughts of non-cruelty, he has abandoned the thought of cruelty to cultivate the thought of non-cruelty, and then his mind inclines to thoughts of non-cruelty.” This was given in contrast to accumulating thoughts of sensual desire, ill-will and cruelty And then in the sutta we read the example that I believe the commentary above was referring to. Two men might approach a marsh in a wooded area where there is a herd of deer. The first man means harm, closes off the safe path, sets up a decoy and dummy and the deer come to disaster. The second man wishes to protect them, closes off the false path, removes the decoy and the deer come to ‘fulfilment’. In the simile, the marsh represents sensual pleasures, the deer represent beings. The man who means harm represents Mara. The false path represents the wrong eightfold path, i.e wrong view, wrong intention etc. The decoy represents delight and lust and the dummy, ignorance. The man desiring their good is the Tathagata, the safe path is the Noble Eightfold path and so on. “So, bhikkhus, the safe and good path that leads to happiness has been reopened by me, the wrong path has been closed off, the decoy removed, the dummy destroyed....” ..... In other words, as I understand, it is not the forest or marsh in the wooded area that is of itself significant, but the intentions, ‘need’ or sincerity of purpose and understanding whilst dwelling there according to conditions and habitual inclinations. Sarah ====== 18737 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:37am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi Howard, Thanks for the welcome and the reply. I'll wait and see if Jon has any further insights into the matter. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Herman (welcome back!) and Jon - > > > > > Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more > > elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. > > > > I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > > > > > > >Jon > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > > > > ====================================== > The following from Nyanatiloka's dictionary sure seems to me to > indicate that kusala cittas constitute a (rather precisely defined) category > of mindstates: > > > > kusala: 'karmically wholesome' or 'profitable', salutary, morally good, > > (skillful) Connotations of the term, according to Com. (Atthasálini), are: > > of good health, blameless, productive of favourable karma-result, skillful. > > It should be noted that Com. excludes the meaning 'skillful', when the term > > is applied to states of consciousness.It is defined in M. 9 as the 10 > > wholesome courses of action (s. kammapatha). In psychological terms, > > 'karmically wholesome' are all those karmical volitions (kamma- cetaná) and > > the consciousness and mental factors associated therewith, which are > > accompanied by 2 or 3 wholesome roots (s. múla), i.e. by greedlessness > > (alobha) and hatelessness (adosa), and in some cases also by non- delusion > > (amoha: wisdom, understanding). Such states of consciousness are regarded > > as 'karmically wholesome' as they are causes of favourable karma results > > and contain the seeds of a happy destiny or rebirth. From this explanation, > > two facts should be noted: (1) it is volition that makes a state of > > consciousness, or an act, 'good' or 'bad'; (2) the moral criterion in > > Buddhism is the presence or absence of the 3 wholesome or moral roots (s. > > múla).The above explanations refer to mundane (lokiya, q.v.) wholesome > > consciousness. Supermundane wholesome (lokuttara-kusala) states, i.e. the > > four paths of sanctity (s. ariyapuggala), have as results only the > > corresponding four fruitions; they do not constitute karma, nor do they > > lead to rebirth, and this applies also to the good actions of an Arahat > > (Tab. I, 73-80) and his meditative states (Tab. 1, 81-89), which are all > > karmically inoperative (functional; s. kiriya).Kusala belongs to a > > threefold division of all consciousness, as found in the Abhidhamma (Dhs.), > > into wholesome (kusala), unwholesome (akusala) and karmically neutral > > (avyákata), which is the first of the triads (tika) in the Abhidhamma > > schedule (mátiká); s. Guide, pp. 4ff., 12ff; Vis.M. XIV, 83ff. > ============================ > With metta, > Howard > 18738 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, and All, I think these are good questions and I’ve been interested to read the various responses: __”Can we say that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding? On the first level He stressed people to make effort, to exercise their << free will >> as if there were effectively a << doer or entity >> capable of << doing >> anything. But on a higher level of understanding, there were absolutely no-control, no free will, no entity, no doer whatsoever. Everything just happens by << conditions >>” ..... Actually, I think this is a good summary of what we read and the listeners would understand according to any wisdom developed. In truth, I understand, there is only the ‘higher level’, the ultimate realities, regardless of the terms used. Yesterday I was reading through 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: “ “Without self” means deprived of self, of soul, of person. The sense is: even in one and the same quality, there is no ‘person’. Thus the meaning should be understood as said in all the Suttas and Commentaries. In this connection, however, we shall say merely so far as it was uttered........ “Even in such expressions as ‘there is the person who works for his own good’(DN iii, 232), (MNi, 341, 411), (AN ii, 95)and so on, 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.’....” “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.” ***** I’ll be interested to hear any further comments from you or anyone on this. Sarah ===== 18739 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:56am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi Sarah, If I can comment on just a small portion of this post. My comments probably belong on another thread. I'll let you think of a suitable heading should this become another discussion :-). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear All, > > In the MN sutta referred to (MN 19, Dvedhavitakka Sutta, transl by > B.Bodhi), appropriately for other current discussions, it is about wrong > and right thought (vitakka) and it discusses the 3 kinds of Right Thought > - of renunciation, non-ill will and non-cruelty. It discusses the point > about accumulating wholesome states after clearly distinguishing between > kusala (wholesome) and akusala (unwholesome) states when they arise. This > clear knowledge of the distinction was developed whilst he was an > `unenlightened Bodhsatta': > On another thread I am asking what the qualities of (a)kusala are and how they can be known. To me, a(kusala) is a conceptual categorisation. You often say that it is important to distinguish between kusala and akusala cittas, as you do here. Is it a matter of rote learning of how the cittas are divided up in the Tipitaka, and then when identifying the citta dropping it in its correct pigeon hole? Isn't this an unnecessary proliferation? And how would one go about verifying that the classification is correct ie that certain cittas lead to good results, and that other cittas lead to bad results? Wouldn't one need to know what the purpose or goal of the whole exercise was in order to determine whether a citta removed one or brought one closer to the goal? And if this is so, what is the goal? > Sarah > ====== All the best Herman 18740 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 1:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT (& Howard), I decided to split my post to KKT into two. --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > This is the Pudgalavada (Personalism) > > Its name comes from the word > Pudgala = person, individual. > > This school defended a thesis > on the existence of a << pudgala >> > which is << NOT OF THE 5 KHANDHAS >> > but << NOT DIFFERENT FROM THE 5 KHANDHAS >> > Also this Pudgala is not Atman (Self) > of Brahmanism or Jiva (Life Principle) > of Jainism. > > This is this Pudgala that goes > from one life to another (rebirth) > reaps its own kamma-vipaka > and even enters into Nibbana ! > > This school was strongly criticised > by other Buddhist schools as heresy > (especially by Theravada and Sarvastivada) ..... I mentioned that yesterday I was reading through the first chapter in the Kathavatthu (Points of Controversy - the Abhidhamma text, PTS)and its commentary (the Debates Commentary). This was because they discuss the Puggalavadin points and questions in detail and your comments made me curious. In these texts there are also long introductions about the various sects. I think you both and others would find these texts very interesting and imho, easier reading than other Abhidhamma texts. Another interesting Abhidhamma text is the Puggala -Pan~n~natti (Designation of Human Types, PTS. In the introduction to this translation by Bimala Charan Law, he writes a summary of a Puggalavadin’s view): “A Puggalavadin’s view is that the person is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is not known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is known in the same way as other real and ultimate facts are known.(Pts of Controv.pp8-9)”He or she is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, and his material quality is also known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. But it cannot truly be said that the material quality is one thing and the person another(PoC pp14-15);nor can it be truly predicated that the person is related or absolute, conditioned or unconditioned, eternal or temporal, or whether the person has external features or whether he is without any.(PoC p21)One who has material quality in the sphere of matter is a person, but it canot be said that one who experiences desires of sense in the sphere of sense-desires is a person. The genesis of the person is apparent, his passing away and duration are also distinctively apparent, but it cannot be said that the person is conditioned.” ..... I’m not sure this is very clear to me (it’s trying to summarise several of the controverted points), but having typed it out, you can see what you make of it...;-) In the commentary to the Katthavatthu on the first controverted point of whether a ‘person’ is known, it says more simply a Puggalavadin ‘is one who believes in the existence of a personal entity, soul, or perduring immortal essence in man’. ‘Who among th eighteen schools of thought were Puggalavadins? In the Sasana the Vajjiputtakas and Sammitiyas, and many other teachers besides, not belonging to the Sasana. ‘Person’ means soul, being, vital principle. ‘Is known’: is approached and got at by the understanding, is cognized....’ ***** I think I’ve only added a few academic interest details here, but it may be of some interest. Let me know if there’s anything you wish me to check. Sarah p.s KKT, I’d be very glad sometime if you’d let us know what your full name is and where you live. A pic would be even better;-) ============== 18741 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi James, Sorry for the delay.... --- "James " wrote: > Now honestly, when you give instructions to your students, do you > really know that there is no `you' giving assignments to `them'? I > would bet that you are stuck in self-view just like the rest of us > unenlightened folk; if I am mistaken I apologize. But assuming that > I am right, given that you are stuck in self-view, of what benefit > does it serve you to say that there is no self when you don't know > directly that there is no self? ..... ;-) I don’t think it’s necessary to 'say' anything. However, in between all the many moments of being ‘stuck in self-view just like the rest of us unenlightened folk’, there can be moments when the dust is removed just a little from the eyes and there is a glimmer of insight when it’s just a little more apparent that there really is no ‘chariot’ or ‘me’ or ‘you’, wouldn’t you say? And of course moments of awareness (of whatever kind) can of course arise unpredictably at any time, even when giving out assignments, don’t you think? ..... >Is that a method of eliminating > craving? Does it lead to insight? I don't understand the point of > anyone talking like they are enlightened when they aren't. What is > the point of that? ..... ;-) I find it very helpful indeed to hear, consider and read more about actual dhammas as opposed to conventional dhammas. I certainly have no intention to make it sound as though I’m talking from any ‘englightened’ state. On the other hand, if we never hear and consider what the truth is at this moment, the understanding which knows this truth cannot develop, wouldn’t you say, James? Btw, I noticed in a couple of your other posts that contary to your intentions, you’re actually beginning to understand rather more about the abhidhamma and absolute realities than you bargained for;-) You asked in one post (not in front of me, so apologies for any misparaphrasing) what causes or brings about these dhammas. The answer is the combination of the 24 conditions as enumerated in detail in the last book of the Abhidhamma, the Pattana (AKA the Great Book). We read that when it came to contemplating the Great Book, multi-coloured rays issued from the Buddha’s body. So no dhamma at all occurs without the intricate working of these various complex conditions. Nina has written a helpful introduction in her book ‘Conditions’. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ When you are ready, a little more understanding of the conditions will provide many of the missing pieces, I think. ..... > Before the Buddha reached enlightenment, did he have self-view? > From my studies he did. After all, he wanted to find out where > his `self' was and why it was that he existed. Now, if Gotama had > self-view, operated under self-view, did not know anything other > than self-view, how was it that he could become enlightened? I > would assume it was because we all can become enlightened with self- > view. How? By OUR OWN efforts. If that weren't possible, Gotama > Siddhartha wouldn't have become enlightened. He wouldn't have > become the Buddha. ..... I understand that the Bodhisatta could become enlightened because he was the future Buddha and had developed all the prerequisites;-) We all need to hear the Buddha’s teachings and understanding has to develop. In other words, it’s not a case of having non-stop wrong self view and then non-stop right view of anatta. The understanding of what is true can begin at this moment and imho it’s not by looking for a ‘self’ or working out why it exist or by using OWN effort. It is by understanding more about the phenomena experiencing and being experienced at this moment (I’m trying to avoid namas and rupas ad nauseum for you, James;-)), including the precise distinction between wholesome and unwholesome states as being discussed. Of course, for most of us, any understanding is bound to be very brief and slight and there are bound to be many moments of ignorance and wrong view in between. One step at a time as they say. Hence the simile of the adze handle -- it’s not worn away in one rub;-) ..... > So why did he teach anatta after he discovered it? First of all, he > only taught it a fraction of how the Abhidhamma goes on about it. > Secondly, he only taught it to those who were serious about > renunciation and meditation, he did not teach it to lay people. In > other words, he didn't want a teacher dispersing instructions to > students thinking `there is no self in this process.' What is the > point of that? That will lead the teacher and the students to > confusion. I don't believe the teaching of anatta is supposed to be > dispersed to everyone like a polio vaccination. ..... It depends how one reads and understands the suttas, I think....for me, I read that he is teaching anatta throughout and this is the heart of the Teachings. That doesn’t mean everyone can understand the essence. What would be the point of not teaching anatta? How would the teachings be any different from other teachings? ..... >It is only supposed > to be followed by those people who dedicate the entirety of their > lives to it. If anyone really wants to know non-self, they need to > give up everything, shave their head, wrap themselves in a sheet, > and go live in the jungle-- with nothing! Maybe then they can begin > to understand non-self; but even then it is difficult! ..... I’m not sure where you get this idea. Our lives are just the various phenomena at any given moment and I think the Buddha made it clear that his teachings were for monks and lay people, otherwise how do you understand the 4 groups in the Mahaparinibbana sutta or the various lay people who reached stages of enlightenment? Again step by step. Knowing non-self is no different to understand the characteristic of a kind of consciousness, such as seeing or a physical object such as hardness or sound when ‘appearing’ at this moment. .... > This preaching of nama/rupa, no control, anatta, only the present > moment, etc., etc., etc., is putting the cart before the horse, in > my estimation. We all need to start right where we are..just like > Gotama did. If where we are is in the middle of suburban life, with > a job, responsibilities, and little time or energy to meditate-- > then we need to start there. ..... OK, we’re agreed here....just start as is - no need to change our lifestyle at all. But what, James, is the truth HERE? When you say that you have experiences in your body, what is this body if there are no rupas? I’d be genuinely glad to hear more. ..... >Otherwise, all of this emphasis on > anatta is like trying to `wish your self away'; which is another > form of conceit. If you push down one problem, it will more than > likely just pop up somewhere else. Just some ideas I thought I > would share. If you don't agree, okay. ..... I agree that if it is a wishing away of anything, it’s quite useless and one is just accumualting more wishing (and conceit quite probably too;-)). I like your comments because they are very honest and it’s better to recognize al the subtle kinds of wishing away than to kid oneself they aren’t there. So what is ‘YOU’ at this moment that pushes away, pushes down or makes an effort? What in truth is YOU?? Thx for the challenging and useful qus;-) Sarah ===== 18742 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Herman I can see you have given this area considerable thought. Anumodana on that. The picture you give is almost complete. I think the only piece of information lacking is that cittas are always accompanied by cetasikas, and are never experienced in isolation from their cetasikas. It is the cetasikas that give the citta its 'flavour'. Thus the cetasikas that accompany a kusala citta are of an entirely different 'flavour' to those accompanying an akusala citta. Since these cetasikas are also, like the citta, irreducible dhammas, the 'kusalaness' or 'akusalaness' of the respective cittas can be the known by panna. So, as regards your conclusion ... <> ... I would say that yes, in terms of ultimate/fundamental phenomena, is there is no "quality of wholesomeness" apart from the mental factor passaddhi (translated as calm or tranquillity), but no, the wholesome flavour of a citta is not conceptual (for reasons I hope I have managed to explain above). This is to the best of my understanding (I am of course only re-stating what I have learnt from my study). I may not have it completely right. Happy to discuss further. Jon --- "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > I am sure you are doing just fine. I am trying to get my > understanding of the terms in line with the common understanding. > > I am pretty sure I understand what you are saying, but I do not > understand why kusala is therefore not a category. > > A citta is an irreducible experience, whose qualities can be known. > > A citta is then categorised according to the plane of existence , > the > moral nature, and/or the underlying motivation. > > These divisions are conceptual are they not? By which I mean, one > can > not experience "wholesomeness", but one can experience calm and > tranquility. > > Just like tree is a conceptual category for a number of more > elementary perceptions, so is the concept kusala. > > I hope you can see where I am stuck. > > > > > Jon > > All the best > > > Herman 18743 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 1:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kusala and akusala (was, Intention, willing and no-control) Hi, Larry - In a message dated 1/12/03 10:11:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I didn't understand this definition. Are an arahant's consciousness and > deeds kusala but kammicly neutral? If so, what is the meaning of kusala > in this case? > > Larry > =========================== You've made a good point. I would suppose that either Nyanatiloka's definition applies only to worldlings or one would have to say that an arahant's mindstates are neither kusala nor akusala. 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) 18744 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 7:05am Subject: Which cittas experience nibbana? Hi Abhidhamma Friends, Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18745 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Hi Abhidhamma Friends, I would like to ask another related question: How does a dry-insight sotapanna (without jhana attainment, and thus without fruition attainment) review nibbana? I know it is possible to review a rupa which had fallen away. For example, if I experienced rupa which is solidity, I can review that solidity even though that rupa and the cittas which experienced that rupa had fallen away. That solidity is remembered. So I am asking whether a dry-insight sotapanna reviews nibbana in the same manner (the difference being that rupa falls away, but nibbana doesn't). Or is there another way? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18746 From: Tal Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:31am Subject: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi all, Can someone please clarify this point: We say that clinging to beings is a result of ignorance as dividing and dissecting them into body parts and mind aggregates will end up with nothing worth clinging to. But can't we say the same regarding to positive mental factors like compassion or gratitude? Is the leg of a sentient being worth being compassionate towards? His/her liver, intestines, Brain,....sanna, vinnana…? Is the leg of the Buddha worth having gratitude towards? His other aggregates?…etc. Doesn't it lead us to nihilism? What are the ultimate objects of these mental factors? Thanks, Tal 18747 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi, Tal - In a message dated 1/13/03 11:32:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, tal2460@h... writes: > Hi all, > > Can someone please clarify this point: > > We say that clinging to beings is a result of ignorance as dividing > and dissecting them into body parts and mind aggregates will end up > with nothing worth clinging to. > > But can't we say the same regarding to positive mental factors like > compassion or gratitude? Is the leg of a sentient being worth being > compassionate towards? His/her liver, intestines, Brain,....sanna, > vinnana…? Is the leg of the Buddha worth having gratitude > towards? His other aggregates?…etc. > > Doesn't it lead us to nihilism? What are the ultimate objects of > these mental factors? > > Thanks, > Tal > > ============================== The conventional "person", upon close inspection, is not to be found. There is only a stream of experienced conditions. But those conditions are interrelated in multiple ways - there is a discernable pattern of interrelationships among those conditions. This entirety is mentally packaged into a so-called "person". So, a "person", while not a directly apprehended ultimate reality is not a groundless concept such as the hair of a tortoise either. When we feel compassion we are responding in empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in another psychophysical flow, but we conventionally think of that as feeling compassion for the suffering of another sentient being. Likewise for gratitude etc. That's how I see 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) 18748 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] why me? Dear Herman, my musical friend. Music gives a special tie, does it not? Welcome back. I hope you still play the organ? See below. op 12-01-2003 12:44 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. Nina: I want to share an experience with all of you. We had visited my father who was very nervous and afraid when thinking of death (102 years old). With our music we could calm him down (Loeillet, tenor recorder and piano). Lodewijk was very tired and stressed because of the problems with my father, and while driving backwards towards the street in the dark he made a dent in someone else's car. He was so shocked and upset, he takes such things very much to heart. It is bad for his self confidence. We ask ourselves, "why me?". There is a saying in Thai, "why me? Because it has to be you." I was afterwards listening to a tape and transcribing it. I read to Lodewijk a consoling message. A. Sujin said: I also listened to what A. Sujin said about Lodewijk's nightmares (Howard knows about this). They are an effect of akusala. They can be a reminder to develop more kusala. She also said to me: So there was an unfortunate event and a dhamma lesson which can change everything for the better . Nina. 18749 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:09pm Subject: Re: why me? Dear Nina, Thank you for your kind words. I find myself "jamming" with the boys a lot these days, so it tends to be popular music we play. But when a group makes effort to a common beautiful purpose I always find it very rewarding to participate. (I should write down some Bach pieces as chord progressions. Then we can jam to that :-)) I am very sorry to hear of your father's and Lodewijk's distress in various situations. I feel very powerless when I become aware of the suffering of other people. When I become aware of my own distress, discomfort or suffering, I know I can find a place within myself where there is calmness and an understanding that it is all just the rolling by of the "weather" (Often I suffer so unnecessarily because I am just not aware of it, just so caught up in whatever situation). But I find that I can do nothing for other people. I cannot tell them how to find that place. I can just say words, or put an arm around a shoulder, and hope that some of it makes sense. And if it does , it is just pure luck. The strangest things can create a little bit of a flicker of insight in people. I am happy that you are with your father and Lodewijk (for their sake). All the best to you and your family Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Herman, my musical friend. Music gives a special tie, does it not? > Welcome back. I hope you still play the organ? See below. > op 12-01-2003 12:44 schreef Egberdina op > hhofman@t...: > > PS Don't welcome me back , you won't like my return. > > Nina: I want to share an experience with all of you. > We had visited my father who was very nervous and afraid when thinking of > death (102 years old). With our music we could calm him down (Loeillet, > tenor recorder and piano). Lodewijk was very tired and stressed because of > the problems with my father, and while driving backwards towards the street > in the dark he made a dent in someone else's car. He was so shocked and > upset, he takes such things very much to heart. It is bad for his self > confidence. > We ask ourselves, "why me?". There is a saying in Thai, "why me? Because it > has to be you." I was afterwards listening to a tape and transcribing it. I > read to Lodewijk a consoling message. A. Sujin said: 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 me. It > is useless to cry over it or think more about it. > > I also listened to what A. Sujin said about Lodewijk's nightmares (Howard > knows about this). They are an effect of akusala. They can be a reminder to > develop more kusala. She also said to me: father), there is him in the thinking, and it is very difficult to get rid > of the idea of belonging. Everything belongs to us: seeing, thinking, the > story we think of. When you see him, what could you do for him? After that > forget everything. There is no connection with the story of yesterday, last > year, two years ago. Clinging to self is a danger, it brings evermore > akusala. We can have more metta, in reality there is not a particular > person.> > So there was an unfortunate event and a dhamma lesson which can change > everything for the better . > Nina. 18750 From: James Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:11pm Subject: Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi James, Sorry for the delay.... (James: No problem…I haven't been on much myself. Just caught up today.) I don't think it's necessary to 'say' anything. However, in between all the many moments of being `stuck in self-view just like the rest of us unenlightened folk', there can be moments when the dust is removed just a little from the eyes and there is a glimmer of insight when it's just a little more apparent that there really is no `chariot' or `me' or `you', wouldn't you say? And of course moments of awareness (of whatever kind) can of course arise unpredictably at any time, even when giving out assignments, don't you think? (James: Yes, I have had such moments but I don't talk about them or write about them. And I don't know if I would necessarily describe them as `non-self' (because the very phrase supposes a `self' existing in the first place…whatever that is). I would describe them as `non-previous self'.) I find it very helpful indeed to hear, consider and read more about actual dhammas as opposed to conventional dhammas. I certainly have no intention to make it sound as though I'm talking from any `englightened' state. On the other hand, if we never hear and consider what the truth is at this moment, the understanding which knows this truth cannot develop, wouldn't you say, James? (James: No, actually I wouldn't say. Words and `considering' are quite inadequate to reach the state you are aiming for. Also, I don't recognize the word `dhammas' since I don't agree with a reductionism view of reality; I prefer `Ultimate Truth' and `Conventional Truth'. Along those lines, I believe that conventional truth is a bridge to ultimate truth and it is a very long and arduous bridge to walk. When you reach the other side, you see both truths…and that both are one truth. If you try shortcuts, you end up not being able to see either truth, or the one truth, properly.) Btw, I noticed in a couple of your other posts that contary to your intentions, you're actually beginning to understand rather more about the abhidhamma and absolute realities than you bargained for;-) (James: As they say, it's good to know the enemy. ;-) You asked in one post (not in front of me, so apologies for any misparaphrasing) what causes or brings about these dhammas. The answer is the combination of the 24 conditions as enumerated in detail in the last book of the Abhidhamma, the Pattana (AKA the Great Book). We read that when it came to contemplating the Great Book, multi-coloured rays issued from the Buddha's body. (James: If this is so, it is in direct contradiction to the suttas. The Buddha stated many times that he did not know what started the round of becoming and transmigration; he only knew how to stop it. I am not going to pull out a bunch of sutta quotes unless I know we are speaking about the same thing. Since the Buddha didn't say anything about `dhammas', I have a hard time following the exact meaning of your contention.) So no dhamma at all occurs without the intricate working of these various complex conditions. Nina has written a helpful introduction in her book `Conditions'. http://www.zolag.co.uk/ When you are ready, a little more understanding of the conditions will provide many of the missing pieces, I think. (James: Hmmm…when I am ready. You are clever Jedi Master, but I cannot be drawn to the dark side of the force that easily! ;-) I understand that the Bodhisatta could become enlightened because he was the future Buddha and had developed all the prerequisites;-) We all need to hear the Buddha's teachings and understanding has to develop. In other words, it's not a case of having non-stop wrong self view and then non-stop right view of anatta. The understanding of what is true can begin at this moment and imho it's not by looking for a `self' or working out why it exist or by using OWN effort. It is by understanding more about the phenomena experiencing and being experienced at this moment (I'm trying to avoid namas and rupas ad nauseum for you, James;-)), including the precise distinction between wholesome and unwholesome states as being discussed. Of course, for most of us, any understanding is bound to be very brief and slight and there are bound to be many moments of ignorance and wrong view in between. One step at a time as they say. Hence the simile of the adze handle -- it's not worn away in one rub;-) (James: I would agree with this…except you seem to be missing a little something here. Namely you are not stressing the other seven arms of the eight-armed path. Right View is only one part, not everything. There is a lot more to be done than to keep cultivating Right View. And I don't believe that Abhidhamma view is Right View anyway. BTW, thank you for avoiding those ad nauseum namas and rupas for me ;-) It depends how one reads and understands the suttas, I think....for me, I read that he is teaching anatta throughout and this is the heart of the Teachings. That doesn't mean everyone can understand the essence. What would be the point of not teaching anatta? How would the teachings be any different from other teachings? (James: I didn't say that the Buddha shouldn't have taught anatta. Please re-read what I wrote. I said that it shouldn't be taught to everyone like a panacea for life's dukkha. Yes, it is the heart of his teachings…but what use is a heart without the body?) I'm not sure where you get this idea. Our lives are just the various phenomena at any given moment and I think the Buddha made it clear that his teachings were for monks and lay people, otherwise how do you understand the 4 groups in the Mahaparinibbana sutta or the various lay people who reached stages of enlightenment? Again step by step. Knowing non-self is no different to understand the characteristic of a kind of consciousness, such as seeing or a physical object such as hardness or sound when `appearing' at this moment. (James: I am not going to argue this extensively. Actually, I was speaking of monks of the past, not monks of the present. Nowadays, there is little substantial, important difference between monks and laypeople…at least where it matters. That is all I am going to say in this regard, though I could write pages more....) OK, we're agreed here....just start as is - no need to change our lifestyle at all. But what, James, is the truth HERE? When you say that you have experiences in your body, what is this body if there are no rupas? I'd be genuinely glad to hear more. (James: Maybe later Sarah, when you are ready…;-) I agree that if it is a wishing away of anything, it's quite useless and one is just accumualting more wishing (and conceit quite probably too;-)). I like your comments because they are very honest and it's better to recognize al the subtle kinds of wishing away than to kid oneself they aren't there. So what is `YOU' at this moment that pushes away, pushes down or makes an effort? What in truth is YOU?? (James: I'm a chariot ;-) Thx for the challenging and useful qus;-) (James: You're welcome.) Sarah Metta, James 18751 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 3:37pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Howard, I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting into practice. Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > > The three premisses of yours that I think imply the existence of a > self outside of the khandhas were the following: > > 1) One can control oneself. Without exercising of self- control, > observing the five precepts is impossible, the Noble Eightfold Path is > impossible, the cessation of the dukkha is impossible. > > 2) Each and every five aggregate has no power over itself. It is > impermanent. It lends itself to dis-ease. It has no control over itself. > The five aggregates have no control over themselves. > > 3) When one identifies oneself with the aggregates, contradiction > arises. > > I understood the 1st of these to say that there is something - > someting you refer to as "one" - which exercises control over itself. > (Inasmuch as you do not accept the conventional / ultimate distinction, I > presume that you really mean there is some thing which exercises such > contol.) The 2nd of these says that this thing which exercises control is not > any (element of) the five khandhas. These two, together, already say that > there is something which exercises control, but is different from any of the > five khandhas. That would be the alleged self outside of the khandhas the > existence of which I claim is being implied. Your 3rd statement in facts only > emphasizes the part of the conclusion that the alleged self asserted by the > first sentence cannot be identified with the khandhas. > Now, it may be that I am misunderstanding the meaning of your 1st > premiss. Exactly what do you mean - exactly, please - by saying one can > control oneself? What is this "one"? Are you simply speaking conventionally, > and mean by this that within any given psychophysical stream of experience > moments of willing can and do occur which have consequences? If that isn't > what you mean, what *do* you mean? It is what *I* mean when I say that we can > exercise self-control (or any sort of control). I do not mean literally that > there is some agent exercising control. [If there were, then, indeed, it > would be contradictory to identify it with any of the khandhas.] If you *do* > mean there is such an agent, could you please give some indication of what > the nature of that agent is? > > With metta, > Howard > > P.S. With regard to your statement "The speculation, assumption, and > self-view only lead to stress. Discussion on them is not beneficial at all.": > I am not speculating, making an assumption, or putting forward a self-view. > I'm merely quoting your own premisses [speculations on your part?], asking > you exactly what you mean by them, particularly the first, and also stating > what they, as I understood them, directly imply. 18752 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 5:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Tal, There is a footnote in Visuddhimagga VIII n. 11 that confirms Howards view. It is a long, involved note, but the gist of the part that pertains to your question is that the "ultimate sense" allows for the concept of the continuity of body and mind. This continuity is termed "atta-bhava" translated as person or personality and is differentiated from "atta", a permanent self. My first thought was that brahmavihara shouldn't be mixed with dhammavicaya because they have different goals, but a quick look at the chapter on brahmavihara in Vism. suggested to me there is no problem mingling the two. Nihilism is basically a denial of kamma, I think. Larry 18753 From: James Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 5:33pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Howard, > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > into practice. > > Take care, > Victor Victor, This is a curious post. Why just Dhammapada 12 and why just Howard? I bet I could learn from Dhammapada 12 also; why didn't you write to me? I feel left out! :-( And couldn't you also learn from Dhammapada 12? And what about everyone else on this list? You know, when you write to Howard...you write to us all. It is like you have no self, Howard has no self, and we have no self...that is why the Internet is so cool. Please don't focus important information on just one person...send it to us all...and even yourself. Self and other...all the same in the end. Peace friend. Metta, James 18754 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 0:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi, Victor - In a message dated 1/13/03 6:38:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Howard, > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > into practice. > > Take care, > Victor > > ====================== I've read it. (sigh.) 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) 18755 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT, and All, I think these are good questions and I've been interested to read the various responses: KKT: Thanks alot for your abundant quotes. I'm particularly interested in the following one: --------------- < snip > 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.'...." "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." ***** I'll be interested to hear any further comments from you or anyone on this. Sarah ===== KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma supports the theory that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding, does it not? Metta, KKT 18756 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:06pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: Hi KKT (& Howard), < snip > Another interesting Abhidhamma text is the Puggala -Pan~n~natti (Designation of Human Types, PTS. In the introduction to this translation by Bimala Charan Law, he writes a summary of a Puggalavadin's view): "A Puggalavadin's view is that the person is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is not known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, but he is known in the same way as other real and ultimate facts are known.(Pts of Controv.pp8-9)"He or she is known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact, and his material quality is also known in the sense of a real and ultimate fact. But it cannot truly be said that the material quality is one thing and the person another(PoC pp14-15);nor can it be truly predicated that the person is related or absolute, conditioned or unconditioned, eternal or temporal, or whether the person has external features or whether he is without any.(PoC p21)One who has material quality in the sphere of matter is a person, but it canot be said that one who experiences desires of sense in the sphere of sense-desires is a person. The genesis of the person is apparent, his passing away and duration are also distinctively apparent, but it cannot be said that the person is conditioned." ..... KKT: The above paragraph is very difficult to understand :-)) --------- p.s KKT, I'd be very glad sometime if you'd let us know what your full name is and where you live. A pic would be even better;-) KKT: My full name is on the handle of my email: Pham Dinh Luan. KKT (in Vietnamese) = Kha Kha Tieu = Laughing Ha Ha :-)) I use these initials just for fun :-)) I live in Arlington, Texas, USA. As for the picture, I'll see if I can find one ... :-)) Thank you, Sarah. KKT 18757 From: Egberdina Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:14pm Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Victor, Long time no write. Good to be writing to you again. Do you allow for the possibility that Howard has already done as you suggested, but that what he has learned from it is quite different from what you have learned from it? Howard does not hide, or is not coy about, what he learns (and therefore teaches). I honestly cannot say the same about you. Please tell me what Dammapada 12 teaches you. I do not wish to dispute what it teaches you, I simply want to know what it teaches you. And how do you put it into practise? Wishing you well-being Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Howard, > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > into practice. > > Take care, > Victor > 18758 From: Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 8:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing "the four absorptions [cattari jhanani] arise in the respiration sign [assasapassasanimitte uppajjanti]. [Tika] In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga nimitta]." Hi all, Does anyone know anything about nimita? These days anapanasati is taught using the touch of the breath on the nostrils or the rise and fall of the abdomen rather than the "body of the breath". Will a nimita (image) arise from touch sensation? Larry 18759 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi Howard, Nice to get back to you after being distracted by other threads;-) S: >It’s just that we seldom discuss > agreements here;-) ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: Well, that would be dull! (And no one likes "dull"! ;-) ------------------------------------------------------ S:....and these days I think we’re in danger of just that;-) (i.e too many agreements...) -------------------------------------------------------- Howard: There is no self who acts. There is no *acting*, if 'acting' implies a self/agent which acts. But there is intention which has consequences, and that, formulated conventionally, is what I mean by "acting". There is kamma and kamma vipaka. -------------------------------------------------------- S: agreed ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: No, not contrary. Just differing modes of expressing. When the two modes become conflated, which is a very easy thing for the run-of-the-mill worldling to do, the implication of "no-control because no self to do any controlling" comes to be understood as the impossibility of intentional action. (Nina wrote in Listening to Dhamma the following: "The dhammas which arise in our daily life are beyond control, we cannot own them. Seeing and hearing do not belong to us, they are non-self. We cannot choose what we see and hear, this depends on the appropriate conditions." Now all three of these sentences are true . But they can but they can be misunderstood. In fact, what dhammas are experienced are *not* beyond control, precisely because intention can serve as a condition. --------------- S: pausing here a sec.-- I agree that the statements can be misunderstood as can anything said. Certainly ‘beyond control’ is never meant to suggest there are not very precise conditions in operation. In this regard, I wouldn’t particularly single out ‘intention’ although when it arises with kusala and akusala cittas and performs the function of kamma, it is a very important mental factor and condition, I agree. ------------------ Howard:Closing one's eyes is a (conventional) volitional action which changes what is seen, just as looking elsewhere does, or, for that matter, taking a trip to a different locale. If the fact that there is, in reality, no agent to act is taken to mean that conventional action is impossible, then, among other things, people will be convinced that nobody is capable of following the Buddha's instructions. -------------------------------------------- S: Well, ultimately of course ‘nobody’ can follow or do anything. I think we’re all agreed that ‘conventional action’ happens all the time. If we look at what this conventional action is, however, there’s no self controlling or intending -- there are just the various phenomena arising and falling away and performing their respective tasks. So when there is the closing of one’s eyes, there are in fact many cittas accompanied by many different mental factors (not just cetana, intention)and many different rupas involved in a complex process. The reason the eyes are closed at one moment and not another will depend on the various conditioning factors and conditioned phenomena at any particular instant. I do agree that the idea that it’s all hopeless and nothing can be done can be just as pernicious as the idea that a self can do it all. I think that wrong view will always lead us astray and it’s good that you point this out. ----------------------------------- Howard: Wonderful. :) I think that pointing this out from time to time could be useful. --------------------------------------------------- S: Thx and pls keep giving prompts;-) ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: When I speak of control - and I prefer 'influence' to 'control' - I do *not* presume a controller. To me, influence is merely the intentional creation of events which serve as conditions, it is merely cetana (or, in the case of an arahant, kiriya kamma) in action. I see no more need for a "controller" than I do for a "thinker". Neither exists as far as I'm concerned. ----------------------------------------------------- S: Agreed again ;-) Just a comment on why cetana is not stressed more when discussing the path to enlightenment and so on. Simply put, it is not one of the 4 iddhi-padas (Roads to Power) which are chanda (wish-to-do), viriya (energy), citta and vimamsa(investigation). It is not one of the 5 indriyas (Spiritual Faculties) either which are saddha (confidence), viriya (energy), sati (mindfulness), samadhi (concentration), panna (wisdom). It is not one of the factors of the eightfold path and it is not one of the 5 balas (powers) either which are saddha, viriya, sati, samadhi and panna. Finally, it is not one of the 7 bojjhangas (enlightenment factors). These are sati, dhamma-vicaya (investigation of dhamma), viriya, piti (rapture), passaddhi (calm), samadhi and uppekkha (equanimity. So, though cetana plays a very important role (esp. in the javana process), like other universal mental factors which are also very crucial and stressed in other contexts, eg sanna (perception), vedana (feeling) and phassa (contact), they are not usually stressed particularly in the context of stages of insight perhaps. Does that make them neglected second-rate mental factors? I’ll leave that to you to decide;-) I’ve just seen that we agree on everything else. When I wrote last time I also meant to say that I thought your reply to Christine (18562) contained many very helpful points and I agreed with almost all of it. The farmer example worked well, I thought. Perhaps (and these are mere quibbles in the grand scheme of things)where you say “The Buddha taught us to guard the senses and to be vigilant. He had us exercise volition...”,I’d emphasise a little more on panna, viriya and sati rather than on volition. At the end, you also said “The Buddha taught a program of training for us to put into practice”. I understand your point because you clearly explained it earlier. However, I think this is likely to be just as misleading (perhaps more;-)) as the ‘whatever will happen will happen’ comments. No? It’s just as well we’re all here to keep an eye on each other and I always appreciate your feedback. As we’re in so much agreement, let me leave you with two quotes about anatta (part of a longer quote I’ve given before)which I consider a lot and you’ll appreciate I know.(from the Sammohavinodani - Disp. of Delusion p.59): “The characteristic of no-self is unobvious, dark, unclear, difficult to penetrate, difficult to illustrate, difficult to make known”. “The characteristic of no-self does not appear owing to not keeping in mind, not penetrating the resolution into the various elements (naanaadhaatu-vinibboga) owing to its beng concealed by compactness.” Sarah ===== 18760 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:11pm Subject: Pigeon holes for kusala and akusala? Hi Herman, Good to see all your useful points and questions. I'm not sure I can add much to your other discussions, but let's see: --- "Egberdina " wrote: ..... > On another thread I am asking what the qualities of (a)kusala are and > how they can be known. > > To me, a(kusala) is a conceptual categorisation. You often say that > it is important to distinguish between kusala and akusala cittas, as > you do here. Is it a matter of rote learning of how the cittas are > divided up in the Tipitaka, and then when identifying the citta > dropping it in its correct pigeon hole? Isn't this an unnecessary > proliferation? ..... I think that if it is just rote learning and proliferation without any understanding then it isn’t really any kind of distinguishing and it won’t lead to any development of kusala (wholesome consciousness). As we know, unless the cittas (in the javana process - i.e not talking about moments of seeing and hearing etc) are cittas involved in dana, sila or bhavana (mental development), then they are akusala (unwholesome). It may seem, as Larry suggested, that we’re too tough on the akusala states, but I think that we’re far more likely at any given time to take the akusala for kusala than vice versa. What do you think? In the sutta I was referring to (MN19), the Buddha says that as a Bodhisatta “I set on one side thoughts of sensual desire, thoughts of ill will, and thoughts of cruelty, and I set on the other side thought of renunciation, thoughts of non-ill will, and thoughts of non-cruelty.” ..... Like Howard and I have been discussing, it’s not a matter of a self dividing up or putting anything into a pigeon hole as this might suggest. It’s a matter of understanding the various states when they arise and knowing the characteristics of what is useful and what is harmful. I have a close friend who is a psychotherapist and she cannot accept intellectually that a value judgment can be made with regard to ‘this is kusala, this is akusala.’ That makes it difficult. At the moment of anger, the nature of the state can be directly and immediately known to be different from that of metta. It doesn’t matter whether one says or categorises them - they have characteristics that can be tested and proved to be different. ..... “As I abided thus, diligent, ardent, and resolute, a thought of sensual desire arose in me. this leads to my own affliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties, and leads away from Nibbana.......ill-will.........a thought of cruelty arose in me...my own afliction, to others’ affliction, and to the affliction of both; it obstructs wisdom, causes difficulties.......” ..... > And how would one go about verifying that the classification is > correct ie that certain cittas lead to good results, and that other > cittas lead to bad results? Wouldn't one need to know what the > purpose or goal of the whole exercise was in order to determine > whether a citta removed one or brought one closer to the goal? .... Very good questions and not easy to answer. I think that initially, we all have some inkling that certain states such as fear or anger lead to bad results and that others such as kindness and generosity lead to good results (though many dispute even this - as Chris mentioned with the ‘righteous anger’ and so on). The only way, I believe, is to hear, consider and test it out when these states arise. What is the nature of the citta when there is anger? What is the effect on ourselves and others? What is the effect of generosity? How is it different from clinging or regret which may follow? I understand your question about the purpose or goal. Many people think they need to know more about nibbana for this reason. I don’t agree and I don’t think that knowing in theory that some states will lead to good results of kamma and others to bad results is necessarily of lasting benefit in itself either. In the end, I think there is no way to avoid understanding the inherent qualities of the various states when they arise and knowing what at that moment ‘causes difficulties’ and ‘obstructs wisdom’ and what promotes ease and wisdom. ..... > And if this is so, what is the goal? ..... Gradually, I think in this way the gross layers can be known and then the not-quite-so-gross and so on. The goal is the eventual eradication of all defilements, little by little, by seeing the ‘defiling’ nature of these when they arise, the contrast of the kusala states and all other phenomena for what they are - ‘by resolution into the various elements’ - no-self at all. Does this help? I’d be glad to hear more of your ideas on this topic, Herman. Sometimes just articulating the sticking points helps to clarify. Sarah ===== 18761 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:20pm Subject: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi James, I agree. I find the lessons in Dhammapada 12 valuable. Everyone could learn from it. Everyone could put it into practice. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao > " wrote: > > Howard, > > > > I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and > putting > > into practice. > > > > Take care, > > Victor > > Victor, > > This is a curious post. Why just Dhammapada 12 and why just > Howard? I bet I could learn from Dhammapada 12 also; why didn't you > write to me? I feel left out! :-( And couldn't you also learn from > Dhammapada 12? And what about everyone else on this list? You > know, when you write to Howard...you write to us all. It is like > you have no self, Howard has no self, and we have no self...that is > why the Internet is so cool. Please don't focus important > information on just one person...send it to us all...and even > yourself. Self and other...all the same in the end. Peace friend. > > Metta, James 18762 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 13, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, I'll get back on the quotes later (perhaps;-)) I agree that the one by Law was very difficult to follow - I'll take another look sometime.The first one from the commentary is very interesting and I look f/w to discussing it more, but I've got a bit of a backlog of posts I'm trying to reply to first;-) --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > KKT: My full name is on the handle > of my email: Pham Dinh Luan. > > KKT (in Vietnamese) = Kha Kha Tieu = Laughing Ha Ha :-)) > I use these initials just for fun :-)) ..... Thank you so much for these little gems....Actually, I had a little regret after asking for the info (sometimes just too nosey;-( ), so very relieved that you took them so well. I had always wondered whether 'phamdluan' was yr name....I can just imagine how James may start addressing you now :-)) (btw, I used to teach a lot of Vietnamese students in Australia before - seems like a long time ago now... There were wonderful Vietnamese restaurants too;-)) ..... > > I live in Arlington, Texas, USA. > > As for the picture, I'll see if I can find one ... :-)) .... Oh, there seem to be a few people around from Texas. Chris, James and I (to name just three) will greatly look f/w to the pic - Remember if you need any assistance or cosmetic changes, we have a highly skilled album committee now;-) Thx for being a good sport, KKT. Sarah ====== 18763 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Herman, I think every verse in Dhammapada 12 is true and of practical value. This is what I learn from Dhammapada 12: 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. (I find this is true. If I don't watch myself diligently, I would hurt myself. Since I hold myself dear, I practice self-control in body, speech, and mind.) 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. (I can't teach others if I am not established myself in what is proper.) 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is self-control. (I find that self-control in body, speech, and mind is indeed difficult. As long as I am not fully well controlled myself in body, speech, and mind, I would not try to instruct others in Dhamma.) 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery that is hard to gain. (True indeed. I am the protector of myself. No one else could be my protector. I protect myself with self-control in body, speech, and mind.) 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. (I myself have verified the truth in this verse.) 162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an enemy might wish. (True.) 163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial. (True.) 164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones -- that fool, like the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. (I would not destroy myself by scorning the Teaching of the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones.) 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. (True indeed. By myself evil is done. By myself I am defiled. By myself evil is left undone. By myself I am made pure. Purity and impurity depends on myself. Only I can purify myself, no one else can.) 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be intent upon the good. (I would not neglect my own welfare for the sake of another, however great. The highest welfare is the cessation of dukkha.) To learn and put these verses into practice, I try to internalize and remember them. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Long time no write. Good to be writing to you again. > > Do you allow for the possibility that Howard has already done as you > suggested, but that what he has learned from it is quite different > from what you have learned from it? > > Howard does not hide, or is not coy about, what he learns (and > therefore teaches). > > I honestly cannot say the same about you. > > Please tell me what Dammapada 12 teaches you. I do not wish to > dispute what it teaches you, I simply want to know what it teaches > you. And how do you put it into practise? > > Wishing you well-being > > > Herman 18764 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:39am Subject: Re: No-control & Destiny Hi Victor, Thank you for sharing this. I think Dhammapada 12 is very rich in wisdom, and also the guidelines are very difficult for a man like me to aspire to. Thank you again for your answer. Be well Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > I think every verse in Dhammapada 12 is true and of practical value. > > This is what I learn from Dhammapada 12: > > 157. If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch > oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached. > > (I find this is true. If I don't watch myself diligently, I would > hurt myself. Since I hold myself dear, I practice self-control in > body, speech, and mind.) > > 158. One should first establish oneself in what is proper; then only > should one instruct others. Thus the wise man will not be > reproached. > > (I can't teach others if I am not established myself in what is > proper.) > > 159. One should do what one teaches others to do; if one would train > others, one should be well controlled oneself. Difficult, indeed, is > self-control. > > (I find that self-control in body, speech, and mind is indeed > difficult. As long as I am not fully well controlled myself in > body, speech, and mind, I would not try to instruct others in > Dhamma.) > > 160. One truly is the protector of oneself; who else could the > protector be? With oneself fully controlled, one gains a mastery > that is hard to gain. > > (True indeed. I am the protector of myself. No one else could be > my protector. I protect myself with self-control in body, speech, > and mind.) > > 161. The evil a witless man does by himself, born of himself and > produced by himself, grinds him as a diamond grinds a hard gem. > > (I myself have verified the truth in this verse.) > > 162. Just as a single creeper strangles the tree on which it grows, > even so, a man who is exceedingly depraved harms himself as only an > enemy might wish. > > (True.) > > 163. Easy to do are things that are bad and harmful to oneself. But > exceedingly difficult to do are things that are good and beneficial. > > (True.) > > 164. Whoever, on account of perverted views, scorns the Teaching of > the Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones -- that fool, like > the bamboo, produces fruits only for self destruction. > > (I would not destroy myself by scorning the Teaching of the > Perfected Ones, the Noble and Righteous Ones.) > > 165. By oneself is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself > is evil left undone; by oneself is one made pure. Purity and > impurity depended on oneself; no one can purify another. > > (True indeed. By myself evil is done. By myself I am defiled. By > myself evil is left undone. By myself I am made pure. Purity and > impurity depends on myself. Only I can purify myself, no one else > can.) > > 166. Let one not neglect one's own welfare for the sake of another, > however great. Clearly understanding one's own welfare, let one be > intent upon the good. > > (I would not neglect my own welfare for the sake of another, however > great. The highest welfare is the cessation of dukkha.) > > To learn and put these verses into practice, I try to internalize > and remember them. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " > wrote: > > Hi Victor, > > > > Long time no write. Good to be writing to you again. > > > > Do you allow for the possibility that Howard has already done as > you > > suggested, but that what he has learned from it is quite different > > from what you have learned from it? > > > > Howard does not hide, or is not coy about, what he learns (and > > therefore teaches). > > > > I honestly cannot say the same about you. > > > > Please tell me what Dammapada 12 teaches you. I do not wish to > > dispute what it teaches you, I simply want to know what it teaches > > you. And how do you put it into practise? > > > > Wishing you well-being > > > > > > Herman 18765 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:48am Subject: Re: Pigeon holes for kusala and akusala? Hi Sarah and Jon and everybody, Thank you both for your answers. Yes, it does help :-) Thank you Herman 18766 From: Egberdina Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 1:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi Sarah and everyone, I haven't followed this thread at all, so I am not purposefully replying to anything that anyone may have said. I am really just replying to the subject heading, because, wait for it, ............ I've got a theory about that. Oh God no, not another theory .... :-) Anyway, I am assuming that by "concentrate" "dwelling in jhana" is meant. The jhanas are the highest, greatest kusala. If you are able, why do anything else? To sit cross legged with a next to empty mind, is there a better example to follow? All the best Herman 18767 From: nidive Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Hi All, > Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? Nobody knows? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18768 From: Tal Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 7:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Howard wrote: >When we feel compassion we are responding in > empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in >another psychophysical flow, If so, the moment a compassion cetasika arises, what is its object and through which sense door it appears? Larry, I don't have the Visuddhimagga. Could you quote the relevant part? Although I don't see a direct relation between this issue and the brahmavihara states of Mind. Tal --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Tal - > > In a message dated 1/13/03 11:32:50 AM Eastern Standard Time, > tal2460@h... writes: > > > Hi all, > > > > Can someone please clarify this point: > > > > We say that clinging to beings is a result of ignorance as dividing > > and dissecting them into body parts and mind aggregates will end up > > with nothing worth clinging to. > > > > But can't we say the same regarding to positive mental factors like > > compassion or gratitude? Is the leg of a sentient being worth being > > compassionate towards? His/her liver, intestines, Brain,....sanna, > > vinnana…? Is the leg of the Buddha worth having gratitude > > towards? His other aggregates?…etc. > > > > Doesn't it lead us to nihilism? What are the ultimate objects of > > these mental factors? > > > > Thanks, > > Tal > > > > > ============================== > The conventional "person", upon close inspection, is not to be found. > There is only a stream of experienced conditions. But those conditions are > interrelated in multiple ways - there is a discernable pattern of > interrelationships among those conditions. This entirety is mentally packaged > into a so-called "person". > So, a "person", while not a directly apprehended ultimate reality is > not a groundless concept such as the hair of a tortoise either. When we feel > compassion we are responding in empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in > another psychophysical flow, but we conventionally think of that as feeling > compassion for the suffering of another sentient being. Likewise for > gratitude etc. That's how I see it. > > With metta, > Howard 18769 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi, Tal - In a message dated 1/14/03 10:45:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, tal2460@h... writes: > Howard wrote: > > >When we feel compassion we are responding in > >empathy to apparent occurrences of dukkha in > >another psychophysical flow, > > If so, the moment a compassion cetasika arises, what is its object > and through which sense door it appears? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: For a worldling, the intended object is a "sentient being". I don't know the answer for an arahant. The sense door is the mind door. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Larry, > I don't have the Visuddhimagga. Could you quote the relevant part? > Although I don't see a direct relation between this issue and the > brahmavihara states of Mind. > > Tal > > ============================ 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) 18770 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear Neo, op 13-01-2003 16:36 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: > How does a dry-insight sotapanna (without jhana attainment, and thus > without fruition attainment) review nibbana? > > I know it is possible to review a rupa which had fallen away. For > example, if I experienced rupa which is solidity, I can review that > solidity even though that rupa and the cittas which experienced that > rupa had fallen away. That solidity is remembered. > > So I am asking whether a dry-insight sotapanna reviews nibbana in > the same manner (the difference being that rupa falls away, but > nibbana doesn't). _____________________ N: In BGk we discussed the stages of insight: they fall away and then the world may appear again as a whole. But, the understanding is not like before, it has developed, that person does not forget the stage of insight that was attained. Just after enlightenment, the sotapanna has to review patrh-consciousness, fruition-consciousness, nibbana, to review the defilements that were eradicated, ro review the defilements that still remain. Paccavekkhana ~naa.na. See B. Dictionary. I think it is this way: he does not forget. And when he reviews it is very shortly after his attainment. _____ your other qu: Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? __________ N: No other cittas that directly experience nibbana. Nina 18771 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing op 13-01-2003 03:48 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > "There the meditating worker in respiration [assasapassasa kammika] > examines the body (rupa) thinking thus: Supported by what is > respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the > coarse body [karajja kaya]. The coarse body is composed of the Four > Great Primaries and the corporeality derived from these [cattari > mahabhutani upadarupañca]." > > Are we switching from "minding" the body of the breath to examining the > whole body? Is the whole body the object of insight in the remainder of > this section? _____________________________ N: I quote again from my post on anapana sati sutta: In the Papancasudani, the Co to the Anapanasati sutta, there is more explanation on rupas which should be objects of awareness after the meditator has emerged from jhana. As we read at the end of the first tetrad, The Commentary explains, this is a certain body, kåya~n~natara: >L: > "Thereupon, he, the worker in respiration, cognizes the mind (nama) in > the pentad of mental concomitants beginning with sense-impression." > > [T] "The five beginning with sense-impression are sense-impression, > feeling, perception, volition, and consciousness. They are taken here as > representative of mind." > > L: Why is there a pentad of mental concomitants instead of the usual 4? _______________ N: citta and some of the cetasikas (phassa etc, here four) accompanying it. Thus here, the development of insight is described. understanding nama and rupa, realizing their difference, then the different stages of insight can follow in order, so that one sees Dependent Origination, transcends doubt: when the stage of the sotapanna is attained there is no more doubt about realities, about non-self. 18772 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: right thinking op 12-01-2003 20:18 schreef christine_forsyth op cforsyth@v...: > I don't know what it was in the post, but reading about the two > cetasikas vitakka and vicara brought anatta to mind more clearly. > (Maybe 'thinking' is to me the essence of 'my being'? who knows...) > The wandering thoughts revolved around: Even though I no longer > believe I am a 'creation' of a God, it occurred to me that I had > continued to believe that *I* was here for a 'reason', that *I* > existed for a 'purpose', (snipped) > So - no need to want to be anywhere or anyone else. There is only > ever just this moment. I too will remind myself to just be aware of > what is appearing now, and again .. now - and trust that panna will > be growing little by little. __________________ N: Dear Christine, it is always a pleasure to correspond with you. As Jon said: knowing how deeply engrained our ignorance and wrong view is, will cure us from expecting too much. It is so natural to cling to *I*. I especially like your last sentences. Nina. P.S. Glad Rusty is around. Of course he is worth all the loving care. 18773 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: kusala and akusala Hi Larry and Christine, op 13-01-2003 02:19 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > You ask about how to discriminate between akusala and kusala. I expect > Nina will have something to say on this. Personally, I think the best > way to begin is to just use conventional values, common sense, and > whatever insight may arise. In this group I think the bias is on the > side of being too harsh on oneself. I don't think goodness is > particularly rare or uncommon. You don't have to be a saint to offer a > kindness and continually denigrating oneself is sometimes a way of > sneaking in the back door of a supposedly elite goodness. Specifically, > what I mean by choosing kusala is following the Buddha's instructions to > the best of one's ability. _______________________ N: I like your remarks of not being too harsh, and you don't have to be a saint etc. It may seem that we are too harsh, does it not? The reason is, lobha is so tricky, always around the corner. We do not see our subtle defilements. It is liberating to see them. We should not be too harsh, but just realistic. How to discriminate between kusala and akusala: a big question. By knowing their characteristics when they appear, now. The theory is not enough. It takes time. When we do not think of ourselves but of others, there are kusala cittas. But there are so many cittas and they are so fast. Sati sampajanna can know the difference: no words, no definitions, no thinking, no speculation. We shall also know the meaning and purpose of the Abhidhamma. Direct understanding is different, but it is in conformity with what we learnt from the books. A moment of awareness is very short, but it can lead to more understanding of the characteristics of realities. Acharn Sujin said that it is so useful to study the Dhamma, because we can learn to develop our own understanding. Then we can fully appreciate the Abhidhamma: its purpose is not knowledge of terms and classifications, but direct understanding of what appears now. The Abhidhamma supports the development of satipatthåna. We should remember that the Buddha taught Abhidhamma in akternation with satipatthåna. I heard on a tape a discussion on the different characters, caritas or cariyas. Num was reading aloud from the Guide, Netti, p. 247, nineteen types of persons. He said, it is like a confession, and he was laughing (no harshness with himself). p. 247, Part VI, Ch 4, §947. The Pattern of Dispensation: The Pali has for steadied: ti.t.thi, to stand on. Num translated: leading to. There are nineteen variations of these three roots and each of them is the foundation for more and more of that akusala root. An eye-opener, don't you think? No need for depression. Rob M. realizes, when he is teaching, that there is also conceit, but it does not prevent him from teaching with enthusiasm and cheerfulness. (I was sorry to miss you in Bgk, Rob.) Nina 18774 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 10:05am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 13 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no. 13 The next day at dawn he took care of his bodily needs and followed again the group of merchants. When it was time for breakfast, the merchants took the bowl of the son of a prominent family and placed in it hard food and soft food as an offering. This food consisted of raw husked rice that was not delicious, curry that was like a heap of gravel, soup with very salty ingredients. The son of a prominent family reflected on his resting place, and the hard and soft food were like divine nectar to him while he swallowed everything with a great deal of water. He travelled one-hundred and ninetytwo leagues [12] in all, and although he passed close to the gates of the Jeta Grove, he did not enquire where the Teacher was staying. Why did he not enquire? The answer is that he revered the Teacher, and also because of the royal official letter sent by the King which seemed to convey that the Teacher had appeared in Råjagaha, since it stated, ³The Tathågata has appeared in this world.² Therefore he understood that the Buddha was dwelling in the city of Råjagaha. Although he went near the gate of the Jeta Grove, he travelled on fortyfive leagues more. At sundown the son of a prominent family reached Råjagaha and there he asked where the Teacher was staying. When a villager learnt that he came from the northern country (Uttara Pradesh) he informed him as follows, ³You have passed the city of Såvatthí and travelled on fortyfive leagues to Råjagaha, but the Teacher is dwelling in Såvatthí.² The son of a prominent family Pukkusåti thought, ³ Now it is not the right time to return to the city of Såvatthí, and today I shall first take lodging here. Tomorrow I shall go to the Teacher¹s dwelling place.² He asked the villager where recluses who arrived at an imappropriate time could find a lodging. The villager answered that he could dwell in this potter¹s workshop. Then the son of a prominent family asked the potter whether he could dwell there. He entered and sat down, in order to make use of the lodging in the workshop of that potter. In the morning before Pukkusåti went to stay in the potter¹s workshop, the Buddha investigated the world and saw the son of a prominent family Pukkusåti. He considered, ³This son of a prominent family left his kingdom as soon as he had read the official letter that his friend sent him. He went forth and dedicated himself specifically to me, and he travelled all of the hundred and twentynone leagues to the city of Råjagaha. If I do not go there he will not realize the fruits of a recluse (he will not realize the four noble Truths); he will realize the three fruits of a recluse, that is, he will not attain the third stage of enlightenment, the stage of the non-returner (anågåmí). He will die without any refuge after he has dwelt there just for one night. When I have gone there he will realize the three fruits of a recluse. Since I have developed all the perfections during four incalculable periods and a hundred thousand aeons only for the benefit and support of people, I shall help the son of a prominent family Pukkusåti.² Footnote: 12. One yojana or league is 7.3 kilometer. 18775 From: bodhi2500 Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Clinging Aggregates Hi Sarah Thanks for the reply and the links. > --- "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi > > Does anyone have any info on where the article/book >"Aggregates > > and Clinging Aggregates" can be found by Bhikkhu Bodhi.). ------- Sarah> When I next f/w some posts to BB, I > can also ask if he has a copy of the article he can f/w if it's a problem > to get hold of. Let me know, perhaps. ------ That would be great. I havnt been able to locate a copy or find out where I might be able to get one. Thanks Christine for the Ref. Thank-you Steve 18776 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:43pm Subject: Way 38, Comm, Breathing "TheWay of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on Breathing, p. 50 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html The worker in respiration examines the mind and the body, sees the Dependent Origination of ignorance and so forth, and concluding that this mind and this body are bare conditions, and things produced from conditions, and that besides these there is neither a living being nor a person, becomes to that extent a person who transcends doubt. [Tika] "Besides these phenomena there is neither a living being nor a person" refers to vision that is purified [añño satto va puggalo natthiti visuddhiditthi]. [T]Mind-and-body is a bare impersonal process. It is not unrelated to a cause and also not related to a discordant cause (which is fictive) like god, but is connected with (the really perceivable fact of) a cause like ignorance [tayidam dhammamattam na ahetukam napi issariyadi visamahetukam atha kho avijjadihi eva sahetukam]. [T] "A person who has transcended doubt" regarding the past, the future and the present (of his own existence and so forth, as for instance taught in the Sabbasava Sutta of the Majjhima Nikaya). And the yogi who has transcended doubt while cultivating insight, applies the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering, and soullessness, to the mind and body together with the conditions and gradually reaches arahantship [sappaccaya nama rupe tilakkhanam aropetva vipassanam vaddhento anukkamena arahattam papunati]. [T] "Applies the three characteristics" in order to grasp the qualities of the aggregates according to the method taught in the Anatta Lakkhana Sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya beginning with the words: "Whatsoever form." The worker in absorption, namely, he who contemplates upon the factors of absorption, also thinks thus: Supported by what are these factors of absorption? By the basis. The basis is the coarse body. The factors of absorption are here representative of the mind. The coarse body is the body. Having determined thus, he, searching for the reason of the mind and the body, seeks it in Conditions' Mode beginning with ignorance, concludes that this mind and the body comprise just conditions and things produced by conditions and that besides these there is neither a living being nor a person, and becomes to that extent a person who transcends doubt. And the yogi who transcends doubt thus, while cultivating insight, applies the three characteristics of impermanence, suffering and soullessness, to the mind and the body together with conditions and gradually reaches arahantship. 18777 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Howard Thanks for these comments. I think we understand each other's position a little better. Before commenting on the rest of your post (and the sutta quoes), I'd just like to clarify a point that I think is key to this whole area. You say: <> Surely 'right effort' is a form of kusala. But if we are talking about the thinking that is designed to arouse kusala where there is none (i.e., where there is only akusala) then we must be talking about thinking that is akusala, even if you would see it as leading to/resulting in the arising of kusala. Or have I misunderstood what you are saying? Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and all) - ... > ===================================== > You make it clear in the foregoing that it is your > understanding that > we can and do (conventionally) exercise volition - sometimes > usefully and > often times not so usefully, and I stand disabused of my impression > that > "willing" is deemed impossible by you. I also agree - certainly - > that > volition exercised under the sway of dominating akusula conditions > is not an > instance of right effort. I think that probably where we differ is > in the > status of right effort. I see it as specific conventional mental > activity, > whereas I *think* you see it as something else. From my > perspective, the > following excerpts taken from ATI show right effort to be quite > conventional > and to be something that one really has to *work* at with diligence > and > considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of > concentration and mindfulness. [I do think, however, that the > *habits* of > mindfulness, wise attention, and right effort can be cultivated so > that, > after a while they become more and more automatic, requiring less > and less > reminding of oneself and less and less "girding for battle"]. > My apologies to all for this being a lengthy post. I didn't > wish to > cut out any of Jon's post, I did want to make the above remarks, > and the > excerpts to follow are a small part of a large article, which I > thought > better to directly include rather than giving the url for the > entire article. > The excepts follow at the end of this post. > > With metta, > Howard > ****************************** 18778 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:13pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Tal, Looking for the object of brahmavihara (lovingkindness, compassion, joy, equanimity) I found the following, all from Visuddhimagga and snipped for concision: IX 52: The mind-deliverance of lovingkindness is [practiced] with directional pervasion in these ten ways:...May all persons in the eastern direction...May all who have personality in the eastern direction... IX 54: ..."Persons" (puggala: 'pum' is what hell is called; they fall (galanti) into that is the meaning. "Personality" (attabhava) is what the physical body is called; or it is just the pentad of aggregates. (7 (7: ...see also ch. VIII, n. 11 VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this concept will allow. (Nd1 42) (11 (11: "Person (attabhava)" is the states other than the already-mentioned life, feeling and consciousness. The words "just these alone" mean that it is unmixed with self (atta) or permanence. Attabhava as used in the Suttas and in this work is more or less a synonym for sakkaya in the sense of person (body and mind) or personality, or individual form. ... "When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead": just as in the case of the death-consciousness, this world is also called "dead" in the highest (ultimate) sense with the arrival of any consciousness whatever at its dissolution, since its cessation has no rebirth-linking (is "cessation never to return"). Nevertheless though this is so, "the highest sense this concept will allow (pa~n~natti paramatthiyaa) --the ultimate sense will allow this concept of continuity, which is what the expression of common usage "Tissa lives, Phussa lives" refers to, and which is based on consciousness [momentarily] existing along with a physical support; this belongs to the ultimate sense here, since, as they say "It is not the name and surname that lives."... Larry 18779 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 5:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, Thanks for your notes. My reasoning is that the following shows a shift from the body of the breath to the whole body (course body) and the rest of this section makes more sense to me if "body" refers to this course body, i.e., the whole body: Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karajja kaya]. Larry 18780 From: Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 2:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/14/03 6:52:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > Thanks for these comments. I think we understand each other's > position a little better. > > Before commenting on the rest of your post (and the sutta quoes), I'd > just like to clarify a point that I think is key to this whole area. > > You say: > < effort. I see it as specific conventional mental activity, whereas I > *think* you see it as something else. From my perspective, the > following excerpts taken from ATI show right effort to be quite > conventional and to be something that one really has to *work* at > with diligence and considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous > application of concentration and mindfulness.>> > > Surely 'right effort' is a form of kusala. But if we are talking > about the thinking that is designed to arouse kusala where there is > none (i.e., where there is only akusala) then we must be talking > about thinking that is akusala, even if you would see it as leading > to/resulting in the arising of kusala. > > Or have I misunderstood what you are saying? ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Geez, Jon - I dunno! ;-) I think it is an instance of right effort to attempt to be mindful, to not get "lost" in thought, to not permit oneself to be "taken over" by fantasies, etc, etc. I think these are good and useful things to do, and recommended by the Buddha. That's about all I can say. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18781 From: Sarah Date: Tue Jan 14, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Hi Herman & All, Herman wrote: “Anyway, I am assuming that by "concentrate" "dwelling in jhana" is meant. The jhanas are the highest, greatest kusala. If you are able, why do anything else? To sit cross legged with a next to empty mind, is there a better example to follow?” ..... Sarah: “If you are able, why do anything else?” is a good question. Side-stepping what is the ‘greatest kusala’ for now and what is the ‘better example’, I think it’s correct to say that when it comes to the jhanas and highly developed samatha, that certain conditions are essential as elaborated in the Visuddhimagga and elsewhere. There is also no doubt at all about the value of the bhikkhu’s lifestyle and contentment with little as shown by the Buddha and the great arahants such as MahaKassapa. In the commentary to the Samannaphala Sutta (Discourse on the Fruits of Recluseship, B.Bodhi transl,p138f) under ‘Contentment’(which follows the sections on ‘Restraint of the Sense Faculties’ and ‘Mindfulness and Clear Comprehension’, we read: ..... “He goes taking all his minimal eight requisites, carrying them on his body. He has no attachment or bondage to “my monastery, my cell, my attendant.” He is like an arrow released from the bow or like an elephant in rut which has left the herd. Using whatever dwelling he likes - a jungle thicket, the foot of a tree, a wooded slope -- he stands alone and sits alone; in all postures, he is alone, without a companion. Thus he conducts himself in a manner similar to that of the rhinoceros, as explained (in the Rhinoceros Sutta): At home in the four quarters of the world, harbouring no aversion in one’s heart, content with anything one gets, bearing all hardships undismayed - one should walk alone like the rhinoceros. (Sn v 42)” ***** In the sutta itself in this section under contentment, it says: “Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden, in the same way a bhikkhu is content with robes to protect his body and almsfood to sustain his belly; wherever he goes he sets out taking only (his requisites) along with him. In this way, great king, the bhikkhu is content”. ..... Such passages are very inspiring. There have been discussions recently on whether such passages are descriptive or prescriptive. If we were to shed all belongings like a bird and set out for the jungle thickets, would it be helpful for the development of jhana and vipassana? I don’t think so, because the necessary ‘requisites’ are not in place. What we read here and in the earlier suttas that others gave is a description of the natural way of living for those with highly developed wholesome qualities already. There is already ‘restraint of the sense faculties’, highly developed sila and sati sampajanna, even if the vipassana nanas have not yet been realized. In the Samannaphala sutta, after the section on contentment, we read the section under the ‘Abandoning of the Hindrances’(niivara.nappahaana)just before the section on the jhanas. We read: “Endowed with this noble aggregate of moral discipline, this noble restraint over the sense faculties, this noble mindfulness and clear comprehension, and this noble contentment, he resorts to a secluded dwelling - a forest, the foot of a tree.........crosses his legs....mindfulness before him”. In the commentary to the first part of this passage, we read: ..... “What does the Buddha show by this? He shows the achievment of the requisites for living in the forest. For one who lacks these four requisites does not succeed in his forest life. He would fall under the same category as animals or forest wanderers. The deities residing in the forest would think, “what is the use of living in the forest for such and evil bhikkhu?” They would make frightful sounds, strike him on the head with their hands, and make him flee. A bad reputation would also spread about concerning him; “Such and such a bhikkhu, having entered the forest, did this and that evil deed.” But one who has achieved these four requisties succeeds in his forest life. Reviewing his own moral discipline, he does not see any stain or blemish, and he arouses rapture.......” ***************** So how many can "succeed in forest life?" As I mentioned, these are just a few details from the section prior to the one about the jhanas, starting with access concentration. The passage here about the necessary requisites for forest life is similar to the one I quoted from the Sammohavinodani. We also read in the commentary to the ‘Metta’ discourse about how disturbed the bhikkhus were before having developed the appropriate ‘protections’ of sense restraint and highly developed samatha with metta as object. Back to the discussions on kusala and akusala, we can also see, I think, how essential it is to ‘see any stain or blemish’ in the development of samatha or vipassana, even though the understanding and role of the hindrances are different. I look forward to further comments. Sarah ====== 18782 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 0:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, You wrote to me (probably forgotten by now;-)): “Of current interest, I am a little puzzled by how satipatthana is treated in the Visuddhimagga. It seems to be discussed mostly as a preliminary to jhana. However, there is also incidental mention of two vehicles, pure insight and jhana. I haven't made a thorough search yet, but so far I haven't found a description of what a pure insight vehicle is and I haven't seen "pure insight vehicle" equated with satipatthana. So, where is the insight in satipatthana in Visuddhimagga?” ..... I’m not sure that I understand your questions and I forget what I wrote that prompted this too;-)Nina may also have answered. The last section under “Understanding” in the Vism is about the development of insight or satipatthana. It’s all about panna, the field of panna and the stages of insight. This is the development of satipatthana, even if this particular term is not used here. Regardless of whether jhanas are attained,there has to be the development of satipatthana, the insights, stage by stage, in order for defilements to be eradicated and insights of anatta and so on. Do you understand differently? Let me know if I misunderstood. Sarah ===== 18783 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 0:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Tal, (KKT and all), You’ve come into the discussions with some very helpful questions. I understand your point. I like Howard’s response and agree (even for an arahant) the object of the brahma viharas is always ‘a person’ or ‘a being’. Does this mean that there is any wrong view of a person existing ultimately at such times. No. If there were any wrong view at such moments, there couldn’t be the brahma viharas arising. Of course, they can be developed without any right understanding of ultimate realities and were before the Buddha. When beings or any other concepts are the object through the mind door (as Howard pointed out), it can be with wholesome or unwholesome cittas. These can be followed by right or wrong view. I liked all the quotes Larry gave from the Visuddhimagga very much. I’d like to just look at part of one of them as it relates to another thread I’m discussing with KKT and others: ..... “ "the highest sense this concept will allow (pa~n~natti paramatthiyaa) --the ultimate sense will allow this concept of continuity, which is what the expression of common usage "Tissa lives, Phussa lives" refers to, and which is based on consciousness [momentarily] existing along with a physical support; this belongs to the ultimate sense here, since, as they say "It is not the name and surname that lives."...” .... Whenever we use any concepts such as Tissa or Phussa, they do not exist in an ultimate sense but are based on namas and rupas which do exist in the sense that they have characteristics that can be known. Does this mean that two truths are being taught? In a sense yes, there are ultimate and conventional truths. When we use (or the Buddha uses) conventional truths, they are mere representations as "It is not the name and surname that lives." So regardless of whether it is Tissa, a butter-jar or ‘control your mind’ that is being referred to, in reality there is no Tissa, no butter-jar and no self to do anything. In this sense, there is only one set of truths - the ultimate ones. This is true regardless of whether there is any knowledge developed or not. So it is not the thinking about Tissa or the butter-jar, the telling of children to behave or the metta for beings that changes; it is the understanding whilst reflecting on concepts that knows at such times that these are merely conventional truths. Tal, you’ve obviously considered the Teachings in depth. I look forward to more of your contributions. Welcome to DSG and if you’d care to share any details about your interest in dhamma, where you live and so on, we’d all be delighted to hear these as well. Best wishes, Sarah ===== 18784 From: Sarah Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 1:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Hi KKT, KC and Victor, I’m not sure how this is going to work, but I’d like to try applying what I understand from the Abhidhamma commentary quote below (which I’m discussing with KKT) to the first of Victor’s quotes from the Dhammapada: ..... >>KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma supports the theory that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding, does it not?<< ..... Quote from commentary to Katthavatthu with my comments interspersed: "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." ..... Victor: Dhp157. "If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached." ..... S: so obviously, the Dhammapada verses come under ‘popular discourses’. ..... "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." ..... S: If we are able to understand the true meaning in the Dhp verse, we are being taught by the Buddha and able ‘to attain the victory..’. ..... "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." ...... S: If we are able to understand the highest meaning in an Abhidhamma discourse, again we are being taught by the Buddha and able ‘to attain the victory’. ..... "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. On the other hand, having enlightened him in highest-meaning discourse, he teaches him popular discourse afterwards." ..... S: For some people it is more appropriate to teach ‘popular discourse’ first and then ‘highest-meaning discourse’ and for others the reverse. We all have different tendencies and propensities. Whichever we hear or read, however, it should be comprehended and understood according to the truth. ..... "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.'...." ..... S: For most of us, it is easier to read ‘popular discourse’. Whichever method is used, however, it should be in ‘conformity’ with the same truth and consistent in meaning. So even if it is a ‘popular’ Dhp verse as given above, it should be read in conformity with the truth of anatta, conditions and ultimate realities. ..... "There is another way of putting it. The teaching of the Exalted One is of two kinds, the highest-meaning teaching consisting of the aggregates, and so forth, and the popular teaching consisting of `butter-jar,' and so forth. The Exalted One does not, indeed, overrun consistency. Hence, on the mere expression "there is the person who," must not command adherence. The highest meaning has been declared by the Teacher, without transgressing the concept. So another wise man also should not, in explaining the highest meaning, overrun a concept." ..... S: So when we read about self, people and butter-jars, we should not think that even in the beginning that these should be taken as other than ‘mere expressions’. There is no inconsistency in the two kinds of discourse and just as it would be foolish not to look at the highest meaning behind the popular terms, so it would be foolish to avoid using popular terms when looking at the highest meanings. "If one holds oneself dear, one should diligently watch oneself. Thus the wise man will not be reproached." or, as I understand in very approximate abhidhamma language: "By understanding and developing kusala at all times, it will lead to good results and be the best protection." ..... >>KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma supports the theory that the Buddha taught two levels of understanding, does it not?<< ..... S: Back to your question. I understand the Buddha used different methods, but only taught that which leads to the eradication of an idea of self and all other kilesa regardless. ..... KC wrote in an earlier post "ultimately, the Buddha path is no control when one developed from citta to magga citta...." and that "there is no control over the khandhas but these are for pple who have achieved a certain level of development." I believe that the truths are the same regardless of any development and regardless of the method we read, study or consider them. This is why they are universal truths and could be applied to any of the other verses as well. I look forward to any comments from any of you. I'm not expecting an easy life;-) Sarah ====== 18785 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny KKT --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Sarah, ... > KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma > supports the theory that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding, does it not? I think it may be more correct to say that the Buddha taught the same thing by 2 different means (or levels) of instruction. Here is another passage expressing much the same as Sarah's passage, this one from the commentary to the Anangana Sutta [MN 5, 'Without Blemishes'] at n.69 of the Bh. Bodhi translation: "[The commentary] ... explains that the Buddha has a twofold teaching -- a conventional teaching (sammuti-desana) expressed in terms of persons, beings, women, and men, etc; and an ultimate teaching (paramattha-desana) expressed solely in terms that possess ultimate ontological validity, such as aggregates, elements, sense bases, impermanent, suffering, not self, etc. The Buddha expounds his teaching through whichever approach is best suited to enable the hearer to penetrate the meaning, dispel delusion, and achieve distinction." To my understanding, the truths about which the Buddha spoke were exactly the same, leading to exactly the same stages of understanding and final attainment, but were expressed differently, depending on what was suitable for the particular audience. Jon 18786 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: No-control & Destiny Dear Victor, I join Herman in his remarks of appreciation. I like it that you express your own feelings and ideas here so sincerely. Nina. op 14-01-2003 10:39 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > > Thank you for sharing this. > > I think Dhammapada 12 is very rich in wisdom, and also the guidelines > are very difficult for a man like me to aspire to. > > Thank you again for your answer. > 18787 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing op 14-01-2003 05:31 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > "the four absorptions [cattari jhanani] arise in the respiration sign > [assasapassasanimitte uppajjanti]. > [Tika] In the respiration sign = In the reflex image [patibhaga > nimitta]. > > Does anyone know anything about nimita? These days anapanasati is taught > using the touch of the breath on the nostrils or the rise and fall of > the abdomen rather than the "body of the breath". Will a nimita (image) > arise from touch sensation? ------------------------------ Nina: Hi Larry. In the Visuddhimagga we find the description. But I do not speak about abdomen, I am just interested in what was taught in accordance with the scriptures based on Theravada. Breath touches again and again and becomes so subtle. One acquires a nimitta of it, see Vis VIII,214 etc. for details. There is first parikamma nimitta, learning sign, and then patibhaga nimitta. Different teachers of old had differentopinions of the sign, nimitta. Some: a light touch like corron wool. Others a star, etc. But he has to be sure about it and as soon as it appears the hindrances are suppressed. It shows what a delicate subject jhana is. There can also be miccha samadhi, wrong concentration and it can also have as effect certain extraordinary experiences. One has to be very sincere and honest and discern attachment when it arises. Only the person concerned can know this for himself. He has to know what the hindrances are, when they arise and also whether they are really subdued when the sign appears. One could mislead oneself. Nina. 18788 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: why me? Dear Herman, thank you for your kind and sympathetic words, they encourage me.See below. op 13-01-2003 23:09 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > I am very sorry to hear of your father's and Lodewijk's distress in > various situations. ---------------------------- N: Slowly he got somewhat better, and I think the music helped. I am glad you still pay with your sons. ---------------- H I feel very powerless when I become aware of the suffering of other > people. When I become aware of my own distress, discomfort or > suffering, I know I can find a place within myself where there is > calmness and an understanding that it is all just the rolling by of > the "weather" (Often I suffer so unnecessarily because I am just not > aware of it, just so caught up in whatever situation). >---------------------- N: Yes, that is it, so caught up in situations, I often feel like that, I think we all do. We have learnt dhamma but when something difficult happens that upsets us we are in a tangle. As I told Sarah, I need therapeutic litterature then. It can be in the form of an encouraging post or even something we write ourselves. The rolling by of the weather: a good image; yes, it will not remain, just passes like a strom, but we forget that it will pass. ------------------------------- H: But I find that I can do nothing for other people. I cannot tell them > how to find that place. I can just say words, or put an arm around a > shoulder, and hope that some of it makes sense. And if it does , it > is just pure luck. The strangest things can create a little bit of a > flicker of insight in people. ---------------------------------------- N: I can see that you know very well how to help others. It is your metta and karuna. Thank you again, Nina. 18789 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Why did Buddha concentrate? Dear Herman and all, the thread on the concemtration of the Buddha. See below op 14-01-2003 10:59 schreef Egberdina op hhofman@t...: > > Anyway, I am assuming that by "concentrate" "dwelling in jhana" is > meant. The jhanas are the highest, greatest kusala. If you are able, > why do anything else? > > To sit cross legged with a next to empty mind, is there a better > example to follow? ------------------------------------------- N: I came across a text: in the Commentary: We read in the ³Mahå Prinibbåna Sutta²(³Dialogues of the Buddha): ³Now I am frail, Ånanda, old, aged, far gone in years. This is my eightieth year, and my life is spent. Even as an old cart, Ånanda, is held together with much difficulty, so the body of the Tthågatha is kept going only with supports. It is only, Ånanda, when the Tthågata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the Signless Concentration of Mind, that his body is more comfortable. Therefore, Ånanda, be ye an island unto yourselves, a refuge unto yourselves, seeking no external refuge; with the Teachings as your island, the Teachings as your refuge, seeking no other refuge...² We then read that by the development of the four Applications of Mindfulness one is an island and refuge to oneself. To Signless concetration: animitta, The Commentary, the Sumaògala Vilåsiní, explains: phala samåpatti: fruition attainment. This has nibbåna as object. Nina. 18790 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 0:20pm Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny Dear Jon, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > KKT: So it seems that the Abhidhamma > supports the theory that the Buddha > taught two levels of understanding, does it not? I think it may be more correct to say that the Buddha taught the same thing by 2 different means (or levels) of instruction. Here is another passage expressing much the same as Sarah's passage, this one from the commentary to the Anangana Sutta [MN 5, 'Without Blemishes'] at n.69 of the Bh. Bodhi translation: "[The commentary] ... explains that the Buddha has a twofold teaching -- a conventional teaching (sammuti-desana) expressed in terms of persons, beings, women, and men, etc; and an ultimate teaching (paramattha-desana) expressed solely in terms that possess ultimate ontological validity, such as aggregates, elements, sense bases, impermanent, suffering, not self, etc. The Buddha expounds his teaching through whichever approach is best suited to enable the hearer to penetrate the meaning, dispel delusion, and achieve distinction." To my understanding, the truths about which the Buddha spoke were exactly the same, leading to exactly the same stages of understanding and final attainment, but were expressed differently, depending on what was suitable for the particular audience. Jon KKT: Thanks for your sharing. According to the quote << the Buddha has a twofold teaching >> in order to be << best suited to enable the hearer to penetrate the meaning >> But it seems he didn't say that the two levels << leading to exactly the same stages of understanding and final attainment >> as you said? The reason of my question is that I think the two levels of instruction don't lead to the << same >> final attainment, but the first level leads to the second level (i.e. from the lower one arrives at the higher) What do you think? Metta, KKT 18791 From: Egberdina Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 2:46pm Subject: Control Dear All, This is a general footnote to the various discussions on no-control. I think much of the to and fro about control comes from an unspoken requirement for many, that control must mean absolute control. Many people also believe they know what they mean when they say or think "absolute", but I do not think this is possible. For the meaning of absolute is very similar to the meaning of nibbana. To be absolute means to have no object and no precondition. As an example of absolute I could use the Old Testament Jewish image of God. God is, and that's about all you can say, and it's best if even that is not said. But the idea of God runs into trouble the moment it is multiplied or divided. (In the Bible, first there is God, then there is God and Satan, and theology has since then also split God into three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Obviously there can only be one absolute, otherwise one absolute would be subject or object of the other absolute(s), or one part is subject or object of another part. Clearly, for the multitudes of those who live and have lived believing in their separate volitions and control, their volitions and control have always been strictly limited in time/space and effect. And for many, therefore, control is no control. Does control need to imply absolute control? There is not much to discuss about that, it is simply a matter of definition. If we decide that control does not need to be absolute, then we can fruitfully discuss which processes can be controlled, and to what extent, and under which conditions etc etc. And if we decide that control needs to be absolute in order to be called control, then we will need to drop the control topic, because clearly there is no absolute control. Wishing you all the best Herman 18792 From: Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 5:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, Thanks for your reply to my question on nimita. I rummaged around in Visuddhimagga trying to get a sense of what a nimita is and found this: IV, 22, n.4: (snipped) "Apprehends the sign": he apprehends in that with knowledge connected with meditative development the sign of earth of the kind about to be described, as one does with the eye the sign of the face in a looking-glass... So, is a sign a concept signaled by a paramattha dhamma? If a particular touch sensation on the nostrils is perceived (sanna, recognized?) as "in-breath", for example, is that concept (in-breath) the nimita? It doesn't need to be an image, correct? If there _is_ an image, the nimita would be whatever concept that image evoked, as with "earth" in the earth kasina. Correct? VIII, 217: And here, the consciousness that has in-breath as its object is one, the consciousness that has out-breath as its object is another, and the consciousness that has the sign as its object is another. For the meditation subject reaches neither absorption nor even access in one who has not got these three things [clear]. But it reaches access and also absorption in one who has got these three things [clear]. L: Is in-breath and out-breath the two touch sensations and the concept (in-breath or out-breath) the sign (nimita)? Larry 18793 From: James Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:23pm Subject: Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Dear All, > > This is a general footnote to the various discussions on no- control. > > I think much of the to and fro about control comes from an unspoken > requirement for many, that control must mean absolute control. Many > people also believe they know what they mean when they say or > think "absolute", but I do not think this is possible. For the > meaning of absolute is very similar to the meaning of nibbana. To be > absolute means to have no object and no precondition. > > As an example of absolute I could use the Old Testament Jewish image > of God. God is, and that's about all you can say, and it's best if > even that is not said. But the idea of God runs into trouble the > moment it is multiplied or divided. (In the Bible, first there is > God, then there is God and Satan, and theology has since then also > split God into three, Father, Son and Holy Ghost). Obviously there > can only be one absolute, otherwise one absolute would be subject or > object of the other absolute(s), or one part is subject or object of > another part. > > Clearly, for the multitudes of those who live and have lived > believing in their separate volitions and control, their volitions > and control have always been strictly limited in time/space and > effect. And for many, therefore, control is no control. Does control > need to imply absolute control? There is not much to discuss about > that, it is simply a matter of definition. > > If we decide that control does not need to be absolute, then we can > fruitfully discuss which processes can be controlled, and to what > extent, and under which conditions etc etc. And if we decide that > control needs to be absolute in order to be called control, then we > will need to drop the control topic, because clearly there is no > absolute control. > > Wishing you all the best > > > > Herman Hi Herman, This is a very nice post. I like it because it doesn't contain a single Pali term! ;-) I want to reply. I do agree that it does depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to the issue. And while I like your middle way approach to the control issue, I must disagree with your final conclusions. My understanding is that control must be absolute to reach the attainment of nibbana, and then control is a moot point. I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With truth you control that thirst…when you reach ultimate control, the thirst is eliminated forever…never to return. There is control of this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. Thirst is an all-pervasive phenomenon. Anyone who has experienced an extreme thirst knows that it is very strong in the mind. No matter what you do, see, hear, feel, taste, etc., the thirst will dominate the mind and color all experience until it is satiated. Thirst can become so strong that it can make the person a raving lunatic…unable to distinguish reality from fantasy. That is the state that we are all in presently. We are all blinded by thirst. But some are more blinded than others, some are thirstier than others; but we all have the ability to satisfy the thirst completely and ultimately. The Buddha gave the path to control this thirst, and reach ultimate control, with the eightfold path. By making specific choices in one's environment, thinking, and mindfulness… this thirst will lessen and lessen. The truth will stop this thirst...conventional truth at first....ultimate truth later. I think it is very easy to determine the difference between a wholesome and an unwholesome mental state. If the mental state is one of thirst, it is unwholesome; if the mental state is one of truth and satisfaction, it is wholesome. What is so difficult to determine about that? The difficult thing is no giving in to the thirsty mental state. If you find a mental state of thirst arising in your mind, don't feed it with more thoughts of thirst. Control that mental state, don't give in to it, and the thirst will subside. It is all about control. If we don't control the thirst, we become just another story in the newspaper: crack addict starves baby, disgruntled employee kills three and kills self, or GMC lessens health benefits for works despite climbing profits, etc. I hope I have made myself clear. If you don't agree, okay. Metta, James 18794 From: Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Sarah, Regarding pure insight vehicle, it seems that access concentration is a necessary preliminary. I am interpreting this as a very clear, intimate experience of the object. How do you see it? Larry 18795 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Good quote, Larry. The verse is my favorite and I had forgotten the further explanation. Useful to know about attbhava, I met this term yesterday, in co to Mahaarahulovaada sutta and did not know how to translate. Nina op 15-01-2003 02:13 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one > consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or > alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if > [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; > when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this > concept will allow. (Nd1 42) (11 > > (11: "Person (attabhava)" is the states other than the already-mentioned > life, feeling and consciousness. 18796 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Jan 15, 2003 10:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing, coarse body Hi Larry, I looked up karajakaya: kara is producing.karaja: born of kamma. karaja-kaaya: the body sprung from kamma, also used in the sense of impure body. Buddhadassa dict: the body which is born of impurity. The Co also says: (Way 37): ,The basis is the coarse body . The coarse body is composed of the Four Great Primaries and the derived rupas.> Thus, all rupas can be realized as they are when they appear one at a time. Also breath appears, tangible object: three of the four Great Elements. No matter where in the body rupa appears, at the nosetipe or anywhere else, it can be known as it is. But when thinking of conditions: without all the rupas of which the body consists, no respiration would be possible. Also citta conditions breath, it produces breath. Nina. op 15-01-2003 02:28 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Thanks for your notes. My reasoning is that the following shows a shift > from the body of the breath to the whole body (coarse body) and the rest > of this section makes more sense to me if "body" refers to this course > body, i.e., the whole body: > > Supported by what is respiration? Supported by the basis > [vatthunissita]. The basis is the coarse body [karaja kaya]. 18797 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:45am Subject: Dhamma Issues -abiding in bliss warning: lots of Pali and confused comments;-) Dear Nina & All, I have a few qustions about ‘fruition consciousness’ (phala samapatti), but will have to ‘think out loud’ as I try to articulate them. I have particularly appreciated your translations of the difficult points raised in the ‘Dhamma Issues’ series. I think it’s important that these points are clarified because so many people have an interest in nibbana and it’s very easy to misunderstand the texts and the translations, I find: 1. Phala samapatti: fruition attainment. We just read this in your translation from the Commentary to the Maha Parinibbana Sutta. “It is only, Ananda, when the Tathagata, disregarding external objects, with the cessation of certain feelings, attains to and abides in the Signless Concentration of Mind, that his body is more comfortable.” Signless concentration: animitta. Does this mean ‘signless concentration’ is the same as phala samapatti with nibbana as object? So here, does the ‘animitta’ refer to nibbana? Is it signless in the sense of unconditioned? In MN 43, animitta vimokkha (signless deliverance) and sunnata vimokkha (emptiness deliverance) are elaborated upon and compared under ‘Deliverance of Mind (ceto-vimutti). You also discussed ceto-vimutti (in Dhamma Issues) as it occurs in MN 44, explaining it refers to a ‘person who has developed insight and jhana’. The commentary notes that BB gives for MN43 answers my questions, I think: “MA: the “signless deliverance of mind” (animitta cetovimutti) is the attainment of fruition; the “signs” are objects such as forms, etc; the “signless element’ is Nibbana, in which all signs of conditioned things are absent.” “MA identifies this su~n~nataa cetovimutti with insight into the voidness of selfhood in persons and things.” “...the signless deliverance of mind is identified by MA with the attainment of fruition. Of the four deliverances of mind....this one alone is supramundane. The first three - the brahmaviharas , the third immaterial attainment , and insight into the voidness of formations - all pertain to the mundane level.” I think there are still some questions left about the triple deliverance (vimokkha) and animitta cetovimutti and phala samapatti, but I’ll leave it here for now. I probably need to read more. 2. In the MA translation here, BB uses ‘attainment of fruition’ for phala samapatti. I assume this refers to a repeat of phala cittas with nibbana as object. These are lokuttara and as discussed. can only be experienced by those who have attained jhanas as well as being enlightened. We read ‘attains to and abides in Signless concentration.....”. In Dhamma Issues 2, it was clarified that ‘abiding in bliss’ is translated from ‘sukhavihara’. Bliss is sukha. I also note that there are 3 kinds of abiding - sunnata vihara (void abiding), animitta vihara (signless abiding) and appanihita vihara (desireless abiding). The same terms used for the 3 liberations. Somewhere you mention in a footnote that these have different meanings in different contexts (not always related to fruition) but in this context sukhavihara ‘refers to the bliss of fruition attainment’. I also find the expression ‘enter fruition attainment’ difficult. Can we just say ‘experience’ or ‘attain’ or is there another Pali word specifically used with this meaning, I wonder? Before, in the context of Way, we discussed translations for viharati, I think.....is it possible just to use ‘experience’ or is this misleading. I notice that in MN 43, it refers to ‘persistence of’, ‘prior determination ‘(of its duration) and ‘emergence from’, so perhaps ‘abiding’ refers to experience for a duration and this is why it is used. 3. There was some discussion about the purpose of arahants ‘abiding in bliss’. InVism, XX111 8, we read: “Why do they attain it? For the purpose of abiding in bliss here and now. for just as a king experiences royal bliss and a deity experiences divine bliss, so too the noble ones think, ‘We shall experience the noble supramundane bliss’, and after deciding on the duration, they attain the attainment of fruition whenever they choose.”(i.e only when given predominance).The same conditions are given as in MN43. Under the next section on the ‘Attainment of Cessation’ (Nirodha samåpatti, we read: “Why do they attain it? Being wearied by the occurrence and dissolution of formations, they attain it thinking, “let us dwell in bliss by being without consciousness here and now and reaching the cessation that is nibbana.” comm to this: “..as though reaching nibbana without remainder of result of past clinging, “in bliss” means without suffering.” Obviously there is no mental suffering for the arahant anyway, so this applies to bodily suffering such as the back-ache. I had a few more questions and comments arising from the series (maybe later), but I’m sure I’ll have caused enough confusion for now, so I’ll stop here for now and will be glad to hear any answers or further comments from anyone. This post needs some serious editing, but if I spend any more time on it, it won’t get sent, so apologies for the disorganised points. Sarah ====== 18798 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, Regarding the 'pure insight vehicle' or sukkha vipassika is concerned, I understand that though there is no jhana attainment and therefore no jhana factors are present, because nibbana is the object, the concentration is equivalent to access level and the tranquillity to first jhana level (as I just read in Nina's Dhamma Issues 2-7). It goes on to say that because there are no jhana factors present, the samadhi (concentration) "has not sufficient strength so that the citta with strong absorption in the object of nibbana could arise again after he attained enlightenment and became an ariyan". Does this answer it? Sarah ===== 18799 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:52am Subject: Re: Control Hi James, Good to "hear" from you, and may I say your post was certainly clear and precise. I agree with you about the important things, like the point about it being OK to disagree :-). I would like to take a bit of time and ruminate on the things you have written. I'll be back. All the best Herman > > Hi Herman, > > This is a very nice post. I like it because it doesn't contain a > single Pali term! ;-) I want to reply. I do agree that it does > depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to > the issue. And while I like your middle way approach to the control > issue, I must disagree with your final conclusions. My > understanding is that control must be absolute to reach the > attainment of nibbana, and then control is a moot point. > snip > I hope I have made myself clear. If you don't agree, okay. > > Metta, James 18800 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive (was: Tinker, Tailor.....) Hi James, Thanks for all yr comments and answers. --- "James " wrote: > (James: No, actually I wouldn't say. Words and `considering' are > quite inadequate to reach the state you are aiming for. Also, I > don't recognize the word `dhammas' since I don't agree with a > reductionism view of reality; I prefer `Ultimate Truth' > and `Conventional Truth'. ..... I’m very happy to talk about ‘Ultimate Truth’ and ‘Conventional Truth’. I don’t think anyone here is suggesting words and ‘considering’ are in anyway adequate. Still, the Buddha encouraged us to listen and consider a lot in the suttas as essential conditions for developing understanding and this is why he also taught at such length. What do you understand him to be referring to by “Ultimate Truth’? ..... >Along those lines, I believe that > conventional truth is a bridge to ultimate truth and it is a very > long and arduous bridge to walk. When you reach the other side, you > see both truths…and that both are one truth. If you try shortcuts, > you end up not being able to see either truth, or the one truth, > properly.) ..... Why do you think the Buddha talks about the khandhas, the dhatus (elements), the sense objects and so on? Perhaps by ‘ultimate truth’ you are just referring to nibbana. Does the Buddha talk about any other truths (other than conventional ones) in your opinion? ..... > (James: As they say, it's good to know the enemy. ;-) ..... Hey James, it (abhidhamma) may even become your friend at this rate ;-) You gave a good summary in a post to KKT. ..... > (James: If this is so, it is in direct contradiction to the suttas. > The Buddha stated many times that he did not know what started the > round of becoming and transmigration; he only knew how to stop it. > I am not going to pull out a bunch of sutta quotes unless I know we > are speaking about the same thing. Since the Buddha didn't say > anything about `dhammas', I have a hard time following the exact > meaning of your contention.) ..... We may not be speaking about the same thing. I understood from your earlier post that you weren’t just referring to the origins of the rounds of becoming, but referring to the causes for phenomena arising at this moment. I forget what I was referring to, but in a post to KKT you wrote: “Even though the Abhidhamma demonstrates that the self doesn’t exist in all these ‘dhammas’, it still doesn’t account for the fact that the unenlightened think they have a self. It doesn’t explain how all the pieces fit together to create the illusion of self-hood..” I believe the paccaya (conditions) provide the answers to all these nuts and bolts. Of course it is a very complicated process as you’ve said. I understood the Buddha had plenty to say about ‘ad nauseum’ dhammas, but maybe we can use realities, elements, aggregates or anything you prefer. I was probably trying to avoid the other ad nauseum ones not to be mentioned;-) You object to what you refer to as the ‘reductionism theory of reality’. Do you accept there are mental phenomena and physical phenomena experienced through the body and senses as being discussed in the ‘Way’ corner at the moment? Do you accept that kaya (body) refers in this context to rupas? ..... > (James: Hmmm…when I am ready. You are clever Jedi Master, but I > cannot be drawn to the dark side of the force that easily! ;-) ..... Warning: any Star Wars or Star Trek metaphors are quite lost on me ;-) ..... > (James: I would agree with this…except you seem to be missing a > little something here. Namely you are not stressing the other seven > arms of the eight-armed path. Right View is only one part, not > everything. There is a lot more to be done than to keep cultivating > Right View. And I don't believe that Abhidhamma view is Right View > anyway. BTW, thank you for avoiding those ad nauseum namas and > rupas for me ;-) ..... OK, let’s say Right View with its accompanying 7 arms. Right view is the ‘forerunner’ or leader as I understand and that’s why I stress it. From MN 43, I was just reading: “Friend, with what does one understand a state that can be known?” “Friend, one understands a state that can be known with the eye of wisdom,’ “Friend, what is the purpose of wisdom?” “The purpose of wisdom, friend, is direct knowledge, its purpose is full understanding, its purpose is abandoning.” commentary note: “MA:The eye of wisdom (pa~n~nacakkhu) is wisdom itself, called an eye in the sense that it is an organ of spiritual vision.” How is Abhidhamma panna (Right View) any different from Right View as taught in other parts of the Tipitaka? ..... > OK, we're agreed here....just start as is - no need to change our > lifestyle at all. But what, James, is the truth HERE? When you say > that you have experiences in your body, what is this body if there > are no rupas? I'd be genuinely glad to hear more. > > (James: Maybe later Sarah, when you are ready…;-) ..... Great;-) Meanwhile, let me put it another way. What do you understand the Buddha to be referring to by ‘the body’and did he refer to experiences in ‘the body’? If so, what did he mean? ..... > (James: I'm a chariot ;-) ..... You know, I came across a dissected chariot in a sutta yesterday too. It’s not just those pesky ad nauseum abhidhammists that are into ‘reductionism theory’;-) You find the theory too “simplistic because it doesn’t explain how all of these parts come together to create the ‘illusion of self-hood’.” You also suggest that ‘if you don’t pinpoint the cause, the result is quite irrelvant’. I’d be very happy to discuss the causes or conditions further with you - we might both learn something in the process. You suggested that the ‘illusory self’ is unstable, impermanent and unsatisfactory. I’d suggest these are the characteristics of ultimate realities which can be directly known, unlike illusory concepts. These are all good areas to consider more. “If you don’t agree, okay.”;-) Sarah ====== 18801 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi Larry, I like this point which you posted: VIII 39: Life, person, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one consciousness moment that flicks by. Ceased aggregates of those dead or alive are all alike, gone never to return. No [world is] born if [consciousness is] not produced; when that is present, then it lives; when consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: the highest sense this concept will allow. (Nd1 42) I know that James is wrong when he says that the Buddha is that "unrestricted awareness". Any form of awareness is simply 'consciousness'. Whatever 'awareness' that appears during meditation is inconstant. Any form of 'awareness' is inconstant. Even 'awareness' of the nibbana element is inconstant. As Ven. Anuruddha said at the Buddha's parinibbana: Like a flame's unbinding was the liberation of awareness. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18802 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control Hi, James - In a message dated 1/15/03 11:25:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and > round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very > simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by > the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of > ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With > truth you control that thirst…when you reach ultimate control, the > thirst is eliminated forever…never to return. There is control of > this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of > anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the > realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. > ============================ I think you make a very good point here. I would just like to add one comment. I think that the Buddha pointed out that that we have no (full) control over what happens in and through us, such as the multutude and variety of our experiences, the aging of our bodies etc because it is a common attitude, very much extant at the time of the Buddha, that an alleged self is a controller, a controller which exercises control over "me" and "mine"; the purpose of teaching our relative lack of control over what we experience and of the aging and illness that befall "our" bodies was to help disabuse us of our notions of "me" and "mine". 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) 18803 From: Robert Eddison Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:19am Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Victor: >> I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting >> into practice. Howard: > I've read it. (sigh.) Stalemate it seems. Or more precisely, if Howard and Victor were playing chess the game would have long since ended through the 50-move rule, where a draw is declared if 50 moves elapse with neither player taking a piece or advancing a pawn. In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. What four? There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). There is a question which is to be analysed (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). There is a question which is to be answered with a counter-question (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" -- A ii 46 If I have followed the Howard-Victor exchange correctly, the crux of the disagreement is that Howard (and perhaps most of the dsg regulars) take such questions as "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" as being questions that can be (and perhaps ought to be) given a direct or categorical answer, whereas Victor takes them as questions to be set aside. So with one side repeatedly posing a question and pressing for an answer, while the other insists on setting the question aside, it's no surprise that the discussion just goes round in circles. Perhaps it would help to move the discussion onto more fruitful ground if each party would explain *why* they judge such questions as "Is there a self outside of the aggregates?" to be eka.msabyaakara.niiya or .thapaniiya. It might also be useful to consider the meaning of the 4 types of question given in the above sutta. I have read little on this subject, so there is much that is far from clear to me, especially regarding the last of the 4 types. Two questions that come immediately to mind: Does the term .thapaniiya pa~nhaa (which I will translate neutrally as "questions to be set aside") mean that they *ought* to be set aside (perhaps implying that it would be in some way to one's detriment to attempt to answer them), or does it mean they *may* be set aside (i.e. there would be no particular value in answering them, since any answer -- whether right or wrong -- would be irrelevant to the aim of the Buddha's teaching, the ending of dukkha). In my understanding, the Pali suffix ".niiya" would allow both possibilities. But what does Theravaadin tradition understand it to mean? What is it that determines whether a particular question is one that may be answered directly, or requires a counter-question, or is to be set aside/answered with noble silence? From the little that I've read on this issue I think Buddhist commentarial writers usually explain these different types of questions just by giving examples of each. Unfortunately the examples given are usually pretty disparate in form and content. It seems difficult to reduce them to some common calculus, such that one could look at any given question and say: "Hmmm, that one needs a counter-question," or, "Ah, it's a thapaniiya! I shan't answer it. (I'll just give the questioner the noble silence treatment...tum te tum te tum...)." I vaguely recall reading one attempt by a Buddhist scholastic writer (it may have been Buddhaghosa, but it could equally well have been Vasubandhu) to provide a rubric for determining how to treat any given question. According to the author's scheme a question is 'to be set aside' if its premises consist of an illicit blend of conventional and ultimate ideas. This formulation does seem to work with those questions which the Buddha himself treated as thapaniiya. Does anyone know the source I'm referring to? Well, that's enough for now. Best wishes, Robert 18804 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 7:43am Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, James - > > In a message dated 1/15/03 11:25:55 PM Eastern Standard Time, > buddhatrue@y... writes: > > > I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and > > round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very > > simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by > > the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of > > ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With > > truth you control that thirst…when you reach ultimate control, the > > thirst is eliminated forever…never to return. There is control of > > this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of > > anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the > > realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. > > > ============================ > I think you make a very good point here. I would just like to add one > comment. I think that the Buddha pointed out that that we have no (full) > control over what happens in and through us, such as the multutude and > variety of our experiences, the aging of our bodies etc because it is a > common attitude, very much extant at the time of the Buddha, that an alleged > self is a controller, a controller which exercises control over "me" and > "mine"; the purpose of teaching our relative lack of control over what we > experience and of the aging and illness that befall "our" bodies was to help > disabuse us of our notions of "me" and "mine". > > With metta, > Howard > Howard, Yes, I completely agree. Control doesn't extend to everything…only to thirst. Control of aging, environment, appearance, disease, etc., is impossible and not within the realm of Buddhism….those interested in that kind of control need to explore Wicca and Magik rituals (as I did as a child) until their futility becomes apparent. Perhaps the reason thirst (craving) is controllable and everything else isn't controllable is due to the fact that thirst is the only thing that is real and everything else is perception; at least that I what I believe. But I will compose a post along those lines later… I have some Star Kids letters piling up I need to respond to first. Metta, James 18805 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Hi, Robert (and Victor) - Thank you for a very intelligent post. In fact, Victor has several times alluded to the business of setting aside certain issues. But then he has written other things which have led me in a different direction as to his meaning. My main goal in these conversations has been to come to see clearly what Victor's "position" actually is. (Whatever it is is fine with me. I just wanted to be sure I understand him.) Your post, with the middle excised, follows at the end, Robert. With metta, Howard In a message dated 1/16/03 10:23:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, robedd@i... writes: > > Victor: > > >>I would suggest reading Dhammapada 12, learning from it, and putting > >>into practice. > > Howard: > > >I've read it. (sigh.) > > > Stalemate it seems. Or more precisely, if Howard and Victor were playing > chess the game would have long since ended through the 50-move rule, where > a draw is declared if 50 moves elapse with neither player taking a piece or > advancing a pawn. > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. > What four? > There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be analysed > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be answered with a counter-question > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" > -- A ii 46 > > > If I have followed the Howard-Victor exchange correctly, the crux of the > disagreement is that Howard (and perhaps most of the dsg regulars) take > such questions as "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" as being > questions that can be (and perhaps ought to be) given a direct or > categorical answer, whereas Victor takes them as questions to be set aside. > So with one side repeatedly posing a question and pressing for an answer, > while the other insists on setting the question aside, it's no surprise > that the discussion just goes round in circles. > > Best wishes, > > Robert > > /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) 18806 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:15am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > I know that James is wrong when he says that the Buddha is > that "unrestricted awareness". Any form of awareness is > simply 'consciousness'. Whatever 'awareness' that appears during > meditation is inconstant. Any form of 'awareness' is inconstant. > Even 'awareness' of the nibbana element is inconstant. Hi NEO, Hmmmm….talking about me behind my back I see. Thought I wouldn't find out, but I have my sources! ;-) just kidding. It is funny because the more I learn about the Abhidhamma, the more I disagree with it. At first I had just a few disagreements, but they seem to be growing and multiplying as I learn more. The proposition that nibbana, or any insight for that matter, is only known momentarily until such mind states that know it slip away is a logical absurdity. Not only does it directly contradict the teachings of the Lord Buddha, like the Third Noble Truth for example, it also doesn't make logical sense. Allow me to explain in simple terms. The gathering of insight and wisdom is not comparable to a mundane activity like building the muscles for example. When one exercises and builds the muscles, they grow large and strong; however, when the exercise stops, the muscles atrophy and become weak. Insight is not like that. It doesn't go away even when the practice stops. Whatever insight one gains, that insight sticks around until the final culmination in nibbana. If one meditates for a while and gains some insight into his/her true nature, that insight doesn't go away when the meditation stops. Even if the person didn't meditate for years more, when they start again they will go right back to where they left off. The same applies to lifetime after lifetime. Whatever one learns about the truth in one lifetime is carried to the next; it doesn't go away. That is why any amount of meditation, even for five minutes a day, is beneficial because it will accumulate insight. Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be possible. The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. Of course, you think that I am wrong. That is okay also. I don't want to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong; I just encourage people to think about these issues for themselves. The truth is the truth and it will always win out in the end. Metta, James 18807 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control > > > Herman James says: This is a very nice post. I like it because it doesn't contain a single Pali term! ;-) I want to reply. I do agree that it does depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to the issue. And while I like your middle way approach to the control issue, I must disagree with your final conclusions. My understanding is that control must be absolute to reach the attainment of nibbana, and then control is a moot point. I am not sure why many people in this group keep going round and round this basic tenet of Buddhism. The Buddha explained it very simply and plainly: Dukkha is caused by thirst. Dukkha is caused by the thirst of ignorance. How do you quench the thirst of ignorance? You quench the thirst of ignorance with the truth. With truth you control that thirst.when you reach ultimate control, the thirst is eliminated forever.never to return. There is control of this thirst and there is ultimate control. Whereas, control of anything else, like gravity, plant growth, or taxes, is beyond the realm of Buddhism and a non-issue. Hi James, I would disagree that the Buddha taught that one controls thirst or craving. I think you had it right when you said "How do you quench the thirst of ignorance?" The Buddha taught that the thirst of carving is quenched, not controlled. It is put out through dispassion towards conditioned things. Put out through dispassion towards greed and aversion. The thirst is not "controlled" but rather ended because the conditions for it's arising have been abandoned. Ray 18808 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:18am Subject: nibbana Dear Neo and Num, Neo's question and my answer: Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? __________ N: No other cittas that directly experience nibbana. I received additional info from Num and I like to be corrected as to this difficult subject. --------------- Num classified the cittas, from Abh Sangaha, Ch 3, 4: ---------------------- Nina: I found this difficult, is this a reflecting on or direct experience ? It may not be in the same way as lokuttara citta, not so direct, and therefore, I made a change in my answer above, adding: *directly* experience nibbana. I sensed that it was delicate here. Moreover, I was merely thinking of the sukkhavipassakas, not of lokuttara jhanas, since Neo's other qu related to that. So, no abhinnas. -------------------- Num: ---------------------------------------- Nina: the sixth abhinna is eradication of all defilements, I understand. I find abhinna the most difficult one, I like to avoid this subject. Moreover, I am not taken to the subject of nibbana, far beyond me. When considering paccavekkhana: reflecting on nibbana, nibbana is the reality of nibbana, not a concept of it. It may be a matter of terms: experiencing nibbana or directly experiencing it. Anyway, I will not be able to understand this subject. Perhaps Aunt Krishna could help here? Nina. 18809 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing, nimitta Dear Larry, op 16-01-2003 02:16 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > IV, 22, n.4: (snipped) "Apprehends the sign": he apprehends in that with > knowledge connected with meditative development the sign of earth of the > kind about to be described, as one does with the eye the sign of the > face in a looking-glass... > > So, is a sign a concept signaled by a paramattha dhamma? If a particular > touch sensation on the nostrils is perceived (sanna, recognized?) as > "in-breath", for example, is that concept (in-breath) the nimita? It > doesn't need to be an image, correct? If there _is_ an image, the nimita > would be whatever concept that image evoked, as with "earth" in the > earth kasina. Correct? -------------------------------------- N: Earth, first you look it, there is colour, but the aim is not knowing the characteristic of colour, but calm of samatha, subduing attachment and the other hindrances. While you look at the kasina you concentrate on the concept of earth. It becomes more and more sublimated and refined. When jhanacitta arises there is no seeing, no sense impression, the meditation subject, nimitta, is experienced through the mind-door. The same for breath, no matter it is in or out: through touch, but in samatha the aim is not realizing as just tangible object, a rupa. The very refined and subtle nimitta, appears, it can be by touch, and then, no more sensation of touch. It is a nimitta, a concept, the object of jhana. > VIII, 217: And here, the consciousness that has in-breath as its object. We can translate nimtta by image, sign or concept. ----------------- L: is one, the consciousness that has out-breath as its object is another, > and the consciousness that has the sign as its object is another. For > the meditation subject reaches neither absorption nor even access in one > who has not got these three things [clear]. But it reaches access and > also absorption in one who has got these three things [clear]. > > L: Is in-breath and out-breath the two touch sensations and the concept > (in-breath or out-breath) the sign (nimita)? ----------------- N: as to , it starts by touch, but as said before, the aim is to acquire a mental image and to subdue all sensations, and the akusala bound up with these. Nina. 18810 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:59am Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Dear Robert, There is this from Buddhaghosa which shows that sometimes one can deflect questions out of ditthi: Net of views (Bhikkhu Bodhi) p177. "the endless equivocator (amaravikkhepavada)does not approve of the eternalist view of self, or of any other view, he practises equivocation by saying 'I do not take it thus' etc. These statements of his equivocate by repudiating each point on which he is questioned" Query: "Isn't it true that as far as he takes a stand on the side of equivocation, he makes a positive affirmation of the equivocal position?" Reply: "no, because he is utterly deluded about that as well and because the doctrine of equivocation occurs only by way of rejection"......."he is not called a theorist merely because he resorts to equivocation when asked a question, but because he holds a wrong conviction. For this person actually holds the wrong conviction of eternalism" p178" but how does this view come to be included under eternalsm? Because he does not hold the view of anihilationism." p26 Note from Bodhi explains the meaning of amaravikkhepa: "the theorist who adopt this approach go on hedging without limits, refusing to make a definite assertion".... On p173 the commentary says "that it does not die, thus it is endless" (amara-immortal)"" RobertK 18811 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Hi Robert and all, I was trying to find the discourse that you mentioned and this is what I found online: Anguttara Nikaya IV.42 Pañha Sutta Questions http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-042.html I see the question "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" to be set aside because it is speculative, not beneficial, leading to dukkha, not conducive to the goal of the cessation of dukkha. I find your analysis accurate. Regards, Victor > Stalemate it seems. Or more precisely, if Howard and Victor were playing > chess the game would have long since ended through the 50-move rule, where > a draw is declared if 50 moves elapse with neither player taking a piece or > advancing a pawn. > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. > What four? > There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be analysed > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be answered with a counter- question > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" > -- A ii 46 > > > If I have followed the Howard-Victor exchange correctly, the crux of the > disagreement is that Howard (and perhaps most of the dsg regulars) take > such questions as "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" as being > questions that can be (and perhaps ought to be) given a direct or > categorical answer, whereas Victor takes them as questions to be set aside. > So with one side repeatedly posing a question and pressing for an answer, > while the other insists on setting the question aside, it's no surprise > that the discussion just goes round in circles. > > Perhaps it would help to move the discussion onto more fruitful ground if > each party would explain *why* they judge such questions as "Is there a > self outside of the aggregates?" to be eka.msabyaakara.niiya or .thapaniiya. > > It might also be useful to consider the meaning of the 4 types of question > given in the above sutta. I have read little on this subject, so there is > much that is far from clear to me, especially regarding the last of the 4 > types. Two questions that come immediately to mind: > > Does the term .thapaniiya pa~nhaa (which I will translate neutrally as > "questions to be set aside") mean that they *ought* to be set aside > (perhaps implying that it would be in some way to one's detriment to > attempt to answer them), or does it mean they *may* be set aside (i.e. > there would be no particular value in answering them, since any answer -- > whether right or wrong -- would be irrelevant to the aim of the Buddha's > teaching, the ending of dukkha). In my understanding, the Pali suffix > ".niiya" would allow both possibilities. But what does Theravaadin > tradition understand it to mean? > > What is it that determines whether a particular question is one that may be > answered directly, or requires a counter-question, or is to be set > aside/answered with noble silence? From the little that I've read on this > issue I think Buddhist commentarial writers usually explain these different > types of questions just by giving examples of each. Unfortunately the > examples given are usually pretty disparate in form and content. It seems > difficult to reduce them to some common calculus, such that one could look > at any given question and say: "Hmmm, that one needs a counter- question," > or, "Ah, it's a thapaniiya! I shan't answer it. (I'll just give the questioner > the noble silence treatment...tum te tum te tum...)." > > I vaguely recall reading one attempt by a Buddhist scholastic writer (it > may have been Buddhaghosa, but it could equally well have been Vasubandhu) > to provide a rubric for determining how to treat any given question. > According to the author's scheme a question is 'to be set aside' if its > premises consist of an illicit blend of conventional and ultimate ideas. > This formulation does seem to work with those questions which the Buddha > himself treated as thapaniiya. Does anyone know the source I'm referring to? > > Well, that's enough for now. > > Best wishes, > > Robert 18812 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:28pm Subject: The Problems with Chariots (was Re: Descriptive vs Prescriptive .) Hi everybody, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > ..... > > (James: I'm a chariot ;-) > ..... > You know, I came across a dissected chariot in a sutta yesterday too. > It's not just those pesky ad nauseum abhidhammists that are into > `reductionism theory';-) You find the theory too "simplistic because it > doesn't explain how all of these parts come together to create the > `illusion of self-hood'." You also suggest that `if you don't pinpoint the > cause, the result is quite irrelvant'. I'd be very happy to discuss the > causes or conditions further with you - we might both learn something in > the process. You suggested that the `illusory self' is unstable, > impermanent and unsatisfactory. I'd suggest these are the characteristics > of ultimate realities which can be directly known, > unlike illusory concepts. My cards are on the table. I too have a problem with reductionism. The disassembled chariot is, to me, not a good illustration of anything other than how the mind kan kid (delude) itself. A pile of bits of chariot is not a chariot because....... it does not have the function of a chariot. I cannot take the wife and kids to town in a pile of Saddhu brand chariot parts. Aggregated components have properties and functions not found in the properties and functions of the parts. Wetness is not a property of Hydrogen or Oxygen, but mix two parts of one and one part of the other in a Sunbeam Mixmaster, and you have liquidity, wetness. Some further remarks. The mind takes objects and depending on the amount of clinging, these objects become things. Static things to be considered. But there are no static things. There is flux, process, function. Divisions are mental in nature. When you are looking at a pile of junk on the ground, you are looking at a pile of junk on the ground. When you are looking at a chariot, you are looking at a chariot. Perhaps a scrap metal dealer looks at the chariot and sees components, and a tinkerer sees a pile of scrap and sees a beautifully restored Saddhu brand chariot. It is the mind that converts the pile of junk to a chariot and reverse engineers it again. This is thinking, proliferating, reductionism. It is kamma. It is apprehending a small part of the whole, and applying an intention, a purpose to it To say there is no chariot in a pile of chariot bits is true, but useless. Wishing you well Herman 18813 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 2:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > Hi James, > > I would disagree that the Buddha taught that one controls thirst or > craving. I think you had it right when you said "How do you quench the > thirst of ignorance?" The Buddha taught that the thirst of carving is > quenched, not controlled. It is put out through dispassion towards > conditioned things. Put out through dispassion towards greed and aversion. > The thirst is not "controlled" but rather ended because the conditions for > it's arising have been abandoned. Ray Ray, In my usage, there is no difference in meaning between the two words. To control the thirst or craving is to quench the thirst of craving. It can be done in small measure, medium measure, or complete measure; but they both mean the same thing: Control: To exercise restraining or governing influence over; to check; to counteract; to restrain; to regulate; to govern; to overpower. Quench: To put out (a fire, for example); extinguish, to suppress; squelch, to put an end to; to slake; satisfy I am not completely sure what you are driving at since you don't provide alternative definitions or analysis. If I am understanding your contention, my response is that control doesn't mean just to manipulate; it also means to overpower and counteract. And as my post clearly stated, "I do agree that it does depend on how one defines control to know the correct approach to the issue." Ray, I believe that the definition of control you are using as the basis for your contention is limited. Metta, James 18814 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 3:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 2:29 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Control > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" > Hi > James, > > > > I would disagree that the Buddha taught that one controls > thirst or > > craving. I think you had it right when you said "How do you > quench the > > thirst of ignorance?" The Buddha taught that the thirst of > carving is > > quenched, not controlled. It is put out through dispassion towards > > conditioned things. Put out through dispassion towards greed and > aversion. > > The thirst is not "controlled" but rather ended because the > conditions for > > it's arising have been abandoned. Ray > > > > Ray, > In my usage, there is no difference in meaning between the two > words. To control the thirst or craving is to quench the thirst of > craving. It can be done in small measure, medium measure, or > complete measure; but they both mean the same thing: > > Control: To exercise restraining or governing influence over; to > check; to counteract; to restrain; to regulate; to govern; to > overpower. > > Quench: To put out (a fire, for example); extinguish, to suppress; > squelch, to put an end to; to slake; satisfy > Hi James, I think the two definitions do a good job in showing the difference. Take for example a controlled burn (that firemen use to clear overgrown brush.) To control the fire is to monitor or influence the way it burns. To quench the fire is to put it out, to extinguish it, thus control is no longer necessary since there is nothing to control, ie the fire is out. Control implies that further action is still necessary, quenching implies no further action is necessary. IMO the Buddha taught the way towards quenching craving, self help books teach views on how to control actions, thoughts, etc. Ray 18815 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Sarah, I thought pure insight vehicle was satipatthana without jhana. It is mundane. Nibbana is not the object. My question is, do we need access concentration to practice satipatthana? Is access concentration, in the pure insight vehicle, merely the clear, intimate experience of the object, or something else? Is the counterpart sign different if one is intending to practice insight rather than jhana? I am understanding the two vehicles, tranquility and pure insight, to be part of the satipatthana process. In other words, it could go either way. After jhana or access concentration, satipatthana resumes. Is this correct? Larry 18816 From: nidive Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 4:45pm Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi James, > Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the > Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be > possible. The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. Of > course, you think that I am wrong. That is okay also. I don't want > to convince anyone that I am right and they are wrong; I just > encourage people to think about these issues for themselves. The > truth is the truth and it will always win out in the end. The truth is that mind states that know insight arise and fall away, but insight is not forgotten. Insight is remembered. When you emerge out of meditation, does the mind states during meditation still exists? When you are replying to my post, what mind state are you in? When you are asleep, what mind state are you in? Do you know each and every mind state of yours? Are your mind states permanent? How do you know that you have the truth? For all that matters, you might be wrong and the Abhidhamma is correct. I think it is very detrimental to judge the Abhidhamma as 'dead wrong'. Perhaps you should leave an opening in your mind for the Abhidhamma. Perhaps it is correct after all. Perhaps... don't you have any doubts at all? Why are you so sure that the Abhidhamma is 'dead wrong'? Are you Enlightened already? If you are, I hope you will share your experience. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18817 From: Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 5:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, I'm a little confused about the role of concentration in satipatthana. In Way 37 jhana seems to be the middle part of the satipatthana practice. Is concentration, (access or absorption), part of the satipatthana process? In the quotation below there seems to be a difference between insight vehicle and satipatthana. What is the difference? Vism. I, 6: In some instances this path of purification is taught by insight alone(3)...In some instances by jhana and understanding...In some instances by deeds (kamma)...In some instances by virtue...And in some instances by the Foundations of Mindfulness... But in answer to this question it is taught by virtue and the other two. [L: sila, samadhi, panna?] (3) 'The words "insight alone" are meant to exclude, not virtue,etc., but serenity (i.e. jhana), which is the opposite number in the pair, serenity and insight. This is for emphasis. But the word "alone" actually excludes only that concentration with distinction [of jhana], for concentration is classed as both access and absorption. Takng this stanza as the teaching for one whose vehicle is insight does not imply that there is no concentration; for no insight comes about without momentary concentration. And again, insight should be understood as the three contemplations of impermanence, pain, and not-self; not contemplation of impermanence alone' (Pm. 9-10) Larry 18818 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:40pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control Dear everyone, If we accept that there is absolutely << no-control >> and that everything happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> i.e. even the smallest act such as turning left or right was already determined << in advance >> by << conditions >> then we fall into the case of << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? __In this case, liberation is impossible since everything was determined in advance and personal initiative was excluded. __We can interchange the words << conditionality >> and << God's Will >> and we find the same reasoning: Nobody knows << God's Will >> except God. Same thing, nobody knows << conditionality >> (i.e. all conditions for an event to happen) except a Buddha. In the case of God's Will, the smallest act like turning left or right was already determined by God (like conditionality) These are some funny thoughts I've found :-)) Metta, KKT 18819 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 8:31pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi James, > Control > implies that further action is still necessary, quenching implies no further > action is necessary. Ray, I wouldn't agree that the Buddha taugh Nibbana or nothing. I believe the fire of desire must be controlled, boxed in, lessened, dampened, etc., until it is finally extinguised forevermore. Allow me to give some sutta quotes to illustrate this point that the Buddha did teach control: Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such woe as the mind that is untamed, uncontrolled, unguarded and unrestrained. Such a mind indeed brings great woe. Monks, I know not of any other single thing that brings such bliss as the mind that is tamed, controlled, guarded and restrained. Such a mind indeed brings great bliss. `No Other Single Thing' (Anguttara, Ones) *************************************************************** "'Come you, monk, be of moral habit, live controlled by the control of the Obligations, endowed with [right] behavior and posture, seeing peril in the slightest fault and, undertaking them, train yourself in the rules of training.' So fare along controlling it, guard the organ of sight, achieve control over the organ of sight. Having heard a sound with the ear... Having smelt a smell with the nose... Having savored a taste with the tongue... Having felt a touch with the body... Having cognized a mental state with the mind, do not be entranced with the detail. For if one dwells with the organ of mind uncontrolled, covetousness and dejection, evil, unskillful states of mind, may flow in. So fare along controlling it; guard the organ of mind, achieve control over the organ of mind.' Discourse to Ganaka-Moggallana (Majjhima Nikaya 107) ***************************************************************** When, indeed, bhikkhus, evil unskillful thoughts due to reflection on an adventitious object are eliminated, when they disappear, and the mind stands firm, settles down, becomes unified and concentrated just within (his subject of meditation), through his reflection on an object connected with skill, through his pondering on the disadvantages of unskillful thoughts, his endeavoring to be without attentiveness and reflection as regards those thoughts or through his restraining, subduing, and beating down of the evil mind by the good mind with clenched teeth and tongue pressing on the palate, that bhikkhu is called a master of the paths along which thoughts travel. The thought he wants to think, that, he thinks; the thought he does not want to think, that, he does not think. He has cut down craving, removed the fetter, rightly mastered pride, and made an end of suffering." He is called a master of the paths taken by the turns of thought (vasi vitakka pariyaya pathesu). He is called one who is expert of control in the paths taken by the turns of thoughts, one who is conversant with the art of control in the paths taken by the turns of thought (vitakka carapathesu cinnavasi pagunavasi ti vuccati). The Removal of Distracting Thoughts (Vitakka-Santhana Sutta; Majjhima Nikaya No. 20) **************************************************************** 92. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard: "Even if a monk, taking hold of my outer cloak, were to follow right behind me, placing his feet in my footsteps, yet if he were to be greedy for sensual pleasures, strong in his passions, malevolent in mind, corrupt in his resolves, his mindfulness muddled, unalert, uncentered, his mind scattered, & his faculties uncontrolled, then he would be far from me, and I from him. Why is that? Because he does not see the Dhamma. Not seeing the Dhamma, he does not see me. Itivuttaka 50-99;The Group Of Threes ****************************************************************** 22. This was said by the Blessed One, said by the Arahant, so I have heard:…The thought occurred to me: 'Of what action of mine is this the fruit, of what action the result, that I now have such great power & might?' Then the thought occurred to me: 'This is the fruit of my three [types of] action, the result of three types of action, that I now have such great power & might: i.e., generosity, self- control, & restraint.'" Itivuttaka 1-27;The Group Of Ones ******************************************************************* Just as a storm throws down a weak tree, so does Mara overpower the man who lives for the pursuit of pleasures, who is uncontrolled in his senses, immoderate in eating, indolent, and dissipated. Just as a storm cannot prevail against a rocky mountain, so Mara can never overpower the man who lives meditating on the impurities, who is controlled in his senses, moderate in eating, and filled with faith and earnest effort. Whoever being depraved, devoid of self-control and truthfulness, should don the monk's yellow robe, he surely is not worthy of the robe. But whoever is purged of depravity, well-established in virtues and filled with self-control and truthfulness, he indeed is worthy of the yellow robe. Dhammapada 1;The Pairs ******************************************************************* [The Buddha:] Now, go ask others, common priests & contemplatives, if anything better than truth, self-control, endurance, & relinquishment here can be found. Samyutta Nikaya X.12;Alavaka Sutta ******************************************************************* Even though he be well-attired, yet if he is posed, calm, controlled and established in the holy life, having set aside violence towards all beings -- he, truly, is a holy man, a renunciate, a monk. Irrigators regulate the waters, fletchers straighten arrow shafts, carpenters shape wood, and the good control themselves. Dhammapada 10; Violence ******************************************************************** Then, on realizing the significance of that, the Blessed One on that occasion exclaimed: Little thoughts, subtle thoughts, when followed, stir up the heart. Not comprehending the thoughts of the heart, one runs here & there, the mind out of control. But comprehending the thoughts of the heart, one who is ardent, mindful, restrains them. When, followed, they stir up the heart, one who is awakened lets them go without trace. Udana IV.1; Meghiya Sutta ******************************************************************** Associate with good friends and choose a remote lodging, secluded, with little noise. Be moderate in eating. Robes, alms-food, remedies and a dwelling, -- do not have craving for these things; do not be one who returns to the world. Practice restraint according to the Discipline, and control the five sense-faculties. Sutta Nipata II.11; Rahula Sutta ******************************************************************** Metta, James 18820 From: James Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:11pm Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, How do you know that you have the truth? For all that matters, you > might be wrong and the Abhidhamma is correct. I think it is very > detrimental to judge the Abhidhamma as 'dead wrong'. Perhaps you > should leave an opening in your mind for the Abhidhamma. Perhaps it > is correct after all. Perhaps... don't you have any doubts at all? > Why are you so sure that the Abhidhamma is 'dead wrong'? Are you > Enlightened already? If you are, I hope you will share your > experience. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon NEO, Please read these words: "But truly, Ananda, it is nothing strange that human beings should die. But if each time it happens you should come to the Tathagata and ask about them in this manner, indeed it would be troublesome to him. Therefore, Ananda, I will give you the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple, should he so desire, can declare of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'" 9. "And what, Ananda, is that teaching called the Mirror of Dhamma, possessing which the noble disciple may thus declare of himself? "In this case, Ananda, the noble disciple possesses unwavering faith in the Buddha thus: 'The Blessed One is an Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, perfect in knowledge and conduct, the Happy One, the knower of the world, the paramount trainer of beings, the teacher of gods and men, the Enlightened One, the Blessed One.' "He possesses unwavering faith in the Dhamma thus: 'Well propounded by the Blessed One is the Dhamma, evident, timeless, [18] inviting investigation, leading to emancipation, to be comprehended by the wise, each for himself.' "He possesses unwavering faith in the Blessed One's Order of Disciples thus: 'Well faring is the Blessed One's Order of Disciples, righteously, wisely, and dutifully: that is to say, the four pairs of men, the eight classes of persons. The Blessed One's Order of Disciples is worthy of honor, of hospitality, of offerings, of veneration -- the supreme field for meritorious deeds in the world.' "And he possesses virtues that are dear to the Noble Ones, complete and perfect, spotless and pure, which are liberating, praised by the wise, uninfluenced (by worldly concerns), and favorable to concentration of mind. 10. "This, Ananda, is the teaching called the Mirror of the Dhamma, whereby the noble disciple may thus know of himself: 'There is no more rebirth for me in hell, nor as an animal or ghost, nor in any realm of woe. A stream-enterer am I, safe from falling into the states of misery, assured am I and bound for Enlightenment.'" NEO, I have the Mirror of the Dhamma. I do not need to cling to scriptures; I do not need to cling to the Buddha; I do not need to cling to the approval of others. I can determine for myself what is right and what is `dead wrong'…without the requirement of enlightenment. I only point this out to you for your benefit, not mine. I pray that you have the Mirror of the Dhamma for yourself one day. When you do, you will have no doubt. I approached the Abhidhamma with an open-mind; that is what brought me to this group. I have studied it and pondered it intensely. I have read numerous articles, books, and written numerous posts to understand it more. Everyone in this group has been drug through that experience with me. It taught me a lot; it also taught me that I don't believe in the Abhidhamma. If I were convinced that the Buddha taught the Abhidhamma, I would quit being a Buddhist immediately. I am not alone in this disdain for the Abhidhamma; do we all need to be enlightened to know if it is wrong or not? The moderators have informed me that they do not mind my participation in this group even though I do not agree with the Abhidhamma. All disagreements that I have, I have supported with evidence and logic. Neo, you have not argued my contentions in this post. You have put up a smoke screen to distract from the real issues. I have no desire to defend myself personally to you. Please discuss dhamma, but don't discuss me. Thank you. Metta, James 18821 From: Egberdina Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 9:51pm Subject: Re: Control Dear KKT, I very much enjoyed (I was filled with joy) your explanation of the meaning of KKT. Thank you for this and all your other posts. I personally reject the idea of absolutely no control. I do so on an empirical basis. I do not think in the following way : that by the ripening of kamma of a particular colour there was the experience of typing in a password, which was previously set by the ripening of other kamma of other colour, and there was the experience of being on the Internet, smiling quietly while reading words from KKT, which were the predestined consequences of conditions. A minute ago I thought like this: The sink is full of dishes, my son's computer isn't working properly, it is 35C outside, my garden is withering even as I ponder the choices available to me, I should water the garden, but no, I choose to go on the Net and see what's a happening there. And yes, there are enormous expanses of time when I am totally oblivious to the fact that I have choices. Then I am out of control and driven by conditionality, karma, you name it. But when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control. Middle road sounds good. All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear everyone, > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > << no-control >> and that everything > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > i.e. even the smallest act such as > turning left or right was already determined > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > then we fall into the case of > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > __In this case, liberation is impossible > since everything was determined in advance > and personal initiative was excluded. > > > __We can interchange the words > << conditionality >> and << God's Will >> > and we find the same reasoning: > > Nobody knows << God's Will >> except God. > Same thing, nobody knows << conditionality >> > (i.e. all conditions for an event to happen) > except a Buddha. > > In the case of God's Will, the smallest > act like turning left or right was already > determined by God (like conditionality) > > > These are some funny thoughts I've found :-)) > > > Metta, > > > KKT 18822 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 10:18pm Subject: More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Dear All, (Nina & Swee Boon, pls see footnotes at the end), I recently quoted from the Commentary to the Sammanaphala Sutta on the topic of forest dwelling: ..... "He goes taking all his minimal eight requisites, carrying them on his body. He has no attachment or bondage to "my monastery, my cell, my attendant." He is like an arrow released from the bow or like an elephant in rut which has left the herd. Using whatever dwelling he likes - a jungle thicket, the foot of a tree, a wooded slope -- he stands alone and sits alone; in all postures, he is alone, without a companion. Thus he conducts himself in a manner similar to that of the rhinoceros, as explained (in the Rhinoceros Sutta): At home in the four quarters of the world, harbouring no aversion in one’s heart, content with anything one gets, bearing all hardships undismayed - one should walk alone like the rhinoceros. (Sn v 42)" ***** In the sutta itself in this section under contentment, it says: "Just as a bird, wherever it goes, flies with its wings as its only burden, in the same way a bhikkhu is content with robes to protect his body and almsfood to sustain his belly; wherever he goes he sets out taking only (his requisites) along with him. In this way, great king, the bhikkhu is content". ..... We then read about how forest dwelling alone was only appropriate for those with the right ‘prerequisites’. As we went for an early morning walk today, Jon was listening to a Thai tape with A.Sujin discussing the Thera Sutta about a bhikkhu who liked to live alone(11, 282 in Samyutta Nikaya). I was being passed titbits for reflection and was thus prompted to look it up just now. We often read in the suttas about groups of bhikkhus gathered together, entered a village for alms together and so on. In the Thera Sutta, it seems a number of bhikkhus thought it was strange for Thera to live alone, go for alms alone, return alone, sit and walk alone and so they raised the issue with the Buddha. The Buddha summons Thera who confirms he lives and follows all these activities alone and also praises living alone. The Buddha doesn’t disagree, but says (B.Bodhi transl., p721): "That is a way of dwelling alone, Elder, I do not deny this. But as to how dwelling alone is fulfilled in detail, listen to that and attend closely, I will speak." "Yes, venerable sir." "And how, Elder, is dwelling alone fulfilled in detail? Here, Elder, what lies in the past has been abandoned, what lies in the future has been relinquished, and desire and lust for present forms of individual existence has been thoroughly removed.* It is in such a way, Elder, that dwelling alone is fulfilled in detail." This is what the Blessed One said. Having said this, the Fortunate One, the Teacher, further said this: "The wise one, all-conqueror, all-knower, Among all things unsullied, with all cast off, Liberated in the destruction of craving: I call that person ‘one who dwells alone.’ "** So there are the two meanings of 'living alone'.For some by inclination or natural tendency (pakati or bokati in Thai)they will live alone in the first sense like Thera. However, we all have to learn to live alone without 'desire and lust' regardless of whether we're in the forest or the village, alone or with others. Of course, this is very similar to the Migajala Sutta which I like to quote and reflect on a lot. Only by understanding the sounds, odours, tactile objects, menta phenomena and other namas and rupas discussed can one’s partner -- craving -- be abandoned, allowing one to live alone: ***** ‘There are, Migajala, sounds cognizable by the ear..odours cognizable by the nose..tastes cognizable by the tongue..tactile objects cognizable by the body..mental phenomena cognizable by the mind that are desirable, lovely, agreeable, pleasing, sensually enticing, tantalizing. If a bhikkhu does not seek delight in them..he is called alone dweller. ‘Migajala, even though a bhikkhu who dwells thus lives in the vicinity of a village, associating with bhikkhus and bhikkhunis, with male and felmale lay follower, with kings and royal ministers, with sectarian teachers and their disciples, he is still called a lone dweller. For what reason? Because craving is his partner and he has abandoned it; therefore his is called a lone dweller." (SN, Bk of 6 Sense Bases.63, B.Bodhi trans) ***** Sarah ===== Footnotes to Thera Sutta (B.bodhi trans): *Commentary "(Spk): "The past is said to be abandoned (pahina.m) by the abandoning of desire and lust for the five aggregates of the past; the future is relinquished (pa.tinissa.t.tha.m) by the relinquishig of desire and lust for the five aggregates of the future. : "The plural ‘attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu’ is hard to account for; perhaps it means the five aggregates taken individually, though this would be an unusual use of the expression." **"(Spk): ‘All-conqueror’(sbbaabhibhu.m): one who abides having overcome all aggregates, sense bases, and elements, and the three kinds of existence. ‘Unsullied’(anupalitta.m, or "unstuck") among hose very things by the paste (lepa) of craving and views. : "Liberated in the destruction of craving (ta.nhakkhaye vimutta.m): liberated in Nibbana, called the destruction of craving by way of the liberation that takes this as its object." =============== 18823 From: Sarah Date: Thu Jan 16, 2003 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dhamma Issues -abiding in bliss Dear Nina & All, --- Sarah wrote: > Under the next section on the ‘Attainment of Cessation’ > (Nirodha samåpatti, we read: > > “Why do they attain it? Being wearied by the occurrence and dissolution > of formations, they attain it thinking, “let us dwell in bliss by being > without consciousness here and now and reaching the cessation that is > nibbana.” > comm to this: “..as though reaching nibbana without remainder of result > of > past clinging, “in bliss” means without suffering.” > > Obviously there is no mental suffering for the arahant anyway, so this > applies to bodily suffering such as the back-ache. ,,,,, Pls forget the last comment under this quote as it makes no sense;-) ;-) Also the one about experience of nibbana which followed was meant to relate the the earlier fruition attainment quote and not this one. On my last post about attabhava, K.Sujin was discussing this more in relation to the sutta and present moment, I believe. I'm not sure as I just heard Jon's brief comments. Sarah ====== 18824 From: Ray Hendrickson Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 0:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Control ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, January 16, 2003 8:31 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Control --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ray Hendrickson" wrote: > Hi James, > Control > implies that further action is still necessary, quenching implies no further > action is necessary. Ray, I wouldn't agree that the Buddha taugh Nibbana or nothing. I believe the fire of desire must be controlled, boxed in, lessened, dampened, etc., until it is finally extinguised forevermore. Allow me to give some sutta quotes to illustrate this point that the Buddha did teach control: Wow, lots of Sutta quotes :) I never said that the Buddha never used the word control in his teachings. Your original point was that the end of teaching was absolute control. You will notice that what the Buddha is talking about in these Suttas is the guarding and controlling of actions thoughts and speech. In none of them does he say to control ignorance or control greed or control hatred. Why? Because the only way for those to be dealt with is through quenching. Let me see what we can find in the Suttas on this :) From SN XII.31 "One sees with right discernment that 'this has come into being.' Seeing with right discernment that 'this has come into being,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from what has come into being. One sees with right discernment that 'it has come into being from this nutriment.' Seeing with right discernment that 'it has come into being from this nutriment,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from the nutriment by which it has come into being. One sees with right discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation.' Seeing with right discernment that 'from the cessation of this nutriment, what has come into being is subject to cessation,' one is -- through disenchantment, dispassion, cessation, through lack of clinging/sustenance -- released from what is subject to cessation. This is how one is a person who has fathomed the Dhamma. " From SN XII.19 "The ignorance with which the wise person is obstructed, the craving with which he is conjoined, through which this body results: that ignorance has been abandoned by the wise person; that craving has been destroyed. Why is that? The wise person has practiced the holy life for the right ending of stress. Therefore, at the break-up of the body, he is not headed for a [new] body. Not headed for a body, he is entirely freed from birth, aging, death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair. He is, I tell you, entirely freed from stress & suffering." From SN From SN XII.52 "Just as if a great mass of fire of ten... twenty... thirty or forty cartloads of timber were burning, into which a man simply would not time & again throw dried grass, dried cow dung, or dried timber, so that the great mass of fire -- its original sustenance being consumed, and no other being offered -- would, without nutriment, go out. In the same way, in one who keeps focusing on the drawbacks of clingable phenomena, craving ceases. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging, illness & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of suffering & stress." SN XXII.23 The Blessed One said, "And which are the phenomena to be comprehended? Form is a phenomenon to be comprehended. Feeling ... Perception ... Fabrications ... Consciousness is a phenomenon to be comprehended. These are called phenomena to be comprehended. "And which is comprehension? Any ending of passion, ending of aversion, ending of delusion. [1] This is called comprehension." Another good example is the Satta Sutta, A Being... http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn23-002.html This idea of ending craving through dispassion runs throughout the Nikayas. So I see control as a matter of practice, control based on the precepts, based on the vinaya, based on the suttas. But it is a method, like meditation, it is not the goal of practice. You will also notice that the method you quoted from MN 20 is the last ditch method, those the Buddha describes first or things like substitution and insight into the nature of the distracting thoughts. The interesting question is that if the self is not controlling, then how is any control possible? How is practice possible, if our understandings arise due to conditions and not some imagined self-control? Why does dependent origination not mean we are trapped in determinism? I think it is because there can be observation without an observer, decisions without a decider, for that means our actions, our thoughts this moment have a large impact on what happens the next...Ray 18825 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 4:52am Subject: Hilary's letter Dear Hilary, I am Janice! I think James said that it doesn't matter even if you are not a buddhist you could still be reborn too. And I have look through other letters in the past but I could not find other answers. Metta Janice 18826 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 4:55am Subject: Rusty Dear Christine, I am Janice Chung. You might have heard from me from other letters. I have read the letter about your dog Rusty. I think if you really like your dog, you should spend some money for your dog. Do you really like your dog? Well that's it for this letter! Metta Janice Chung 18827 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi James, > NEO, I have the Mirror of the Dhamma. I do not need to cling to > scriptures; I do not need to cling to the Buddha; I do not need > to cling to the approval of others. I can determine for myself > what is right and what is `dead wrong'…without the requirement of > enlightenment. I only point this out to you for your benefit, not > mine. I pray that you have the Mirror of the Dhamma for yourself > one day. When you do, you will have no doubt. So James, you are claiming that you have attained the super-human state of a sotapanna? The sutta which you quoted describes a sotapanna. Please answer a positive YES or a negative NO. For I do not understand what you meant by "without the requirement of enlightenment". If you are a sotapanna, you are Enlightened (though not fully as yet). Only a sotapanna has eradicated all doubts about the Triple Gem. > I am not alone in this disdain for the Abhidhamma; do we all > need to be enlightened to know if it is wrong or not? Yes, we all need to be Enlightened (at least a sotapanna) to know if the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or not). > Neo, you have not argued my contentions in this post. How had I not argued them? I said that insight is remembered, but the mind states that know insight arise and fall away. Memory is different from mind states. > You have put up a smoke screen to distract from the real issues. It seems that you are a Dhamma guru when you say "The truth is the truth and it will always win out in the end.". You are implying that you have the truth, aren't you? That's why I asked those "smoke screen" issues. I probably would not have asked them if I knew that you are a sotapanna (whether out of over-estimation or not). And how does the truth 'win'? Who wins? James? :-) > I have no desire to defend myself personally to you. Please discuss dhamma, but don't discuss me. I see no difference between discussing about the Dhamma and discussing about your views on the Dhamma. We are still discussing Dhamma. You don't have to take it so "personal". Why are you so conscious of your "self"? A person who isn't conscious of his "self" would not have uttered such a statement. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18828 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:44am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? Hi James, > Yes, we all need to be Enlightened (at least a sotapanna) to know if > the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or > not). Should be rephrased as: Yes, we all need to be Enlightend (at least a sotapanna) to know 100% without doubt if the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or not). So take note that saying "I know that James is wrong" is different from saying "I know 100% without doubt that James is wrong". Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18829 From: nidive Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 7:20am Subject: Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Hi All, > I see the question "Is there a self outside of the khandhas?" to > be set aside because it is speculative, not beneficial, leading > to dukkha, not conducive to the goal of the cessation of dukkha. I see this question is to be counter-questioned. But I may be wrong. Majjhima Nikaya 109 Maha-punnama Sutta The Great Full-moon Night Discourse 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 Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18830 From: James Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:29am Subject: Re: dhammavicaya leads to nihilism? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > > NEO, I have the Mirror of the Dhamma. I do not need to cling to > > scriptures; I do not need to cling to the Buddha; I do not need > > to cling to the approval of others. I can determine for myself > > what is right and what is `dead wrong'…without the requirement of > > enlightenment. I only point this out to you for your benefit, not > > mine. I pray that you have the Mirror of the Dhamma for yourself > > one day. When you do, you will have no doubt. > > So James, you are claiming that you have attained the super-human > state of a sotapanna? The sutta which you quoted describes a > sotapanna. > > Please answer a positive YES or a negative NO. For I do not > understand what you meant by "without the requirement of > enlightenment". If you are a sotapanna, you are Enlightened (though > not fully as yet). Only a sotapanna has eradicated all doubts about > the Triple Gem. > > > > I am not alone in this disdain for the Abhidhamma; do we all > > need to be enlightened to know if it is wrong or not? > > Yes, we all need to be Enlightened (at least a sotapanna) to know if > the Abhidhamma is wrong or not (or whether your view is right or > not). > > > > Neo, you have not argued my contentions in this post. > > How had I not argued them? I said that insight is remembered, but > the mind states that know insight arise and fall away. Memory is > different from mind states. > > > You have put up a smoke screen to distract from the real issues. > > It seems that you are a Dhamma guru when you say "The truth is the > truth and it will always win out in the end.". You are implying that > you have the truth, aren't you? That's why I asked those "smoke > screen" issues. I probably would not have asked them if I knew that > you are a sotapanna (whether out of over-estimation or not). > > And how does the truth 'win'? Who wins? James? :-) > > > I have no desire to defend myself personally to you. Please > discuss dhamma, but don't discuss me. > > I see no difference between discussing about the Dhamma and > discussing about your views on the Dhamma. We are still discussing > Dhamma. > > You don't have to take it so "personal". Why are you so conscious of > your "self"? A person who isn't conscious of his "self" would not > have uttered such a statement. > > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon NEO, I meant what I wrote. To discuss me is not to discuss the dhamma. I am not the dhamma. The Buddha was the dhamma because he was nibbana; as he said about himself. I see that further discussion with you will not be possible. Metta, James 18831 From: James Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:45am Subject: Nibbana Stored in Memory? Hi All, Can memory store nibbana? To answer that question, we must determine if nibbana is an object of the mind or a state of being. Let's rephrase the original question in terms simpler to understand: Can memory store sickness? Well, memory can store the experiences associated with sickness: runny nose, cough, fever, etc., but is that really `sickness'? Is the memory of sickness anything like the actual experience? To me it isn't. Doesn't sickness have to be something that has to be experienced first-hand and cannot be adequately stored in memory? Therefore, is nibbana an object of the mind or a state of being? This is an important question because I think there is a big difference between the two. However, since I am not enlightened I cannot say for sure. My vote goes toward nibbana as a state of being….and states of being cannot be adequately stored in memory. Metta, James 18832 From: Frank Kuan Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 8:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Sarah, I can appreciate the alternate understanding of "alone", but I personally doubt that kind of "alone" can be realized without the aid of the standard understanding of alone. As the crested, blue-necked peacock, when flying, never matches the wild goose in speed: Even so the householder never keeps up with the monk, the sage secluded, doing jhana in the forest. Sn.I.12 bodhisattva practice #3 of 37 Withdrawing completely from things that excite us, Our mental disturbances slowly decline. And ridding our mind of directionless wandering, Attention on virtue will surely increase. As wisdom shines clearer, the world comes in focus, Our confidence grows in the Dhamma we've learned. Live all alone far away in seclusion - The Sons of the Buddhas all practice this way. 18833 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi James, just some remarks, see below op 16-01-2003 17:15 schreef James op buddhatrue@y...: Insight is not like that. It doesn't go away even when the > practice stops. Whatever insight one gains, that insight sticks > around until the final culmination in nibbana. --------------- N: Yes, a stage of insight is not forgotten. One goes on building upon it. -------- J: The same applies to > lifetime after lifetime. Whatever one learns about the truth in one > lifetime is carried to the next; it doesn't go away. That is why > any amount of meditation, even for five minutes a day, is beneficial > because it will accumulate insight. --------------------- N:Yes, life after life, it does not go away. Unfortunately also as regards lobha. Life after life, it does not go away. ---------------------- J: Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the > Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be > possible. ----------- N: Yes, it is possible. Seeing just a moment ago is no more, there can be thinking or hearing. Only one citta at a time, because each citta experiences only one object at a time. Still, you can prove that what you learnt as a child did not go away. Because each citta (sorry, moment of consciousness, or mental moment, or, as Suan says, mental event) that falls away is succeeded by the next one, and so on and on, life after life. There is no moment without citta, then you would be dead. Still, they are different cittas, not one long lasting citta. Since each citta is succeeded by the next one accumulated tendencies are carried on from one life to the next. Therefore insight can be accumulated. I quote from some old posts, first about accumulations: When one realizes the falling away of realities, one knows that they do not last, that there is nothing eternal or permanent. By seeing conditions one keeps the Middle Way: no annihilation belief, no eternalism. As I said, the theory is not too difficult, but the direct realization of the truth is difficult for all of us, it takes a long time. Here comes in the patience, the highest ascetism.> Life passes just in a flash. I quote from Visuddhimagga, XX, 72, which contains actually quotes from the Maha-Niddesa, Sutta on Old Age: Life, person, pleasure, pain-just these alone Join in one conscious moment that flicks by. Gods, though they life for four-and eighty thousand Aeons, are not the same for two such moments. Ceased khandhas of those dead or alive Are all alike, gone never to return; And those that break up meanwhile, and in future, Have traits no different from those ceased before. No (world is) born if (consciousness) is not Produced; when that is present, then it lives; When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: The highest sense this concept will allow. No store of broken states, no future stock; Those born balance like seeds on needle points. Break-up of states is foredoomed at their birth; Those present decay, unmingled with those past. The visible object impinges on the eyesense and then seeing-consciousness arises, and the meeting or association of them is unthinkably short, like the seed balancing on a needle point. Life is so short, this is Mindfulness of death. Abhidhamma and satipatthana, which is actually Abhidhamma applied, lead to mindfulness of death. James, your expectations, your fear and sadness of yesterday have gone, today you are different, you may laugh. You wrote to Christine about your experiences when you were about to become a monk. Thank you for sharing these. Understandable that you also become sad when recollecting these. But sadness does not last. I find it consoling that it is said, A dear person we cling to has to die. Life is so short, there is death and rebirth at each moment. This is reality. You can verify that James now is no longer James as a child, and that still, in a way, there is still James. From milk comes curd. Here you are with all your accumulated tendencies, good and bad. In a former life you may have studied Dhamma, and that conditions your interest today. ____________ J:The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. ------------ N. I want to quote part of a post by my friend Suan. He gives a good explanation of Abhidhamma: End quote. Nina. 18834 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Dear Rob Ed, thank you, this is an interesting post. Something to think about, Nina op 16-01-2003 16:19 schreef Robert Eddison op robedd@i...: > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a question. > What four? > There is a question which is to be given a categorical answer > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be analysed > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > There is a question which is to be answered with a counter-question > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > There is a question which is to be set aside (.thapaniiya)" > -- A ii 46 > 18835 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:08am Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 14 Perfections, Ch 7, Patience, no 14 In the early morning the Buddha saw to his bodily needs and surrounded by bhikkhus he went on his almsround in the city of Såvatthí. After he had received almsfood he returned from his almsround and entered his fragrant chamber. He paused after the exertion of walking just for a moment and he did not say anything to the elderly monks. The Venerable Såriputta, the venerable Moggallåna and other monks were present. The Lord took his bowl and robe and went out alone. While on his way, he did not fly through the air nor did he make the stretch he walked shorter [13]. He considered again: ²That son of a prominent family has shame and awe for me, he does not even sit in a vehicle, on an elephant, horse, chariot or golden palaquin, etc. and finally, he does not even use one layer of footwear, nor does he carry a sunshade. Therefore, I should walk afoot.² Thus, the Buddha travelled just by walking. The Buddha hid the splendour of his Buddhahood: his eighty minor attributes, his halo of two yards and the thirtytwo characteristics of a Great Man [14]. He travelled in the guise of an ordinary bhikkhu, as the full moon which is hidden by a misty cloud. In less than one day (after the meal), he walked fortyfive leagues and reached at sundown the workshop of that potter. When the Buddha walked in this way he did not intimidate people, saying, ³I am the Sammåsambuddha.² Thus, he just went to the potter¹s workshop and stood at the gate. In order to give the son of a prominent family an opportunity [15], he said: ³Bhikkhu, if it is not inconvenient to you, I would like to lodge in this dwelling for just one night.² Pukkusåti answered: ³Spacious, friend, is the potter¹s dwelling; stay, friend, according to your pleasure.² The Lord of the World who was of a most delicate constitution had left his fragrant Chamber which is like a divine dwelling, he spread out a covering of grass in the potter¹s workshop, where ashes were scattered all over the place, which was dirty because of broken ustensils, dry grass and so on and which was like a heap of garbage. He spread out his ragrobe and sat down as if he had entered his fragrant chamber with a divine odour, just as if it was a divine dwelling. Thus he sat down. If we want to develop the perfection of patience, we should not forget to accumulate endurance in each situation, be it with regard to seats, beds or anything else in our environment. The Buddha was born into a prominent family and also Pukkusåti had grown in the womb of a mother of prominent family, a Khattiya family 16. The Buddha attained what he had aspired to, and so did the son of a prominent family. Each of them had left his kingdom to become a monk. The Buddha was of a golden skin colour and so was the son of a prominent family. Both of them possessed specific attainments (samåpatti). Both of them were Kings... both of them had left their status of royalty to go forth... They entered the potter¹s workshop and sat down in that way. For that reason the potter¹s workshop became extremely beautiful and delightful. Footnotes: 13. By supranatural powers. 14. These are specific bodily featrures of a Buddha. 15. An opportunity to share his residence with the Buddha. 18836 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:50am Subject: Re: Rusty Dear Janice, Thank you for your good advice. Yes, I really ike my dog and I will spend whatever is necessary to keep him healthy. I joke with Rusty and tell him that the dogs you get 'for free' always cost the most money. (Rusty was a stray puppy I found at my son's school). metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Christine, > I am Janice Chung. You might have > heard from me from other letters. I have read the > letter about your dog Rusty. I think if > you really like your dog, you should spend some money > for your dog. Do you really like your dog? > Well that's it for this letter! > > Metta Janice Chung 18837 From: dave Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 2:20pm Subject: intro Hello all, New to the group here... I will most likely lurk for a while as I have much more to learn that to contribute at this time. I set myself on the path a few years ago, and have far more questions than I know what to do with. I figure by listening I may have many of them answered. Peace, dave 18838 From: James Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:00pm Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Hi James, > just some remarks, see below > > op 16-01-2003 17:15 schreef James op > buddhatrue@y...: > > Insight is not like that. It doesn't go away even when the > > practice stops. Whatever insight one gains, that insight sticks > > around until the final culmination in nibbana. > --------------- > N: Yes, a stage of insight is not forgotten. One goes on building upon it. > -------- > J: The same applies to > > lifetime after lifetime. Whatever one learns about the truth in one > > lifetime is carried to the next; it doesn't go away. That is why > > any amount of meditation, even for five minutes a day, is beneficial > > because it will accumulate insight. > --------------------- > N:Yes, life after life, it does not go away. Unfortunately also as regards > lobha. Life after life, it does not go away. > ---------------------- > J: Now, if mind states that know insight arise and fall away as the > > Abhidhamma states, how would this be possible? It wouldn't be > > possible. > ----------- > N: Yes, it is possible. Seeing just a moment ago is no more, there can be > thinking or hearing. Only one citta at a time, because each citta > experiences only one object at a time. Still, you can prove that what you > learnt as a child did not go away. Because each citta (sorry, moment of > consciousness, or mental moment, or, as Suan says, mental event) that falls > away is succeeded by the next one, and so on and on, life after life. There > is no moment without citta, then you would be dead. Still, they are > different cittas, not one long lasting citta. > Since each citta is succeeded by the next one accumulated tendencies are > carried on from one life to the next. Therefore insight can be accumulated. > I quote from some old posts, first about accumulations: > of the many conditions for citta: anantara-paccaya, contiguity condition. If > our life would not be an unbroken series of cittas, we could not stay alive. > Cittas arise and fall away extremely fast. We see only what appears through > the eyes, but it seems that we see and immediately know this or that person > is there, this or that thing, and that we also at the same time have like or > dislike of what we see. In reality there are countless moments of cittas > succeeding one another. The fact that many impressions seem to occur all at > the same time shows that cittas arise and fall away, succeeding one another > extremely fast. > Because cittas arise in succession, without a pause in between, there can be > accumulation of good and bad qualities, kusala cetasikas and akusala > cetasikas, from moment to moment, from one life to the next one. Attachment, > aversion, metta, pa~n~naa, these can be accumulated so that there are > conditions for their arising again and again. This is another type of > condition: natural strong dependance-condition, pakatupanissaya- paccaya. If > as a child you were taught generosity, generosity is accumulated, because > each citta is succeeded by a next one, and thus, there are conditions for > the arising again of generosity. There is no person who is good or bad, > there are cittas accompanied by cetasikas arising because of their own > conditions. > Where is the free will or right effort, are we automatic machines? Not at > all. We are not helpless victims of fate, as someone thought. Understanding > of our life can be developed, and this is because of the Dhamma the Buddha > realized through his enlightenment and taught for fortyfive years. > Conditions for pa~n~naa can be accumulated by listening, carefully > considering and by mindfulness of nama and rupa. We cannot control > mindfulness, sati, it is anatta, and if we try to do this there is lobha, a > factors which hinders the arising of sati. Just listening and investigation > of what occurs in our life now can condition the arising of sati. We can > study the Dhamma but, as A. Sujin reminded us very often, we should study > with the right purpose: to have more understanding of this moment now, of > seeing now, attachment now, anger now. Otherwise our study is useless. Thus, > we should ask ourselves: how is this or that point of the Abhidhamma related > to this moment now? > Intention or volition, cetana, is a cetasika arising with each citta, and > when kusala citta arises volition is kusala, when akusala citta arises, > volition is akusala. Since cittas arise and fall away in succession > extremely rapidly, can we say to ourselves, I want to have kusala cetana at > this very moment? Is it not better to see cetana as a conditioned reality? > If we understand conditions free will does not have to be an issue anymore. > It is the same with effort. There is right effort, but it is a cetasika, not > us. It arises because of conditions. > Kamma is another type of condition. Kusala kamma and akusala kamma are also > accumulated and can produce results later on by way of rebirth, or by way of > vipakacittas that experience pleasant or unpleasant objects through the > senses. Kamma-condition is a type of condition different from natural strong > dependence-condition that causes us to be attached now or to be angry now. > > The Visuddhimagga explains (XVII, 167):< And with a stream of continuity > there is neither identity nor otherness. For if there were absolute identity > in a stream of continuity, there would be no forming of curd from milk. And > yet if there were absolute otherness, the curd would not be derived from > milk.> When one realizes the falling away of realities, one knows that they > do not last, that there is nothing eternal or permanent. By seeing > conditions one keeps the Middle Way: no annihilation belief, no eternalism. > As I said, the theory is not too difficult, but the direct realization of > the truth is difficult for all of us, it takes a long time. Here comes in > the patience, the highest ascetism.> > > Life passes just in a flash. I quote from Visuddhimagga, XX, 72, which > contains actually quotes from the Maha-Niddesa, Sutta on Old Age: > > Life, person, pleasure, pain-just these alone > Join in one conscious moment that flicks by. > Gods, though they life for four-and eighty thousand > Aeons, are not the same for two such moments. > Ceased khandhas of those dead or alive > Are all alike, gone never to return; > And those that break up meanwhile, and in future, > Have traits no different from those ceased before. > No (world is) born if (consciousness) is not > Produced; when that is present, then it lives; > When consciousness dissolves, the world is dead: > The highest sense this concept will allow. > No store of broken states, no future stock; > Those born balance like seeds on needle points. > Break-up of states is foredoomed at their birth; > Those present decay, unmingled with those past. > > The visible object impinges on the eyesense and then seeing- consciousness > arises, and the meeting or association of them is unthinkably short, like > the seed balancing on a needle point. Life is so short, this is Mindfulness > of death. Abhidhamma and satipatthana, which is actually Abhidhamma applied, > lead to mindfulness of death. > James, your expectations, your fear and sadness of yesterday have gone, > today you are different, you may laugh. You wrote to Christine about your > experiences when you were about to become a monk. Thank you for sharing > these. Understandable that you also become sad when recollecting these. But > sadness does not last. I find it consoling that it is said, pleasure pain--just these alone join in one > consciousness moment that flicks by.> A dear person we cling to has to die. > Life is so short, there is death and rebirth at each moment. This is > reality. > You can verify that James now is no longer James as a child, and that still, > in a way, there is still James. From milk comes curd. Here you are with all > your accumulated tendencies, good and bad. In a former life you may have > studied Dhamma, and that conditions your interest today. > ____________ > > J:The Abhidhamma is dead wrong about this issue. > ------------ > N. > I want to quote part of a post by my friend Suan. He gives a good > explanation of Abhidhamma: > > between Suttas and Abhidhamma. > Believe it or not, the Buddha taught only abhidhamma. In plain > English, abhidhamma is the subject of what we can observe, > experience, remove, eradicate, cultivate, develop and achieve - in > short, the subject of what we can do with our minds or our lives. > And as every discourse in the Sutta Pitaka also deals with what we > can do with our minds or our lives, every discourse teaches segments > of abhidhamma. > Now, why then is there the differentiation between Sutta Pitaka and > Abhidhamma Pitaka? > The differentiation is not what they teach, but how they teach.> > End quote. > Nina. Dear Nina, Obviously I cannot reason with someone who preaches `realities' at one point, and then turns around and offers the euphemistic reasoning that the Buddha only taught the Abhidhamma because the Abhidhamma is all that he taught…never mind that he didn't actually teach it. I feel as if I am dealing with a politician. If you are sincerely interested in reality: first start with what can be demonstrated to others, then go to what is accepted by others, and finally go to what you experience first-hand for yourself. If you are honest, you will conclude that the Abhidhamma fails all three of these tests. Metta, James 18839 From: azita gill Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 3:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] intro --- "dave " wrote: > Hello all, > > New to the group here... I will most likely lurk > for a while as I > have much more to learn that to contribute at this > time. I set > myself on the path a few years ago, and have far > more questions than > I know what to do with. I figure by listening I may > have many of > them answered. > > Peace, > dave > dear Dave, welcome from another lurker. yes, you can learn things by just sitting back and 'listening' but it also raises a lot of puzzles so feel comfortable about asking questions. Someone usually kindly answers a question, especially if you are persistent!!! where do you live? would be nice if you told us a little about yourself, but under no obligation if you don't want to. i'm Azita, I live in australia and have kind of studied the Buddha's teaching for about 25 years, and i have known some of the others on the site for about the same time. may you grow in wisdom and understanding of Buddha's teachings. patience, courage and good cheer, Azita. > > > > > 18840 From: rahula_80 Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:10pm Subject: Becoming a Monk Dear Bhantes and laypersons, How do you explain, especially to non-Buddhist, the reason(s) why you are becoming a monk. (I mean, when you are becoming a monk, people would ask you, why? So, how would/did you answer? Best wishes, Rahula 18841 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:22pm Subject: Re: Control Dear Herman, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: Dear KKT, I very much enjoyed (I was filled with joy) your explanation of the meaning of KKT. KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. Two Zen masters met after many years, one made this verse: Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) So many leaves have fallen in the forest --------------- Thank you for this and all your other posts. I personally reject the idea of absolutely no control. I do so on an empirical basis. KKT: This is a very interesting (and fascinating) subject: Control or No-Control ? Free-Will or Destiny ? Self or No-Self ? -------------- I do not think in the following way : that by the ripening of kamma of a particular colour there was the experience of typing in a password, which was previously set by the ripening of other kamma of other colour, and there was the experience of being on the Internet, smiling quietly while reading words from KKT, which were the predestined consequences of conditions. A minute ago I thought like this: The sink is full of dishes, my son's computer isn't working properly, it is 35C outside, my garden is withering even as I ponder the choices available to me, I should water the garden, but no, I choose to go on the Net and see what's a happening there. And yes, there are enormous expanses of time when I am totally oblivious to the fact that I have choices. Then I am out of control and driven by conditionality, karma, you name it. But when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control. Middle road sounds good. KKT: What you wrote << when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control >> seems very reasonable and of the common sense. And this is the basis of Buddhist practice that is the practice of Mindfulness. But if we look deep down in the Buddha's teachings, things do not seem so simple. The Buddha talked about: __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. These two theories were accepted by all different Buddhist schools (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism which made Buddhism different from other religions and philosophies. But if we put these two theories to the extreme limit of their meanings (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) then << inevitably >> we arrive at the case of DETERMINISM. As I wrote in my previous post: > If we accept that there is absolutely > << no-control >> and that everything > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > i.e. even the smallest act such as > turning left or right was already determined > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > then we fall into the case of > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? I really don't know the answer :-)) And I continue to probe, a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) -------------- All the best Herman KKT: I'd like to share with you my favorite story on the subject of << Free-Will or Destiny ? >> Enjoy the reading :-)) KKT ============= STORY: Destiny During a momentous battle, a Japanese general decided to attack even though his army was greatly outnumbered. He was confident they would win, but his men were filled with doubt. On the way to the battle, they stopped at a Buddhist temple. After praying with the men, the general took out a coin and said, "I shall now toss this coin. If it is heads, we shall win. If tails, we shall lose. Destiny will now reveal itself." He threw the coin into the air and all watched intently as it landed. It was heads. The soldiers were so overjoyed and filled with confidence that they vigorously attacked the enemy and were victorious. After the battle, a lieutenant remarked to the general, "No one can change destiny." "Quite right," the general replied as he showed the lieutenant the coin, which had heads on both sides. 18842 From: pakdi yanawaro Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 5:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Becoming a Monk I usually reply that i want to have a new 'middle' way of life in a new environment, which will facilitate the practice of dhamma. moreover, since i got ordained at an old age (72), i want to spend my last years of life in a more meaningful way. --- "rahula_80 " wrote: > Dear Bhantes and laypersons, > > How do you explain, especially to non-Buddhist, the > reason(s) why you > are becoming a monk. (I mean, when you are becoming > a monk, people > would ask you, why? So, how would/did you answer? > > Best wishes, Rahula 18843 From: Egberdina Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 6:19pm Subject: Re: Control Dear KKT, That Zen poem is razorsharp!!! > > KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu > (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. > > Two Zen masters met after > many years, one made this verse: > > Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) > So many leaves have fallen in the forest > --------------- > > KKT: What you wrote > > << when there is awareness, there is choice, > and when there is choice there is control >> > > seems very reasonable and of the common sense. > And this is the basis of Buddhist practice > that is the practice of Mindfulness. > > But if we look deep down > in the Buddha's teachings, > things do not seem so simple. > > The Buddha talked about: > > __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. > __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. > > These two theories were accepted > by all different Buddhist schools > (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) > as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism > which made Buddhism different from > other religions and philosophies. > > But if we put these two theories > to the extreme limit of their meanings > (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) > then << inevitably >> we arrive at > the case of DETERMINISM. > > As I wrote in my previous post: > > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > > << no-control >> and that everything > > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > > i.e. even the smallest act such as > > turning left or right was already determined > > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > > then we fall into the case of > > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > I really don't know the answer :-)) > > And I continue to probe, > a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) > -------------- When I write "when there is awareness, there is choice, and when there is choice there is control" it is a statement that I can repeat again and again and again without doubt. I know this to be so. I know it does not rhyme with the very deep and subtle teachings the degree of truth which I have not yet experienced. For me it is incorrect to teach things the truth of which I am taking in faith. It is the same as saying: the things I want to be true, I want you to want them to be true as well. On occasion only, I can say "when there is awareness, there is choice, and one of the choices is acceptance, and when there is acceptance control is a moot point". But I can't say that again and again so I won't :-) All the best Herman PS Thanks for the story . I did enjoy it!> 18844 From: Frank Kuan Date: Fri Jan 17, 2003 10:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Becoming a Monk --- "rahula_80 " wrote: > Dear Bhantes and laypersons, > > How do you explain, especially to non-Buddhist, the > reason(s) why you > are becoming a monk. (I mean, when you are becoming > a monk, people > would ask you, why? So, how would/did you answer? > > Best wishes, Rahula > Coincidentally, Rahula means fetter (if I recall correctly). One possible answer to your question is in your name. (Buddha named his son Rahula) Mahakassapa said: "household life is confinement, a path of dust, going forth is like the open air. It is not easy for one living at home to lead the perfectly complete, perfectly purified holy life, which is like polished conch. let me then shave off my hair and beard, put on saffron robes, and go forth form the household life into homelessness." (SN vol1 page 678) 18845 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 0:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob Ed, > thank you, this is an interesting post. Something to > think about, > Nina > > op 16-01-2003 16:19 schreef Robert Eddison op > robedd@i...: > > > > > In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: > > > > "Monks there are these four ways of answering a > question. > > What four? > > There is a question which is to be given a > categorical answer > > (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). > > There is a question which is to be analysed > > (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). > > There is a question which is to be answered with a > counter-question > > (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) > > There is a question which is to be set aside > (.thapaniiya)" > > -- A ii 46 > > > dear Nina, I thought this very good also. In fact, I wrote it in my book that I keep beside my computor, for interesting and beneficial items, bc I don't yet have a printer. This comment above, I imagine, applies to any dhamma questions, but I was wondering if it could also apply to mundane questions e.g. questions that are asked on a daily basis, about work or anything. What do you think? hope you are well and hello to Lodewijk. patience, courage and good cheer Azita. 18846 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 1:18am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear NEO Swee Boon, After the path process, there are the reviewing processes following, one of the process reviews nibanna as its aramana. The entire process has nibbana as aramana. In this case, mano-dvara-vacana (adverting), the 7 mahakusala nana-sampayutta (unclear to me if all 4, most likely probably just 2, or may be one!!!). It is also unclear (to me) if there is the two tadalamppana in this case. The ones I know for sure is: 1) Magga 2) Phala (both inside the path process, and in phala sampatti) 3) Gotrubhu (which is again one of the 4 (or 2 or 1!!!) 4) mano-dvara-vacana 5) 7 repeating javana kom > -----Original Message----- > From: nidive [mailto:nidive@y...] > Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 4:55 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? > > > Hi All, > > > Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are > there any other > cittas that can experience nibbana? > > Nobody knows? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > 18847 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:05am Subject: Strong language Dear Group, Just some weekend thoughts ... I have always been uncomfortable with what I see as the 'strength' of the language used in Buddhism - e.g. Defilements. My dictionary doesn't even have an entry for 'defilements' (but then again, it does have an entry for 'popping-crease' so maybe it is a little too Australian). Why can't we just call them 'challenges to wholesomeness' or 'areas needing a bit of improvement', or 'obstacles to quick enlightenment'? Defilements sounds so 'Old Testament Religious'. How can one even discuss them in polite company? (Not that any of you have actually got any to discuss.:) As well, I've been reading about the Roots of Good and Evil: Lobha, Tanha, Raga, Nandi all mean Greed in one form or another. This lumps mental states like delight, fondness and affection, even wanting to have children, in with avarice, self-indulgence, and overpowering lust. Dosa meaning Hate covers things from the mildest of irritation to murderous rage. Moha and Avijja meaning Ignorance and Delusion - the primary root of all suffering - stretches from dullness and confusion to ideology, wrong view and dogmatic fanaticism. Don't you think a little differentiation might be in order? e.g. My fondness for chocolate can't be as 'bad' as the man up the road's fondness for gambling and alcohol, can it? So his could be called a 'defilement' and mine could be called a 'mere peccadillo' - right? :-) I think I've just discovered another reason for learning Pali - 'kilesa' sounds better than 'defilements'; 'raga' sounds better than 'lust'; 'dosa' sounds better than 'hate', and 'avijja' sounds better than 'delusion'. Pali is sort of more mysterious and spiritual, not so confronting as boring old english, ay? :-) metta, Christine 18848 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:13am Subject: Re: Control Dear Group, I have been following with interest the threads on control/no control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, and all the previous ones. Leaving aside kamma, accumulations and the rounds of rebirth at this time, I can see for myself that this is so within this lifetime. For example, I could not choose a life that involved killing others even if it was considered lawful e.g. a mercenary soldier or a butcher of animals. This is not just a preference - it is much much stronger - I am 'unable' to choose it because of all that has gone before that led me first to an ethical position, and then to become a follower of the Buddha. I cannot choose to have no reactions such as anger or fear to a strong stimulus. They happen (or arise) instantaneously. I could not choose to feel 'delight' when with a sobbing mother holding her dead baby. I cannot even, at this stage in my development, choose to feel only compassion or equanimity for her and the babe at that time. I feel overwhelming pity, compassion, anger, helplessness, confusion - mostly dosa, I know. The feelings arise uncontrollably. I cannot make them not come, go away, or change into something else. They remain until they subside in their own good time (speaking conventionally, not of cittas). I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. I know, without doubt, that 'this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena' (currently conveniently called Christine) has no real choice, no total control. There is no Independent Controller - there is only the illusion of that. The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous change at this point in my journey. Just my two cents - what do you all reckon? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Dear KKT, > > That Zen poem is razorsharp!!! > > > > > > KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu > > (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. > > > > Two Zen masters met after > > many years, one made this verse: > > > > Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) > > So many leaves have fallen in the forest > > --------------- > > > > > KKT: What you wrote > > > > << when there is awareness, there is choice, > > and when there is choice there is control >> > > > > seems very reasonable and of the common sense. > > And this is the basis of Buddhist practice > > that is the practice of Mindfulness. > > > > But if we look deep down > > in the Buddha's teachings, > > things do not seem so simple. > > > > The Buddha talked about: > > > > __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. > > __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. > > > > These two theories were accepted > > by all different Buddhist schools > > (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) > > as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism > > which made Buddhism different from > > other religions and philosophies. > > > > But if we put these two theories > > to the extreme limit of their meanings > > (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) > > then << inevitably >> we arrive at > > the case of DETERMINISM. > > > > As I wrote in my previous post: > > > > > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > > > << no-control >> and that everything > > > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > > > i.e. even the smallest act such as > > > turning left or right was already determined > > > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > > > then we fall into the case of > > > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > > > > I really don't know the answer :-)) > > > > And I continue to probe, > > a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) > > -------------- > > > When I write "when there is awareness, there is choice, > and when there is choice there is control" it is a statement that I > can repeat again and again and again without doubt. I know this to be > so. > > I know it does not rhyme with the very deep and subtle teachings the > degree of truth which I have not yet experienced. For me it is > incorrect to teach things the truth of which I am taking in faith. It > is the same as saying: the things I want to be true, I want you to > want them to be true as well. > > On occasion only, I can say "when there is awareness, there is > choice, and one of the choices is acceptance, and when there is > acceptance control is a moot point". But I can't say that again and > again so I won't :-) > > > > All the best > > > Herman > PS Thanks for the story . I did enjoy it!> 18849 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:17am Subject: All Beings subsist on Nutriment Dear All, The discussions on control/no control led me to begin reading (again) about what controls/causes/influences my reactions, and thence my thoughts, speech and actions. So I am learning in the three areas of Nutriment, Roots and Conditions. The Buddha stated in AN 10.27 that "All beings subsist on nutriment" (edible food, sense- impression, volition and consciousness). I take this to mean that these are the things that continue to maintain and extend one's wandering in the relentless cycle of rebirths, and are obstructions to gaining deliverance from samsara. No great discoveries so far - except ... The Discourse of the Son's Flesh MN 63 (3) has to be the scariest thing I have read in ages. Not so scary initially, but when one reflects on it with regard to daily life, the unstoppable accumulation of kamma compelling rebirth and the arduous, difficult way to Liberation, it is disturbing and sobering. The harsh similes the Buddha uses to impress the teachings on the monks certainly concentrates the attention! (a) The nutriment of Edible Food - The couple who run out of food in the desert and eat their only child to save their own lives. (b) The nutriment Sense Impressions (phassa) as being like the cow, skinned alive, and left to wander, tortured by the pain and insects and creatures that want to sting and eat parts of her. (c) The nutriment Volitional Thought (manosancetana) as being like two strong men who grab another man by the arms and drag him towards a pit of glowing embers. (d) The nutriment Conciousness (vinnana) as being like a criminal who is struck with a hundred spears three times a day and lives to continually experience the pain. I wonder why we don't hear much about the Discourse of the Son's Flesh? Perhaps because it reveals the extreme danger and suffering of our journey through the 'desert' or 'molten pit' of continual rebirths and emphasises that the suffering is often disguised and taken for happiness. metta, Christine 18851 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:02am Subject: I LOVE animals Dear Christine, I'm VERY sorry for not replying any of your e-mails and I was always wanting to ask you, are you a Buddhist or a Christian? Well, I'm very HAPPY to hear that you dog Rusty is recovering rapidly! Im sorry to hear that he wont be able to recover 100% but at lest he might recover up to 99% :-) I was also wondering about how Rusty's leg got injured.I'm so glad that you didn't get Rusty put down because I think that an animal such as a dog has equal rights with us humans and just if a human was sick, we wouldn't kill him/her so think that it was a good choice to not let him be put down, no matter who says what, you should always believe in what your heart says no matter how much it costs. I think that I LOVE animals just as much as you do!!! :-) I'm REALLY glad that we share an interest. Well, please reply as soon as possible! Bye From Jan Tanytip Chearavanont 18852 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:07am Subject: Rusty Dear Christine, Hi, my name is Kimmy, I am 14 and I have read through your long letter about your dog, Rusty. I feel sorry about your dog. In your letter, I saw a sentence "Buddha ate meat when given it and had only forbidden the eating of meat if a person know or suspected that the animal had been specially killed for them", I think this is interesting and I used to think Buddha doesn't eat meat anytime. Can you tell me more about Buddhism and your dog? I am really interested in dogs. Hope your dog can recover as soon as possible. From Kimmy 18853 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 3:12am Subject: Happy new year! Hey James, Thats nice, I dont spend much time writing these letters as well. Some people can read and write emails for a long time. Are you going anywhere for Chinese New Year? It's coming up really soon, in our school, we have like 2 weeks holiday! Isn't that quite a lot? Well, I hope you have fun wherever you're going. Dont worry, your letters are not too long for me. Im use to reading long letters. =D *Does Buddism celebrate Chinese New year? If so, how? *I heard from my teacher about recarnation, is that related to life and death? <*Happy New Year*> Love, Joanne -JoJo- P.S. I wrote this letter in about 4-5 mins. Its short though.... 18854 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:32am Subject: Re: Happy new year! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hey James, > > Thats nice, I dont spend much time writing these > letters as well. Some people can read and write emails > for a long time. Are you going anywhere for Chinese > New Year? *I heard from my teacher about recarnation, is that > related to life and death? > > <*Happy New Year*> > > Love, > Joanne -JoJo- > > P.S. I wrote this letter in about 4-5 mins. Its short > though.... Hi Star Kid JoJo: I like your nickname. Does it mean you are related to J.Lo? Hehehe… just kidding. For Chinese New Year I am going to my Zen Meditation temple, Calm Village. They have a large celebration there where the abbot leads many Asian people (mainly Vietnamese) in chanting and meditation. He has this great, big brass bell, that looks like an upside down bowl that he will beat many times to bring in the Chinese New Year. It is very loud!! I don't get much meditation done, but it is a lot of fun. And then at the end of the ceremony, he gives everyone an orange to take home. I have no idea what that is for…maybe a reminder to eat healthy in the New Year? Hehehe… I am usually the only white person who goes to this ceremony, which is kinda interesting because then everyone smiles at me like crazy! I brought in the regular New Years on January 1st at my other temple, Wat Promkunaram, meditating and chanting for three hours. They don't have a large bell though, and no oranges. It is a Thai temple and rather no nonsense. I like that a lot more. What is your Chinese Sign? I am the Rooster, which fits me pretty well because I am always crowing about one thing or another! Hehehe. My Astrological Sign is Taurus the Bull, which also fits me because I am very opinionated and stubborn. Hehehe… Put the two together and you have one feisty fellow! :-) And to answer your question, yes, reincarnation is related to life and death; however, it is different than the Buddhist idea of rebirth. In reincarnation the belief is that a soul moves from body to body, but the Buddhist idea of rebirth is that thirst or craving creates body after body but there is no soul inside. Yes, the Buddhist idea is much more complicated to understand but, ultimately I believe, the truer idea. I hope you have a Happy New Year too. Take care, study hard, and eat a lot of oranges! Love, James 18855 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:49am Subject: Re: My letter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James: > Thank You for the teaching me about the > eight fold path. What gifts do you like? Who gave it > to you? Have you enjoyed New Years? What does un-sharp > mind mean? (In your letter) > Please write to me! > With Love, > Janet Hi Star Kid Janet!! How are you? Sorry it took me so long to write but I have been rather busy lately. The gifts I got for Christmas that I really liked were: a new wallet (my dog chewed on my old one ;-), a Buddha book, a winter robe, and house shoes. My parents gave me the wallet, robe, and slippers, and my friend gave me the Buddha book. What did you get for Christmas? Who gave them to you? Do the toys still work now? Hehehe… Yes, I enjoyed New Years. I brought in the New Years meditating and chanting at my Buddhist temple, Wat Promkunaram. It was a good way to bring in the New Years rather than partying in the typical fashion of America. I hope that this New Year is lucky for the both of us. Un-sharp mind means a mind that is out of control. When you have a mind that thinks about this and thinks about that, one after the other, with no point or purpose; sometimes a person's thinking can get so out of control that it can make him/her dizzy! It is important to pay attention to what is going on around you and inside you because not only does it make you more productive and happier, it will bring you wisdom to what is actually going on in your life. Have you ever been watching a movie, and you stopped paying attention for a while, and when you started watching the movie again you couldn't understand what was going on in the movie? How did that make you feel? Rather stressed out and frustrated, right? Well, the same thing can happen in your life. If you stop paying attention to what it going on, even for a small amount of time, when you come back to paying attention you can be lost and struggle to figure things out again. That is why having a sharp mind, keeping your life as simple as possible, and always paying attention is very important. I hope you have a Happy New Years!! Love, James 18856 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:22am Subject: Re: Wish you all the best for the new year! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > > Dear James, > > Thankyou for the letter that you sent me. It was > great. You really explained alot of things about the > difference between Buddhism and Christianity and > Heaven and Hell. > > Do you believe that the Buddha is actually up above > you always looking at you? > > Hope you had a great time at Christmas and wish you > all the best for the new year. > > Take care Love Sandy > Hi Star Kid Sandy!! I am glad that you appreciated the letter about Heaven and Hell. I see that your next question is related to that. You ask if I believe the Buddha is above me always looking at me; as if the Buddha is in Heaven looking at me. Well, I don't believe exactly that, but I do believe and feel something similar. Not all Buddhist believe this, but I do believe that the Buddha still exists in a way that my puny, little human brain can't possibly define or completely understand. I believe this for two reasons: Personal experience and logic/reasoning. Sandy, my brain doesn't seem to work like most people because I slip into meditative states even while fully conscious. When I think about Buddhism, contemplate a Buddhist statue, or I am in the presence of highly evolved spiritual people, my mind will go into states of awareness that people usually only get through meditation. While in these states, unfocused on myself, I often `feel' and `sense' the presence of Lord Buddha. Once, while meditating at my Buddhist temple, I believe that I had a direct experience of Lord Buddha when I sensed that he was sitting in mediation in front of me, inside of me, and me inside of him…all at the same time. It was at this time that I felt that true wisdom wasn't cold and logical, but optimistic and loving. If I tell this to other people who have had similar experiences, they know exactly what I am talking about and are excited that they are not alone with such experiences. If I tell this to those who haven't had such experiences, they think I am crazy or that my mind is playing tricks on me. But that is life; everyone judges everything from his or her own experience. I have determined that my experiences are quite real. The second reason I believe the Buddha still exists is because he said that he would still exist; in a round about way. The Buddha flat-out rejected the idea that when a person dies there is nothing more; but when he was pressed for the answer of what more there was, he said that it was impossible to describe and comprehend for the human brain. Since I do not believe that the Lord Buddha lied or mislead about this issue, I can only logically conclude certain things: 1. The Buddha knew what other humans didn't, 2. The Buddha's mind was no longer like other humans', 3. The Buddha knew that what we take for `existence' is not the whole picture, 4. The Buddha was not afraid of what he had learned and he wanted to liberate as many people as he could. So Sandy, the only thing we can know, the only thing that the Buddha really taught us about this issue, is to not have fear of the unknown. If this answer confuses you, don't worry, you aren't alone; I tend to confuse a lot of people when I start writing about this issue! Hehehe… Take care and have a Happy New Year! Love, James 18857 From: azita gill Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Strong language "" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just some weekend thoughts ... > > I have always been uncomfortable with what I see as > the 'strength' of > the language used in Buddhism - e.g. Defilements. > >[snip] I think I've just discovered another reason for > learning Pali - > 'kilesa' sounds better than 'defilements'; 'raga' > sounds better > than 'lust'; 'dosa' sounds better than 'hate', and > 'avijja' sounds > better than 'delusion'. Pali is sort of more > mysterious and > spiritual, not so confronting as boring old english, > ay? :-) > > metta, > Christine > dear Christine, I tend to agree with you re the English substitutes for the Pali words. I remember when I first began to hear the Dhamma [in this life], I seemed to be able to understand better if some of the Pali words were used. For example, when I learnt about cetasikas and citta, it was clearer to me what these words stood for, rather than if we had tried to translate into English - how do you describe cetasikas in the Eng. language? When I talk about Dhamma to others who ask, I find it difficult to find an english word to use instead of cetasika - emotions??? doesn't seem quite right, in fact quite wrong. I guess it's like when we learn a new anything, there are new words to use to describe the 'anything'. So, for me, I prefer the Pali words. However, some of them are challenging my brain at the moment. Nina made a comment in one of her recent posts about when it is too difficult and doesn't really apply to now she just doesn't bother with it. And pardon me Nina, if I have misunderstood what you said, but it is how I interperated the comment. Maybe that's a projection of mine, when it's too hard I forget it. patience, courage and good cheer; I have only just realised that we need courage to be patient, we need to be patient to be courageous and we need to be cheerful to be the other two!!!!!!! Azita 18858 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:53am Subject: Re: Wish you all the best for the new year! Hi James, > Once, while meditating at my Buddhist temple, I believe that I had > a direct experience of Lord Buddha when I sensed that he was sitting > in mediation in front of me, inside of me, and me inside of him… all > at the same time. It was at this time that I felt that true wisdom > wasn't cold and logical, but optimistic and loving. How is this kind of experience different from Christians who claim that they have experienced Jesus Christ or God within them? I see no difference. Just simply substitute nibbana for God; God is loving, so is nibbana (which is actually the loving Buddha as you claimed). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18859 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: hi...i like your poems!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James (A.K.A the person who likes poems), > > Hi james! im very sorry that i didnt write so often > anymore. I was REALLY busy lately and so i didnt have > time. > > Well i was wondering if do you have any kids, age?, > sex?, name? > > I have 3 brothers and all of them are VERY annoying... > > their names are: > > Kane/14/M > > Mark/5/M > > Sean/2/M > > I hope you got this other letter about a book (Jataka > Tales)....Did you read it? Which one do you like? > > I have to go now..BYE! > > From > > Jan C. > > P.S: i love all your peoms...dont you ever run out? > > Well if you didnt plz write me some more!!! > > THANKS!!!! Hi Star Kid Jan, LOL! So now I am the person who like poems! Great! I think that is the best description of me yet! It's okay about not writing, I haven't been writing for a while myself. To answer your question, no I don't have kids of my own; but I am a high school teacher so, in one way, I have a lot of kids! Now, you may think that high school kids are really different from younger kids, but that is not true. Sometimes I look at those teenagers and think to myself, "Now, what age are you again?" hehehe… You may also think that adults are really different from little kids, but that is not always true either. Sometimes adults can be the most childish of them all. People are people, and they should all be treated equally… in praise and chastisement. Jan, I did get that other letter about the Jataka Tales, and I don't think I have read that particular book, but I have read many of the tales. I like all of the tales actually, but I am going to quote one that I like in particular...and I am reminded of lately. I like this tale because it teaches that to do good deeds for others usually requires a great sacrifice because there are many people who will try to undermine you; but that doesn't mean the good deed shouldn't be done: Mahakapi Jataka (Jataka No. 407) The Great Monkey King One day in Jetavana Monastery bhikkhus began talking about the good that the Buddha did for his relatives. When the Buddha asked them about their subject, and they told him, he said, "Bhikkhus, this is not the first time the Tathagata has done good works to benefit his relatives." Then he told this story of the past. Long, long ago, when Brahmadatta was reigning in Baranasi, the Bodhisatta was born as a monkey in the Himalayas. When he was fully grown, he was extremely strong and vigorous and became the leader of a troop of eighty thousand monkeys. On the bank of the Ganges there was an enormous mango tree, with two massive branches so thick with leaves it looked like a mountain. Its sweet fruit was of exquisite fragrance and flavor. One branch spread over the bank of the river, but the other extended over the water. One day, while the monkey king was eating the succulent fruit, he thought, "If any of this fruit ever fell into the river, great danger could come to us." To prevent this, he ordered the monkeys to pick all the mango flowers or tiny fruit from that branch. One fruit, however, was hidden by an ant's nest and escaped the monkeys' attention. When it ripened, it fell into the river. At that time, the King of Baranasi was bathing and amusing himself in the river. Whenever the king bathed in the river, he had nets stretched both upstream and downstream from where he was. The mango floated down the river and stuck in the net upstream from the king. That evening, as the king was leaving, the fishermen pulled in the net and found the fruit. As they had never seen a fruit like this before, they showed it to the king. "What is this fruit?" the king asked. "We do not know, sire," they answered. "Who will know?" "The foresters, sire." The king summoned the foresters, who told him that the fruit was a mango. The king cut it with a knife and, after having the foresters eat some, tasted it himself. He also gave some of the fruit to the ministers and to his wives. The king could not forget the magnificent flavor of the ripe mango. Obsessed with desire for the new fruit, he called the foresters again and asked where the tree stood. When he learned that it was on the bank of the river, he had many rafts joined together and sailed upstream to find it. In due course, the king and his retinue arrived at the site of the huge tree. The king went ashore and set up a camp. After having eaten some of the delectable mangoes, he retired for the night on a bed prepared at the foot of the tree. Fires were lit and guards set on each side. At midnight, after the men had fallen asleep and all was quiet, the monkey king came with his troop. The eighty thousand monkeys moved from branch to branch eating mangoes. The noise woke the king, who roused his archers. "Surround those monkeys eating mangoes and shoot them," he ordered. "Tomorrow we will dine on mango fruit and monkey's flesh." The archers readied their bows to obey the king. The monkeys saw the archers and realized that all means of escape had been cut off. Shivering in fear of death, they ran to their leader and cried, "Sire, there are men with bows all around the tree preparing to shoot us. What can we do?" "Do not fear," he comforted them. "I will save your lives." Then he climbed onto the branch stretching over the river. Springing from the end of it, he jumped a hundred bow-lengths and landed on the opposite bank of the Ganges. Judging the distance he had jumped, he thought, "That is how far I came." Then he found a long vine and cut it, thinking, "This much will be fastened to a tree, and this much will go across the river." He secured one end of the vine to a sturdy tree and the other around his own waist. Then he again leapt across the river with the speed of a cloud blown by the wind. In his calculation, however, he had forgotten to include the length to be tied around his own waist, so he could not reach the trunk of the mango tree. He reached out and grabbed the end of a branch firmly with both hands. He signaled to the troop of monkeys and cried, "Quick! Step on my back and run along this vine to safety. Good luck to you all!" The eighty thousand monkeys, each in turn, respectfully saluted the monkey king, asked his pardon, and escaped in this way. The last monkey in the troop, however, had long resented the leader and wished to overthrow him. When he saw the monkey king hanging there, he exulted, "This is my chance to see the last of my enemy!" Climbing onto a high branch, he flung himself down on the monkey king's back with a dreadful blow that broke his heart. Having caused his rival excruciating pain, the wicked monkey triumphantly escaped and left the monkey king to suffer alone. Having seen all that had happened as he lay on his bed, the king thought, "This noble monkey king, not caring for his own life, has ensured the safety of his troop. It would be wrong to destroy such an animal. I will have him brought down and taken care of." He ordered his men to lower the monkey gently down to a raft on the Ganges. After the monkey had been brought ashore and washed, the king anointed him with the purest oil. Spreading an oiled skin on his own bed and laying the monkey king on it, the king covered him with a yellow robe. After the noble animal had been given sugared water to drink, the king himself took a low seat and addressed him, "Noble monkey, you made yourself a bridge for all the other monkeys to pass over to safety. What are you to them, and what are they to you?" he asked. The monkey explained, "Great king, I guard the herd. I am their lord and chief. When they were filled with fear of your archers, I leapt a great distance to save them. After I had tied a vine around my waist, I returned to this mango tree. My strength was almost gone, but I managed to hold the branch so that my monkeys could pass over my back and reach safety. Because I could save them, I have no fear of death. Like a righteous king, I could guarantee the happiness of those over whom I used to reign. Sire, understand this truth! If you wish to be a righteous ruler, the happiness of your kingdom, your cities, and your people must be dear to you. It must be dearer than life itself." After teaching the king in this way, the monkey king died. The king gave orders that the monkey king should be given a royal funeral. He ordered his wives to carry torches to the cemetery with their hair disheveled. The ministers sent a hundred wagon loads of wood for the funeral pyre. When the regal ceremony was over, the ministers took the skull to the king. The king built a shrine at the monkey's burial place, and made offerings of incense and flowers. He had the skull inlaid with gold, raised on a spear, and carried in front of the procession returning to Baranasi. There he put it at the royal gate and paid homage to it with incense and flowers. The whole city was decorated, and the skull was honored for seven days. For the rest of his life the king revered the skull as a relic, offering incense and garlands. Established in the wonderful teaching of the monkey king, he gave alms and performed other good deeds. He ruled his kingdom righteously and became destined for heaven. After the lesson, the Buddha declared the Truths and identified the Birth: "At that time the king was Ananda, the monkey retinue was this assembly, the wicked monkey was Devadatta, and I myself was the monkey king." I hope you enjoyed the tale. Take care and have a good New Year! Love, James Ps. Since I quoted such a long story, I will give you some more poems another time. Patience is a virtue ;-). 18860 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Good day James "Obviously I cannot reason........" That's good, because this isn't about reason. If you want reason, take up Socrates. If you want experience, stay with the Buddha. Metta, David 18861 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, op 17-01-2003 02:48 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm a little confused about the role of concentration in satipatthana. > In Way 37 jhana seems to be the middle part of the satipatthana > practice. Is concentration, (access or absorption), part of the > satipatthana process? > In the quotation below there seems to be a difference between insight > vehicle and satipatthana. What is the difference? N: As far as I understand, some people were able to attain jhana and some did not practice jhana. But insight can be developed by the two kinds of people. When we use the word satipatthana we should keep in mind that satipatthana has three meanings: 1the objects of mindfulness, classified as four satipatthanas. 2. The development of satipatthana, being awareness and understanding of the dhamma appearing now. These are classified under 1. This is synonymous with the development of vipassana when still mundane. 3.The path all Buddhas walked. L: Vism. I, 6: In some instances this path of purification is taught by > insight alone(3)...In some instances by jhana and understanding...In > some instances by deeds (kamma)...In some instances by virtue...And in > some instances by the Foundations of Mindfulness... But in answer to > this question it is taught by virtue and the other two. [L: sila, > samadhi, panna?] N: Yes. Samadhi is part of the eightfold Path. There is also calm with vipassana when jhana is not developed. Moreover,the Path leads to the highest calm, freedom from defilements. L: (3) 'The words "insight alone" are meant to exclude, not virtue,etc., > but serenity (i.e. jhana), which is the opposite number in the pair, > serenity and insight. This is for emphasis. But the word "alone" > actually excludes only that concentration with distinction [of jhana], > for concentration is classed as both access and absorption. Takng this > stanza as the teaching for one whose vehicle is insight does not imply > that there is no concentration; for no insight comes about without > momentary concentration. And again, insight should be understood as the > three contemplations of impermanence, pain, and not-self; not > contemplation of impermanence alone' (Pm. 9-10) N: These three characteristics are more clearly understood when higher stages of insight have been reached, not at the beginning stages. As you know, the first stage is distinguishing the difference between the characteristic of nama and of rupa. Those who develop samatha to the degree of jhana with breathing as subject can develop insight in between stages of jhana. When they emerge from jhana hey can be aware of the jhanafactors as non-self and also of any nama or rupa that appears. They can be aware of breath as rupa, as tangible object. Those who do not develop jhana can be aware of breath as rupa: hardness, softness, heat, cold, motion of pressure. As we read in Way 31: In this case one does not concentrate on a special subject, at one moment there can be awareness of tangible object, the next moment of feeling, etc. Thus, there is no need for access concentration or attainment concentration. Nina. 18862 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Dear Sarah, thank you for the quotes, and also what Jon hears from tapes, excerpts most welcome. Later on I shall go into your remarks on fruition attainment. Just plural here? Maybe we need help from an expert. Attabhaava is, I think here the stem in this compound, and just the pa.tilaabhesu is plural. Maybe attabhaava is singular, depending on the context. For, or as regards the attainments of attabhaava, or are there more attainments? Not so clear. I need the whole sentence. O yes, here it is, in Wheel 188, Ideal Solitude: Idha Thera ya.m atiita.m pahiia.m what is past is abandoned ya.m anaagata.m pa.tinissata.m The future is relinquished Paccupannesa ca attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu chandaraago suppa.tiviniito And the desire and lust for the present modes of personality is well under control Eva.m kho Thera ekavihaaro vitthaarena paripu.n.no hoti It is thus, Elder, that (the ideal of) lone-dwelling becomes fulfilled,in all its details. Nina. op 17-01-2003 07:18 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > : > "The plural attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu’ is hard to account for; perhaps it > means the five aggregates taken individually, though this would be an > unusual use of the expression." 18863 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:22am Subject: Armadillos, cheetahs, samma dithi, Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Chris, --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > Just some weekend thoughts ... > > I have always been uncomfortable with what I see as > the 'strength' of > the language used in Buddhism - e.g. Defilements. > My dictionary > doesn't even have an entry for 'defilements' (but > then again, it does > have an entry for 'popping-crease' so maybe it is a > little too > Australian). Why can't we just call them > 'challenges to > wholesomeness' or 'areas needing a bit of > improvement', or 'obstacles > to quick enlightenment'? I can see your point of view. I've thought the same at times. The Tao Te Ching says, "the softness of water overcomes the hardness of stone." In the formula for the escape from the bondage of sensual pleasures, Bhikkhu Bodhi (and Nanamoli?) in the Majjhima nikaya had translated it as, "disenchantment, leading to dispassion, leading to release." In the Samyutta, B.Bodhi started using "revulsion" instead of "disenchantment." Revulsion seems like strong a word does it not? But if we examine why that is, the baggage is really ours. We think of revulsion as having a component of very strong emotional, passionate aversion. The reason B.Bodhi and other translators render it as "revulsion" is not because they want to denote an aversive attitude. In right view, there is no aversion, just an equanimous and proper discernment of the magnitude of the insidious nature of sensual pleasures. "Disenchantment" is just not strong enough to indicate the unsatisfactoriness of sensual pleasures. For example, one may become disenchanted with chocolate and then move on to bad relationships and narcotics. But revulsion with the whole class of sensual pleasures conveys a much deeper sense of inherent dukkha. The trick is to not get caught up in our perception of what a word means, but to look deeper behind it and try to determine what is meant (and what is not meant) by the author. Taoists who criticize buddhism use their erroneous perception of these strong words (like revulsion, dukkha, suffering) to portray buddhism as a pessimistic religion, when in fact it is their inferior roots and lack of discernment that prevent them from seeing the sublime beauty and simplicity of a system centered on dukkha. > Defilements sounds so 'Old > Testament > Religious'. That is unfortunate, but it is the nature of language. It takes on subtle and not so subtle nuances according to how it is popularly used, and who it is used by. Some religions have ruined a large number perfectly good words, not just "defilement". > How can one even discuss > them in polite > company? (Not that any of you have actually got any > to > discuss.:) Many of us actually have friends that would be considered polite company. :-) :-) :-). Just playing with you Chris. Taking advantage of ambiguity. :-) > > Don't you think a little differentiation might be in > order? e.g. My > fondness for chocolate can't be as 'bad' as the man > up the road's > fondness for gambling and alcohol, can it? So his > could be called > a 'defilement' and mine could be called a 'mere > peccadillo' - > right? :-) The Buddha frequently exhorted his followers: "You should see danger in the slightest fault." Bondage to chocolate has lesser side effects than bondage to gambling and alcohol, but it still is in the same class. There isn't a magic delineation that makes one bondage "good/ok" and the other "bad". A little revulsion towards chocolate might be in order :-) And by that I don't mean you should be cross and hold a grudge against chocolate, but see that the whole spectrum of chemical addictions have craving and wrong view as a common root which needs to be severed. > I think I've just discovered another reason for > learning Pali - > 'kilesa' sounds better than 'defilements'; 'raga' > sounds better > than 'lust'; 'dosa' sounds better than 'hate', and > 'avijja' sounds > better than 'delusion'. Pali is sort of more > mysterious and > spiritual, not so confronting as boring old english, > ay? :-) > Just words. Perceptions to those words are subject to change over time. If I were to speak to my friends and try to convey the sense of existential suffering I feel by ruminating on the subtle aspects of dukkha and samvega, they might not understand. But if I scream, "What the fuck is this shit?" they might get a better idea. :-) -fk 18864 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] All Beings subsist on Nutriment Chris, those are some of my favorite metaphors, and not so exaggerated as one might first think. For example, the food I eat in just one meal, even if it be vegan, required a tremendous amount of energy and hard work for living beings to bring it into that state, and an enormous amount of suffering and death to many living beings (bugs for example) just so I can eat one meal! Seen with that perspective,the metaphor the buddha uses does not seem extreme or harsh at all. Maintaining that kind of mindfuless and clear comprehension of what that "food/meal" actually is really alters how I approach eating. Food is definitely for sustenance/nutriment, and not really proper to be our prime source of entertainment. > ... suffering is often > disguised and > taken for happiness. > Unless you're talking about stream-enterers and near-stream-enterers, that has to be the understatment of the millenium. :-) Dukkha doesn't need to be tricky and try to disguise itself. Dukkha blatantly flaunts its nastiness because it knows we have an extraordinary ability to lie to ourselves and perceive reality in a completely distorted way (see 4 vipallasas :-) -fk 18865 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 " wrote: > Good day James > > "Obviously I cannot reason........" > > That's good, because this isn't about reason. If you want reason, take up Socrates. If you want experience, stay with the Buddha. > > Metta, David Hi David, You are quite incorrect. The Buddha did advocate the use of reason to prove the validity of his dhamma. Actually, he detailed very specific arguments others could use against the supremacy of his dhamma and counter arguments that his monks were to use when replying to such arguments…very much like Socrates did. He did not rely on simply 'experience' to prove the dhamma, nor did he advocate anyone else to do such a thing. You can read the sutta I refer to at this link: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn011.html Metta, James ps. There are probably others, but one is sufficient counter- argument to the reasoning against the use of reason. 18866 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:49am Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 > " wrote: > > Good day James > > > > "Obviously I cannot reason........" > > > > That's good, because this isn't about reason. If you want reason, > take up Socrates. If you want experience, stay with the Buddha. > > > > Metta, David > > Hi David, > > You are quite incorrect. The Buddha did advocate the use of reason > to prove the validity of his dhamma. Actually, he detailed very > specific arguments others could use against the supremacy of his > dhamma and counter arguments that his monks were to use when > replying to such arguments…very much like Socrates did. He did not > rely on simply 'experience' to prove the dhamma, nor did he advocate > anyone else to do such a thing. > > You can read the sutta I refer to at this link: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn011.html > > Metta, James > > ps. There are probably others, but one is sufficient counter- > argument to the reasoning against the use of reason. Good day again James But you see, unlike those the Buddha's monks were replying to, I'm already = a Buddhist. My relationship with the Buddha is experiential. If an experienc= e I have doesn't seem to match up with the Buddha's teaching, than I go back= and question it. I don't question it from the point of reason first. Metta, David 18867 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 0:07pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 , snip> > Good day again James > > But you see, unlike those the Buddha's monks were replying to, I'm already = > a Buddhist. My relationship with the Buddha is experiential. If an experienc= > e I have doesn't seem to match up with the Buddha's teaching, than I go back= > and question it. I don't question it from the point of reason first. > > Metta, David Good Day David, (are you English?) I don't know about you, but I wasn't born Buddhist; what brought me to Buddhism first was the simple, straightforward beauty of its reasoning. After testing it for myself, in meditation, I found it to be true. At this point I have only, first-hand basis, experienced the first Noble Truth. The rest of the Noble Truths I accept on reasoning alone. The reasoning and logic of the Buddha's dhamma is beautiful and complete. I don't find that same beauty in the Abhidhamma. Again, I stand by my original contention and I do not believe that your counter argument is related. Metta, James 18868 From: Nantawat Sitdhiraksa Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:01pm Subject: Re:nibbana, and a cook book Dear Nina, and Neo, >>>> Besides gotrubhu, magga and phala cittas, are there any other cittas that can experience nibbana? ???? __________ N: No other cittas that directly experience nibbana. I received additional info from Num and I like to be corrected as to this difficult subject. --------------- Num classified the cittas, from Abh Sangaha, Ch 3, 4: ---------------------- Nina: I found this difficult, is this a reflecting on or direct experience ? It may not be in the same way as lokuttara citta, not so direct, and therefore, I made a change in my answer above, adding: *directly* experience nibbana. I sensed that it was delicate here. Moreover, I was merely thinking of the sukkhavipassakas, not of lokuttara jhanas, since Neo's other qu related to that. So, no abhinnas.>>> -------------------- ++++++++++++++++++++++++ NUM: I asked A.Supee, and A.Sujin about this. I have to correct a little bit. Getting up at 3 am from jet lag, my brain did not work well last time I wrote to you. A.Supee gave an analogy of the continuation of the object of a sense door and a mind door process. He said it so fast, and the cittas in paccavekkhana process do have nibbana as their object. A.Sujin said that to think or reflect about nibbana (even for an ariya) is a memory, but the paccavekkhanavithi is a process of a high level of insight that arises right after each maggavithi, and has nibbana as its object. I need to correct my self about the phalasamapatti. All ariya (sodapanna, sakadagami, anagami, and arahant) who also attains jhana can enter phalasamapatti. (I mixed up the nirodhasamapatti, and phalasamapatti). In all phalasamapatti process, every citta, including manodavaravajjana, has nibbana as its object. Only anoloma subprocess of an arahant is mahakiriyananasampayutti. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++ >>Num: ---------------------------------------- Nina: the sixth abhinna is eradication of all defilements, I understand. I find abhinna the most difficult one, I like to avoid this subject. Moreover, I am not taken to the subject of nibbana, far beyond me. When considering paccavekkhana: reflecting on nibbana, nibbana is the reality of nibbana, not a concept of it. It may be a matter of terms: experiencing nibbana or directly experiencing it. Anyway, I will not be able to understand this subject.<< ++++++++++++++++ NUM: Another correction: I better say kusala and kiriya abhinna, not lokiya and lukuttara.Abhinna is always lokiya, not a lokuttara citta. Well, I always try to avoid discussing nibbana. But I think some basic conceptual understanding of nibbana is useful and somewhat critical. I asked A.Sujin more about why in the book says about 3 different characteristics of nibbana, animitta-, appanihita-, and sunnatanibbana. I said I have read it many times but I always forget it. A.Sujin said that nibbana is nibbana, it's the same. But one has different accumulation in appreciating the characteristic of reality. One may prefer (by accumulation) to appreciate anicca, one may prefer dukkha, or anatta. She pointed out to a glass on thee table and asked me to describe the character of the glass. I said it's clear. She said another might say it's hard, or it's fragile. We talk about the same thing, but with different accumulation, we appreciate on different quality. This is what I like the most from the discussion at the foundation yesterday, a cook book analogy. A.Sujin said that one can read and memorize all the detail, the ingredients, and the method of cooking from a book, but never know how does the food taste ( at that moment, I thought of my Saveur cook book series at home, definitely with lobha, no doubt). One may read a lot about vinaya, sutta, or abhidhamma but never sees the true characteristic of dhamma( like reading, memorizing a cook book). That leaded us back to discussion on satipatthana, sati, panna, and satisampajana. Sati, mindfulness, of the characteristic of the reality(nama, rupa) is like tasting a food. No word needed to describe it, but we know how does it taste. Best wishes. Bon appetit :P Num 18870 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:31pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "James " wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 , > snip> > > Good day again James > > > > But you see, unlike those the Buddha's monks were replying to, I'm > already = > > a Buddhist. My relationship with the Buddha is experiential. If an > experienc= > > e I have doesn't seem to match up with the Buddha's teaching, than > I go back= > > and question it. I don't question it from the point of reason > first. > > > > Metta, David > > Good Day David, (are you English?) > > I don't know about you, but I wasn't born Buddhist; what brought me > to Buddhism first was the simple, straightforward beauty of its > reasoning. After testing it for myself, in meditation, I found it > to be true. At this point I have only, first-hand basis, > experienced the first Noble Truth. The rest of the Noble Truths I > accept on reasoning alone. The reasoning and logic of the Buddha's > dhamma is beautiful and complete. > > I don't find that same beauty in the Abhidhamma. Again, I stand by > my original contention and I do not believe that your counter > argument is related. > > Metta, James Good evening James (No I'm not English :)) This is a better discription of what I meant by the Abhidhamma not being Socratic, but rather experiential. By U Rewata Dhamma and Bhikkhu Bodhi "The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world as given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation. It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/abhiman.html 18871 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 2:34pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Metta, David Better late than never :>) 18872 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 4:49pm Subject: Re: Control Dear Chrstine, Thanks for your two cents. Now in a country like Australia, where the smallest denomination of currency is the 5 cent coin, your two cents would be rounded down to 0 :-). Happily , on dsg the only currency is metta, karuna etc etc and all contributions are of inestimable value. I appreciate your description of how you view the matter of control. Do you totally reject the ability to selectively learn? To me your description reads like the absolute determinism that KKT describes. I may have got this wrong but when Rusty needed lots of dollars poured into his health fund, was there rumination, weighing up and a final decision? Or are you saying the decision was the only one ever going to be made, and the rumination and weighing up was also always going to happen. On another thread, you mentioned that the Buddha would be able to have full knowledge of whatever he set his mind to. But according to what you are talking about here, the Buddha could only set his mind on whatever conditions determined. Is there a contradiction? Consider this. When I flush the toilet, the reservoir fills up to a certain level, according to where the float is positioned and how the valve is set. Everytime I flush, the water comes back to exactly the same level. It is a self-governing, self-regulating system. The universe is replete with self-governing systems. You are one of them. So am I. Now I can tinker with the conditions that affect the water level in my toilet reservoir, changing the position of the float, and voila next time I flush, the water comes up to a different level. Now you are going to say that me tinkering with the float was always going to happen. And I reject that, categorically, outright and totally even :-) You are a self-governing system, that is able to tinker with *some* of the parameters that affect your self-governing system. You are a self-governing system that tinkers with the conditions that affect Rusty and your daughter and all your staff and clients at the hospital. You and everybody else are works in progress. What is the value of liberation if through it one looses the option to walk straight back into prison. That sounds more like a lobotomy to me :-) I'll make this a three cent contribution :-) All the best Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear Group, > > I have been following with interest the threads on control/no > control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take > now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, > and all the previous ones. Leaving aside kamma, accumulations and the > rounds of rebirth at this time, I can see for myself that this is so > within this lifetime. For example, I could not choose a life that > involved killing others even if it was considered lawful e.g. a > mercenary soldier or a butcher of animals. This is not just a > preference - it is much much stronger - I am 'unable' to choose it > because of all that has gone before that led me first to an ethical > position, and then to become a follower of the Buddha. I cannot > choose to have no reactions such as anger or fear to a strong > stimulus. They happen (or arise) instantaneously. I could not > choose to feel 'delight' when with a sobbing mother holding her dead > baby. I cannot even, at this stage in my development, choose to feel > only compassion or equanimity for her and the babe at that time. I > feel overwhelming pity, compassion, anger, helplessness, confusion - > mostly dosa, I know. The feelings arise uncontrollably. I cannot > make them not come, go away, or change into something else. They > remain until they subside in their own good time (speaking > conventionally, not of cittas). > > I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the > conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have > formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. > I know, without doubt, that 'this continually self-consuming process > of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena' (currently > conveniently called Christine) has no real choice, no total control. > There is no Independent Controller - there is only the illusion of > that. > > The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting > on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase > in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition > different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous > change at this point in my journey. > > Just my two cents - what do you all reckon? > metta, > Christine > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " > wrote: > > Dear KKT, > > > > That Zen poem is razorsharp!!! > > > > > > > > > > KKT: In fact, the words Kha Kha Tieu > > > (laughing ha ha) come from a Zen poem. > > > > > > Two Zen masters met after > > > many years, one made this verse: > > > > > > Meeting each other, we laugh ha ha :-)) > > > So many leaves have fallen in the forest > > > --------------- > > > > > > > > KKT: What you wrote > > > > > > << when there is awareness, there is choice, > > > and when there is choice there is control >> > > > > > > seems very reasonable and of the common sense. > > > And this is the basis of Buddhist practice > > > that is the practice of Mindfulness. > > > > > > But if we look deep down > > > in the Buddha's teachings, > > > things do not seem so simple. > > > > > > The Buddha talked about: > > > > > > __Anatta/No-Self in His second sermon. > > > __Paticcasamuppada/Conditionality in His third sermon. > > > > > > These two theories were accepted > > > by all different Buddhist schools > > > (Theravada as well Mahayana, Vajrayana) > > > as the fundamental teachings of Buddhism > > > which made Buddhism different from > > > other religions and philosophies. > > > > > > But if we put these two theories > > > to the extreme limit of their meanings > > > (as done in Abhidhamma, I think) > > > then << inevitably >> we arrive at > > > the case of DETERMINISM. > > > > > > As I wrote in my previous post: > > > > > > > > > > If we accept that there is absolutely > > > > << no-control >> and that everything > > > > happens << strictly >> by << conditions >> > > > > i.e. even the smallest act such as > > > > turning left or right was already determined > > > > << in advance >> by << conditions >> > > > > then we fall into the case of > > > > << STRICT DETERMINISM >>, do we not? > > > > > > > > > I really don't know the answer :-)) > > > > > > And I continue to probe, > > > a very << fascinating >> probing indeed :-)) > > > -------------- > > > > > > When I write "when there is awareness, there is choice, > > and when there is choice there is control" it is a statement that > I > > can repeat again and again and again without doubt. I know this to > be > > so. > > > > I know it does not rhyme with the very deep and subtle teachings > the > > degree of truth which I have not yet experienced. For me it is > > incorrect to teach things the truth of which I am taking in faith. > It > > is the same as saying: the things I want to be true, I want you to > > want them to be true as well. > > > > On occasion only, I can say "when there is awareness, there is > > choice, and one of the choices is acceptance, and when there is > > acceptance control is a moot point". But I can't say that again and > > again so I won't :-) > > > > > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman > > PS Thanks for the story . I did enjoy it!> 18873 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:31pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 " wrote: > Good evening James (No I'm not English :)) > > This is a better discription of what I meant by the Abhidhamma not being Socratic, but rather experiential. > > By U Rewata Dhamma and Bhikkhu Bodhi > > "The Abhidhamma's attempt to comprehend the nature of reality, contrary to that of classical science in the West, does not proceed from the standpoint of a neutral observer looking outwards towards the external world. The primary concern of the Abhidhamma is to understand the nature of experience, and thus the reality on which it focuses is conscious reality, the world as given in experience, comprising both knowledge and the known in the widest sense. For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation. It classifies consciousness into a variety of types, specifies the factors and functions of each type, correlates them with their objects and physiological bases, and shows how the different types of consciousness link up with each other and with material phenomena to constitute the ongoing process of experience." > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/abhiman.html Hi David, Oh, okay, now I see where you are coming from. Yes, the Abhidhamma does depend on experiential `proof' for what it proposes. In that regard, I do agree with you. However, I would not say that the Abhidhamma is successful at this proof. Obviously the psychological proof for its assertions depends on the `introspection' of its designers into mental processes. The work of E.B. Tichener, of the early school of Structural Psychology, into introspection demonstrated its inherent fallibility to accurately detail mental processes. To summarize the limitations of introspection for an accurate appraisal of consciousness processes: I. Direct Introspection. 1. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on the basis of present immediacy. 2. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on the basis of remembered apperception. II. Indirect Introspection. Process is recalled as memory-image. Apperception is of memory-image, and description is made on the basis of this apperception. The 'limitations' of introspection now follow of themselves; they are given with its definition; they are of the same sort as the 'limitations' of a microscope or a camera. We can observe only what is observable; and we cannot observe any product of logical abstraction. We cannot, therefore, observe relation, though we can observe content-processes that are given in relation. We cannot either observe change, though we can observe changing content- processes for so long a time as attention, under the observational Aufgabe, may be maintained. We cannot observe causation, though we can observe content-processes that are definitely conditioned. And so it is in other cases. Psychological description can deal only with content-processes under their empirically distinguishable attributes. http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Titchener/introspection.htm Metta, James Ps. The moderators of this group wrote me an e-mail suggesting, I believe, that it was inappropriate for me to ask you if you are from England. I asked this because of the nature of your salutation, but meant no offense. I have seen other questions of a personal nature asked in this group, but I will no longer ask anyone personal questions. 18874 From: rahula_80 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:50pm Subject: City Hi, I remember a sutta where the Buddha or one of his disciple says that it is better to live in the city with a pure mind that to live in a forest with a evil mind or something like this. Anyone has the sutta / reference in handy? Thanks, Rahula 18875 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 6:20pm Subject: Correction of citation (Re: All Beings subsist on Nutriment) Dear All, Apologies and Correction of citation - 'The Sons Flesh' is in the Samyutta Nikaya XII.63(3) in Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation (Wisdom 2000) on pages 597/8/9. (NOT the Majjhima Nikaya (MN) as I carelessly stated.) A translation by Thanissaro Bhikkhu is at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-063.html metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Dear All, > The Discourse of the Son's > Flesh MN 63 (3) has to be the scariest thing I have read in ages. 18876 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:14pm Subject: Re: I LOVE animals Dear Jan, You gave a very wise explanation on not harming our animals and caring for them just as we would for humans. Thank you. I agree with you. It is very relevant to me at the moment because Rusty and my mother have both been sick or injured at the same time. Fortunately, both are getting well at the same time too. :-) I am a Buddhist now but I started out as a Christian. There are many things that are the same in the Teachings of the Christ and the Teachings of the Buddha - like loving-kindness (which some Buddhists call 'metta' and some Christians call 'agape') and compassion, which is a deep awareness and sympathy for someone else's suffering. I can see you have both of these good qualities Jan. Your question made me think deeper - 'Buddhist' is just a name, a shorter way to say "I think I would probably describe myself as a person who tries to follow the teachings about 'the way things really are', that the Buddha discovered". Rusty tore the ligaments in his back left knee. I think he did it when he was sitting on a bean bag out the front of my home watching the road for me to drive in from work in the evening. For some reason (maybe to chase a hare, a bird or the dogs next door) he leaped up quickly, but one of his long toe-nails got caught in the bean bag and he twisted his knee badly. He is really just like a four year old little boy - thinks he is 'super-dog' and can do anything, but isn't wise enough to see the dangers in it. I'm glad you love animals Jan. metta (loving kindness) Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Christine, > > I'm VERY sorry for not replying any of your e-mails > and I was always wanting to ask you, are you a > Buddhist or a Christian? > > Well, I'm very HAPPY to hear that you dog Rusty is > recovering rapidly! > > Im sorry to hear that he wont be able to recover 100% > but at lest he might recover up to 99% :-) > > I was also wondering about how Rusty's leg got > injured.I'm so glad that you didn't get Rusty put down > because I think that an animal such as a dog has equal > rights with us humans and just if a human was sick, we > wouldn't kill him/her so think that it was a good > choice to not let him be put down, no matter who says > what, you should always believe in what your heart > says no matter how much it costs. > > I think that I LOVE animals just as much as you do!!! > :-) > I'm REALLY glad that we share an interest. > Well, please reply as soon as possible! > > Bye > From Jan Tanytip Chearavanont 18877 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:18pm Subject: Re: Rusty Dear Kimmy, You asked me to tell you a little about Buddhism. As you are fourteen years of age, I think you would understand about Mindfulness. The Buddha said there was no point in reliving the Past in our memory or hoping or fearing about the Future. The Past has gone and the Future has not yet come. Now - this present moment - is all there is. Being Mindful means paying attention to what is happening right now, this instant, with every part of your mind and body. As you know, we have sense organs that allow us to hear, see, feel, taste and smell (notice smells, I mean :-)). As an example, just sit quietly for two minutes and notice what you are hearing. You will find at first it is just the loud sounds, but after a while you will notice softer and usually unnoticed sounds. Do the same with the other senses when you have time, especially if you are out for a hike or eating a meal. It will help you realise how we are usually half asleep, not noticing what is going on in and around us. So one of the things the Buddha taught us was to be awake, Mindful, and live only in the present moment. Thank you for your good wishes for Rusty. He is a Great Dane/German Shepherd cross-breed. So he is big and gentle like a Great Dane but not as heavy. He is intelligent like a German Shepherd. He is getting quite old for this type of dog - eight or nine years. (Someone told me that one dog year equals seven human years. I'm not sure if this is true). His leg is getting stronger each day, and he is back to eating - lots and lots! Rusty likes going for rides in the car - he takes up the whole back seat. He puts his head out the car window as we drive along, and his ears and cheeks flap in the breeze.:-) It's been nice talking to you Kimmy, metta (loving kindness), Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear Christine, > > Hi, my name is Kimmy, I am 14 and I have read through > your long letter about your dog, Rusty. > > I feel sorry about your dog. In your letter, I saw a > sentence "Buddha ate meat when given it and had only > forbidden the eating of meat if a person know or > suspected that the animal had been specially killed > for them", I think this is interesting and I used to > think Buddha doesn't eat meat anytime. > > Can you tell me more about Buddhism and your dog? I am > really interested in dogs. > > Hope your dog can recover as soon as possible. > > From > Kimmy 18878 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 7:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Azita, I'm okay with the idea of cittas, it's just their 'committee structure' and their titles that make my eyes glaze.:-) Cetasikas I think of as the 'flavour' and 'colour' of the citta. And though I thought I'd never say it, some Pali words are so familiar that I don't realise they are Pali and just use them like english. I really like your tag 'patience, courage and good cheer' - if I stepped into the dsg room halfway down the page and saw those words, I'd know straight away "Azita's here". Similarly with Howard and his signature quote. Yes, patience takes courage and vice versa. I have this theory that all the Perfections are intermingled and interdependant. I remember the "Searching for 'courage' in the Teachings" thread (last September), and the help many members gave me. Sarah's post mentions a number of the different perspectives on courage and patience. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/15591 If some things are too hard to understand, I also set them aside for a while. Usually I find that when I come back to them weeks or months later I have a clearer understanding. It seems to grow while I do nothing much. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > > dear Christine, > I tend to agree with you re the English > substitutes for the Pali words. I remember when I > first began to hear the Dhamma [in this life], I > seemed to be able to understand better if some of the > Pali words were used. For example, when I learnt > about cetasikas and citta, it was clearer to me what > these words stood for, rather than if we had tried to > translate into English - how do you describe cetasikas > in the Eng. language? When I talk about Dhamma to > others who ask, I find it difficult to find an english > word to use instead of cetasika - emotions??? doesn't > seem quite right, in fact quite wrong. > I guess it's like when we learn a new > anything, there are new words to use to describe the > 'anything'. So, for me, I prefer the Pali words. > However, some of them are challenging my brain at the > moment. Nina made a comment in one of her recent > posts about when it is too difficult and doesn't > really apply to now she just doesn't bother with it. > And pardon me Nina, if I have misunderstood what you > said, but it is how I interperated the comment. Maybe > that's a projection of mine, when it's too hard I > forget it. > patience, courage and good cheer; I have only > just realised that we need courage to be patient, we > need to be patient to be courageous and we need to be > cheerful to be the other two!!!!!!! > Azita 18879 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 8:05pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Evening James " > To summarize the limitations of introspection for an accurate > appraisal of consciousness processes: > > I. Direct Introspection. > 1. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on > the basis of present immediacy. > 2. Process and apperception occur together. Description is made on > the basis of remembered apperception. > > II. Indirect Introspection. Process is recalled as memory-image. > Apperception is of memory-image, and description is made on the > basis of this apperception. > > The 'limitations' of introspection now follow of themselves; they > are given with its definition; they are of the same sort as > the 'limitations' of a microscope or a camera. We can observe only > what is observable; and we cannot observe any product of logical > abstraction. We cannot, therefore, observe relation, though we can > observe content-processes that are given in relation. We cannot > either observe change, though we can observe changing content- > processes for so long a time as attention, under the observational > Aufgabe, may be maintained. We cannot observe causation, though we > can observe content-processes that are definitely conditioned. And > so it is in other cases. Psychological description can deal only > with content-processes under their empirically distinguishable > attributes. > http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Titchener/introspection.htm > > Metta, James" Whoosh! That's over my head James. Metta, David P.S. You, or anyone else in here, may ask any question you like. I may not always answer though :) 18880 From: Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Nina, I see in Way 38 anapanasati culminates in the transcendence of doubt. I take that to be a sotapanna magga citta; so perhaps the scenario of jhana and insight may not happen exactly as described the first time you try it, or even the second or third time. Can we at least say that is the goal? I think it would be a good procedure to really get into cultivating tranquility in this way and then finish up with a somewhat formal contemplation of breath, its source in the body, the body as part of namarupa, the components of nama and rupa, their conditional arising, that they are impersonal, separate and distinct phenomena, not a living being or person and that they have the characteristics of impermanence, dukkha, and not self. I'm still not clear on cultivating a nimita in anapanasati. Perhaps it is just a matter of cultivating a close, delicate relationship with the breath and nudging that toward a simple, conceptual purity, in order to let go of sensory sensations without losing one's stillness and devolving into internal chatter. The nimita seems to be a reference point in the background, while the stillness is the primary consideration. In any case, I'm ready to move on. Larry 18881 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear Kom, I am glad you answered. I have been thinking again about reviewing, and what types of citta. It is not in my copy of Abh Sangaha which types, but maybe in the B.B. translation? I am sure no tadalambana, this only regards sense objects. My doubt was: is the reviewing citta experiencing nibbana directly? It is arammana, so we can classify cittas as Num and you suggest. Nina. op 18-01-2003 10:18 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: > Dear NEO Swee Boon, > > After the path process, there are the reviewing processes > following, one of the process reviews nibanna as its > aramana. The entire process has nibbana as aramana. In > this case, mano-dvara-vacana (adverting), the 7 mahakusala > nana-sampayutta (unclear to me if all 4, most likely > probably just 2, or may be one!!!). It is also unclear (to > me) if there is the two tadalamppana in this case. > > The ones I know for sure is: > 1) Magga > 2) Phala (both inside the path process, and in phala > sampatti) > 3) Gotrubhu (which is again one of the 4 (or 2 or 1!!!) > 4) mano-dvara-vacana > 5) 7 repeating javana 18882 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 9:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions about Questions [was: Re: No-control & Destiny] Dear Azita, the fourth one interests me. I am more thinking of the Buddha who did not asnwer all questions. Some did not lead to the goal, the end of dukkha. Some people were not ready. Nina op 18-01-2003 09:29 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: >>>> >>> In the Pa~nhabyaakara.na Sutta the Buddha states: >>> >>> "Monks there are these four ways of answering a >> question. >>> What four? >>> There is a question which is to be given a >> categorical answer >>> (eka.msabyaakara.niiya). >>> There is a question which is to be analysed >>> (vibhajjabyaakara.niiya). >>> There is a question which is to be answered with a >> counter-question >>> (pa.tipucchaabyaakara.niiya) >>> There is a question which is to be set aside >> (.thapaniiya)" >>> -- A ii 46 > I was wondering if it could also > apply to mundane questions e.g. questions that are > asked on a daily basis, about work or anything. > What do you think? > 18883 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:18pm Subject: Re: Nibbana Stored in Memory? Hi James, > Therefore, is nibbana an object of the mind or a state of being? > This is an important question because I think there is a big > difference between the two. Ananda: In what way, venerable sir, might a monk attain concentration of such a form that he would have neither the perception of earth with regard to earth, nor of water with regard to water, nor of fire... wind... the dimension of the infinitude of space... the dimension of the infinitude of consciousness... the dimension of nothingness... the dimension of neither perception nor non-perception... this world... nor of the next world with regard to the next world, and yet he would still be percipient? The Buddha: There is the case, Ananda, where he would be percipient of this: 'This is peace, this is exquisite -- the resolution of all mental processes; the relinquishment of all acquisitions; the ending of craving; dispassion; stopping; nibbana.' -- A X.6 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/modern/thanissaro/likefire/2- 1.html What do you think: Is the Buddha recollecting about what his mind perceived, ie. nibbana, during that concentration while he attends to Ananda's question? Or is the Buddha absorbed in that concentration even while he speaks to Ananda? Can the Buddha both be in concentration and be attending to Ananda's question at the same time? Is that possible? > Can memory store nibbana? No, nibbana is not stored in memory. The experience/perception of the unconditioned nibbana element is stored in memory. Consciousness which experience insight arise and dissolute. And then the experience of the object itself is stored in memory. But the object of experience is not stored in memory. Just as the experience of the arising and dissolution of the five aggregates is remembered, but the five aggregates themselves are not stored in memory. The experience of the arising and dissolution of the five aggregates is insight. So insight is remembered. In short, the unconditioned nibbana element itself is NOT insight. But rather, knowing nibbana as nibbana is insight. This knowing is stored in memory. In another message, you are correct to say that anyone who sees the Dhamma sees the Buddha, and anyone who sees the Buddha sees the Dhamma. This point which you stated makes it even clearer that the Buddha is NOT nibbana. The Dhamma is NOT nibbana. The Buddha made this very clear in Samyutta Nikaya VI.1. I have heard that on one occasion, when the Blessed One was newly Self-awakened, he was staying at Uruvela on the bank of the Nerañjara River, at the foot of the Goatherd's Banyan Tree. Then, while he was alone and in seclusion, this line of thinking arose in his awareness: "This Dhamma that I have attained is deep, hard to see, hard to realize, peaceful, refined, beyond the scope of conjecture, subtle, to-be-experienced by the wise. But this generation delights in attachment, is excited by attachment, enjoys attachment. For a generation delighting in attachment, excited by attachment, enjoying attachment, this/that conditionality and dependent co-arising are hard to see. This state, too, is hard to see: the resolution of all fabrications, the relinquishment of all acquisitions, the ending of craving; dispassion; cessation; Unbinding. And if I were to teach the Dhamma and if others would not understand me, that would be tiresome for me, troublesome for me." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn06-001.html Please take note that there are different descriptions given for the Dhamma and for nibbana (Unbinding). And the Buddha said that the Dhamma will no longer be in existence someday in the future. I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying at Kimila, in the Bamboo Grove. Then Ven. Kimila went to the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down to the Blessed One, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "What is the cause, lord, what is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound (has entered total Nibbana), the true Dhamma does not last a long time?" "Kimila, there is the case where, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live without respect, without deference, for the Teacher; live without respect, without deference, for the Dhamma... the Sangha... the Training... concentration... heedfulness; live without respect, without deference, for hospitality. This is the cause, this is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the true Dhamma does not last a long time." "And what is the cause, what is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the true Dhamma does last a long time?" "Kimila, there is the case where, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the monks, nuns, male lay followers, & female lay followers live with respect, with deference, for the Teacher; live with respect, with deference, for the Dhamma... the Sangha... the Training... concentration... heedfulness; live with respect, with deference, for hospitality. This is the cause, this is the reason why, when a Tathagata has become totally unbound, the true Dhamma does last a long time." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an07-056.html Yet this does not mean that the unconditioned nibbana element will 'perish' together with the Dhamma. The Buddha, the Dhamma and the Sangha may 'perish', but the unconditioned nibbana element remains as it is. If that were not the case, there would be no escape for past and future generations (of Teaching Buddhas and Their Disciples and Silent Buddhas) from that which is born, become, made, fabricated. "There is, monks, an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated. If there were not that unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, there would not be the case that emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated would be discerned. But precisely because there is an unborn -- unbecome -- unmade -- unfabricated, emancipation from the born -- become -- made -- fabricated is discerned." -- Ud VIII.3 Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18884 From: James Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:33pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "david_wheeler58 " wrote: > Evening James Whoosh! That's over my head James. > > Metta, David Hi David, Oh, sorry, let me put it a different way. In that quote by Bhikkhu Bodhi you provide, which is excellent, he writes, "For this reason the philosophical enterprise of the Abhidhamma shades off into a phenomenological psychology. To facilitate the understanding of experienced reality, the Abhidhamma embarks upon an elaborate analysis of the mind as it presents itself to introspective meditation." What I am saying is that it has already been proven in modern times, through empirical data collection and analysis, that introspection, in the form of meditation or not, is an insufficient means to establish a phenomenological psychology (A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness). In other words, it has been scientifically proven that the mind cannot figure itself out; at least not completely enough to create a phenomenological psychology. Additionally, the Buddha never intended meditation to be used as a means to `figure out the mind', because that is impossible (which I will explain the reasons momentarily), he meant it as a means to liberate the mind; which doesn't require a phenomenological psychology. Wilhelm Wundt was the father of modern psychology who devised certain methods to establish psychology as a legitimate science. These methods ranged from testing, to surveys, to introspection. His student, Tichener, established his own school of psychology where he intended to create a phenomenological psychology using the method of introspection (obviously the only means to do such a thing). He determined through many tests, surveys, and over several years of empirical data that introspection is a faulty means of determining how the mind works. What was the main reason? Surprisingly, he came to basically the same conclusion that the Lord Buddha did, there is no self. However, Tichener didn't phrase it exactly that way; he stated that introspection supposes the duplication of the subject-which is impossible. In other words, for the mind to know itself, there would have to be two minds- one observing and one being observed. Of course, what he was saying is that there is no `self' to observe mental processes directly so introspection is a flawed endeavor. He came to many other conclusions about why it is flawed also, which I will footnote for the sake of understanding. Being a student of psychology myself, I didn't immediately see a lot of problems with how the Abhidhamma describes mental processes, and have never addressed this previously in this group; however, knowing what I know of quantum and particle physics and cosmology, I had many issues with how it describes rupa, matter (very primitive and Aristotelian). However, with this recent discussion of nibbana being known by supramundane cittas arising and passing away, my sensibilities have been shocked. It is impossible for such a thing to occur and for such a thing to be known by brain processes. Let me put it in simple terms, mind states or thoughts cannot be known while they are occurring because there is no self to know them, they can only be known after the fact. Keeping that in mind, how would it be possible for supramundane mind states to arise and know nibbana, for those mind states to pass away, and then for mundane cittas to somehow knew what just happened? That would not be possible. Nibbana must be known permanently and continuously or not at all!!! I hope this is a better explanation for you. I have enjoyed this discussion even though others may not have. Metta, James Footnote: Other reasons introspection fails to establish a phenomenology psychology: "Introspection only produces contradictory results on which no one can reach agreement, so it should not be used because it is non- scientific (general reaction to the controversy on the theme of the relation between thought and mental image); introspection is based on descriptions, therefore on verbal results which can teach us nothing since they are the product of 'social training' (Pieron 1927); introspection is directed towards private, non observable objects with regard to which it is impossible to use a scientific method based upon the agreement of observers, so it has to be abandoned; introspection is, at best, only able to get at that which the subject can be conscious of, but numerous psychological investigations show that the subject is not, and can not be, conscious of basic psychological facts and laws, so it is useless appealing to it; introspection exists but it is completely mistaken regarding what it yields, so the claims it produces are of no scientific interest (Skinner 1974); introspection does not exist, what is taken for introspection being only the expression of naive theories of the subject regarding psychological causality, pointless getting interested in this, it isn't introspection (Nesbitt & Wilson 1977); the information generated by introspection is worthless, it has no fundamental utility, one can only disregard it (Boring 1953); the proof that there is no such thing as introspection - assuming that it is the world of an 'internal sense' - is that, in contrast to the other senses, this internal sense could yield no phenomenology (Lyons 1986)" http://www.es-conseil.fr/GREX/textes%20vermersch/psycho- francaise_english.htm 18885 From: nidive Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:42pm Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi James, > Let me put it in simple terms, mind states or thoughts cannot be > known while they are occurring because there is no self to know > them, they can only be known after the fact. As if there is a self who then appears after the fact to know about those thoughts. That's very illogical. If there is no self to know the thoughts as they occur, how can there be a self that then arises to know about those thoughts after the fact? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18886 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: Control Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Dear Group, I have been following with interest the threads on control/no control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, and all the previous ones. < snip > I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. < snip > The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous change at this point in my journey. KKT: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. As I understand your position, you opt for the << non-control >> and << absolute conditionality >> do you not ? The problem is that such theories lead inevitably to the case of << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> In such case, liberation becomes << impossible >> since everything is determined in advance by << conditions >> Maybe you can argue that this is Panna (i.e. the cetasika Panna/Wisdom) which is the << essential condition >> for liberation would be possible. But Panna also arises as the result of other conditions. Therefore we return always to the initial case of << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> and the question becomes: __What makes Panna arise in Christine and not in another common ignorant worldling? Why Christine and not the other one? Since everything arises by conditions, if Panna could arise in Christine then it could also arise in the other one? But it arises only in Christine and not in the other one, therefore somewhere sometime in the process of << development >> of both Christine and the other worldling, something should happens << QUITE RANDOMLY >> so that Panna arises only in Christine and not in the other one :-)) Do you see the point? :-)) Remember that both Christine and the other worldling have << no-control >> over the process of their development :-)) What is then this << thing >> that happens << RANDOMLY >> and << not by conditions >> ? :-)) Don't tell me this is God's Grace ! :-)) Cheers :-) KKT 18887 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:39pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Geez, Jon - I dunno! ;-) I think it is an instance of right effort to attempt to be mindful, to not get "lost" in thought, to not permit oneself to be "taken over" by fantasies, etc, etc. I think these are good and useful things to do, and recommended by the Buddha. That's about all I can say. -------------------------------------------------------- In an earlier post you quoted 2 passages from the suttas as showing the 4 right efforts to be quite conventional [and to be something that one really has to *work* at with diligence and considerable expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of concentration and mindfulness]. I take the 3rd of these 4 right efforts, the 'effort to develop'. On the effort to develop, the first passage reads: "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavours, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of ... the arising of skilful qualities that have not yet arisen ..." I think the key question is, is this describing a (conventional) resolve/intention to have kusala in place of presently-arising akusala, or is it referring to moments at which kusala arises/has arisen and is actually present? The second passage gives the following answer to this question [the *emphasis* is mine]: "And what is the *exertion to develop*? "There is the case where a monk *develops* the *mindfulness factor* for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. He *develops* the *investigation of qualities factor* for Awakening... dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is *called the exertion to develop*." So it is the *developing* that is called the *exertion to develop*. To my reading, this can only be referring to the moment of actual arising of kusala, rather than any thoughts/intention/resolve about its development. The other 3 right efforts read similarly (I have copied them below). The reason why it cannot be any other way is, I suggest, as obvious enough when you think about it. If the resolve 'to have kusala' in order to be free from the akusala of that moment was itself kusala, then there would be no need 'to have kusala' (since the resolve itself is kusala). The same goes for 'attempting to be mindful' -- this must be a moment when mindfulness is absent, otherwise no attempt would be necessary. It is perhaps tempting to assume that well-intentioned thinking to develop the path must be kusala because its object is to have kusala, to practice the Dhamma, to carry out the Buddha's teaching. But that is actually a sort of reasoning or 'logical deduction', i.e., 'If the action is such-and-such kusala action, the mind-state must be kusala'. However, it is not a conclusion that is borne out by the teachings. We should not underestimate the power and subtlety (trickiness) of akusala. Even the most well-intentioned resolve on our part is going to be informed by the same ignorance and wrong view that conditions the akusala moments that we are resolving to move away from. Jon ****************************** Passages from the Pali Canon § 49. There are these four right exertions. Which four? There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses persistence, upholds & exerts his intent for the sake of the non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, increase, plenitude, development, & culmination of skillful qualities that have arisen. These are the four right exertions. Just as the River Ganges flows to the east, slopes to the east, inclines to the east, in the same way when a monk develops & pursues the four right exertions, he flows to Unbinding, slopes to Unbinding, inclines to Unbinding. (SN XLIX.1) § 50. There are these four exertions. Which four? The exertion to guard, the exertion to abandon, the exertion to develop, & the exertion to maintain. And what is the exertion to guard? There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does not grasp at any theme or variations by which -- if he were to dwell without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices with restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. (Similarly with the ear, nose, tongue, body, & intellect.) This is called the exertion to guard. And what is the exertion to abandon? There is the case where a monk does not acquiesce to a thought of sensuality that has arisen [in him]. He abandons it, destroys it, dispels it, wipes it out of existence. He does not acquiesce to a thought of ill will... a thought of harmfulness... any evil, unskillful qualities that have arisen [in him]. He abandons them, destroys them, dispels them, wipes them out of existence. This is called the exertion to abandon. And what is the exertion to develop? There is the case where a monk develops the mindfulness factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. He develops the investigation of qualities factor for Awakening... the persistence factor for Awakening... the rapture factor for Awakening... the serenity factor for Awakening... the concentration factor for Awakening... the equanimity factor for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is called the exertion to develop. And what is the exertion to maintain? There is the case where a monk maintains a favorable theme of concentration -- the skeleton perception, the worm-eaten perception, the livid perception, the festering perception, the falling-apart perception, the bloated perception. This is called the exertion to maintain. (AN IV.14) 18888 From: Egberdina Date: Sat Jan 18, 2003 11:57pm Subject: Did the Buddha have any control? Hi all, I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings :- ). Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? All the best Herman 18889 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 0:08am Subject: Re: Control Hello KKT, Herman and all, I am not skilled in debate or in the terms you are using. May I ask if you believe that anything exists now, or has existed ever, independant of a cause? If so, can you explain (in simple terms for me please) what it is? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > > Dear Christine, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > > Dear Group, > > I have been following with interest the threads on control/no > control. To my understanding, decisions I make and actions I take > now are the result of everything that has gone before in this life, > and all the previous ones. > > < snip > > > I 'seem' to make 'free' choices, but that is because of all the > conditions leading up to that moment. Previous conditions have > formed my desires, reactions, opinions, ambitions and plans. > > < snip > > > The most I can have through listening to the true Dhamma, reflecting > on it, associating with 'admirable friends' is a very slow increase > in panna, a slow wearing away of my defilements that will condition > different reactions in the future. There will be no instantaneous > change at this point in my journey. > > > > > KKT: Thanks for sharing your thoughts. > > As I understand your position, > you opt for the << non-control >> > and << absolute conditionality >> > do you not ? > > The problem is that such theories > lead inevitably to the case of > << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> > > In such case, liberation becomes > << impossible >> since everything is > determined in advance by << conditions >> > > Maybe you can argue that this is Panna > (i.e. the cetasika Panna/Wisdom) > which is the << essential condition >> > for liberation would be possible. > > But Panna also arises as the result > of other conditions. Therefore > we return always to the initial case of > << ABSOLUTE DETERMINISM >> > and the question becomes: > > __What makes Panna arise in Christine > and not in another common ignorant worldling? > > Why Christine and not the other one? > > Since everything arises by conditions, > if Panna could arise in Christine > then it could also arise in the other one? > > But it arises only in Christine and > not in the other one, therefore somewhere > sometime in the process of << development >> > of both Christine and the other worldling, > something should happens << QUITE RANDOMLY >> > so that Panna arises only in Christine > and not in the other one :-)) > > > Do you see the point? :-)) > > > Remember that both Christine and > the other worldling have << no-control >> > over the process of their development :-)) > > What is then this << thing >> that happens > << RANDOMLY >> and << not by conditions >> ? :-)) > > Don't tell me this is God's Grace ! :-)) > > > Cheers :-) > > > KKT 18890 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 0:28am Subject: Re: Did the Buddha have any control? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi all, > > I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not > possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings :- > ). > > Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? > > All the best > > > Herman Hi Herman, LOL! ;-) This is a very cute post and I really like it, but I am not sure if it can be answered. Who could really answer…DIRECTLY… what the Buddha did with his mind? Gosh, even during his own time many people tried to pin him down to give an answer they could understand and his responses were always as slippery as butter on ice on ball bearings on banana peels in a roller skate factory! LOL! (nods to `Far Side'). Obviously, he wanted us to look to ourselves for these kinds of answers. You know what you can control and what you can't; be that `Beast Master' you were born to be! ;-) No needs to convince others or have them convince you, really. But a smile is always appreciated! Thank you Herman, I was beginning to get sucked into the vortex of over-seriousness and you saved me. I salute you! ;-) Metta, James 18891 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 1:42am Subject: Re: Control Dear Herman, and KKT, and all, I think we may be more in agreement than it first appears. I think we are assuming what the others believe and then arguing against a phantom. I probably do this also in the following - just let me know if I have assumed you hold a position that you don't. I think what you are both pointing to is that you believe you have Absolute Free Will. I don't like labels very much, but I think that Absolute Determinism that KKT mentioned and Absolute Free Will, its opposite, are both bound up in self view - a self who can control and a self who can't. The Dhamma is the middle way and is neither. I asked in another post about whether you believed there was anything that exists now, or has existed ever, independant of a cause ... this is because one of the basic tenets of Buddhism is the Law of Conditionality - Dependent Origination. The Buddha says: When there is this, that is. With the arising of this, that arises. When this is not, neither is that. With the cessation of this, that ceases. My understanding of Dependent Origination is derived from the suttas in the Pali Canon of the Theravada tradition. The scholar and teacher Walpola Rahula in his book "What the Buddha taught" explained that the Paticca-samuppada meant that nothing in the world is absolute - everything is conditioned, relative and interdependent. He said, "The question of Free Will has occupied an important place in Western thought and philosophy. But according to Conditioned Genesis, this question does not and cannot arise in Buddhist philosophy. If the whole of existence is relative, conditioned and interdependent, how can will alone be free? Will, like any other thought, is conditioned. So-called 'freedom' itself is conditioned and relative. Such a conditioned and relative 'Free Will' is not denied. There can be nothing absolutely free, physical or mental, as everything is interdependent and relative. If Free Will implies a will independent of conditions, independent of cause and effect, such a thing does not exist. How can a will, or anything for that matter, arise without conditions, away from cause and effect, when the whole of existence is conditioned and relative, and is within the law of cause and effect? Here again, the idea of Free Will is basically connected with the ideas of God, Soul, justice, reward and punishment. Not only is so-called free will not free, but even the very idea of Free Will is not free from conditions." I think this is what I was trying to say in my original post - that decisions we make are dependent on everything that has gone before, and that there is no absolute free will. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Egberdina " wrote: > Dear Chrstine, > > Thanks for your two cents. Now in a country like Australia, where the > smallest denomination of currency is the 5 cent coin, your two cents > would be rounded down to 0 :-). Happily , on dsg the only currency is > metta, karuna etc etc and all contributions are of inestimable value. > > I appreciate your description of how you view the matter of control. > > Do you totally reject the ability to selectively learn? To me your > description reads like the absolute determinism that KKT describes. > > I may have got this wrong but when Rusty needed lots of dollars > poured into his health fund, was there rumination, weighing up and a > final decision? Or are you saying the decision was the only one ever > going to be made, and the rumination and weighing up was also always > going to happen. > > On another thread, you mentioned that the Buddha would be able to > have full knowledge of whatever he set his mind to. But according to > what you are talking about here, the Buddha could only set his mind > on whatever conditions determined. Is there a contradiction? > > Consider this. When I flush the toilet, the reservoir fills up to a > certain level, according to where the float is positioned and how the > valve is set. Everytime I flush, the water comes back to exactly the > same level. It is a self-governing, self-regulating system. The > universe is replete with self-governing systems. You are one of them. > So am I. Now I can tinker with the conditions that affect the water > level in my toilet reservoir, changing the position of the float, and > voila next time I flush, the water comes up to a different level. > > Now you are going to say that me tinkering with the float was always > going to happen. And I reject that, categorically, outright and > totally even :-) > > You are a self-governing system, that is able to tinker with *some* > of the parameters that affect your self-governing system. > > You are a self-governing system that tinkers with the conditions that > affect Rusty and your daughter and all your staff and clients at the > hospital. You and everybody else are works in progress. > > What is the value of liberation if through it one looses the option > to walk straight back into prison. That sounds more like a lobotomy > to me :-) > > > I'll make this a three cent contribution :-) > > > All the best > > > Herman 18892 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Becoming a Monk Dear Phra Pakdi Yanawaro, Thank you for sharing these comments with us: --- pakdi yanawaro wrote: > I usually reply that i want to have a new 'middle' way > of life in a new environment, which will facilitate > the practice of dhamma. moreover, since i got ordained > at an old age (72), i want to spend my last years of > life in a more meaningful way. ..... May I also welcome you to DSG and hope that you find the discussions of value as many of us do. If you would care to add any more comments and let us know at which temple you are based in Thailand, I'm sure many members would be interested to hear. Thank you again. With respect, Sarah ====== 18893 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:39am Subject: Re: Did the Buddha have any control? Hi Herman, I think your question should be qualified. Is control without a controller possible? Yes, it is possible. How is that so? To those who doesn't recognize the subtle thinking that arises when pondering over this question, the thought "I am in control" or "I am the one who controls" arises. When one doesn't recognize this thought as the conceit "I am", confusion arises. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18894 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] No-control & Destiny KKT --- "phamdluan2000 " wrote: > Dear Jon, ... > KKT: Thanks for your sharing. > > According to the quote > << the Buddha has a twofold teaching >> > in order to be > << best suited to enable the > hearer to penetrate the meaning >> > But it seems he didn't say that > the two levels << leading to exactly > the same stages of understanding > and final attainment >> as you said? > > The reason of my question is that > I think the two levels of instruction > don't lead to the << same >> final attainment, > but the first level leads to the second level > (i.e. from the lower one arrives at the higher) > > What do you think? I'm always ready to listen ;-)) What's your thinking, and do you have any support from the texts? Jon 18895 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:59am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor --- "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Jon, > > There are two points I would like to make: > > 1. You said that: > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that > each of these khandhas is not self." > > Whom is the pronoun "we" referring to? Is it referring to you and > me? Or is it referring to you and some others? Or is it referring > to everyone? We are at cross-purposes here, Victor. I am summarising or paraphrasing the words of the Buddha from the suttas (to the best of my understanding), while you are taking my statement as an expression of my own experience or developed view, which it certainly is not. If you find any inaccuracy in the statement *as simply a restatement of what was taught by the Buddha*, then by all means share your thoughts with us. BTW, if it is just the pronoun "we" that is a concern, the statement could be rephrased as follows: "The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of these khandhas is not self." Do you see any problems with this? > If you take the five aggregate for yourself, I would suggest you > abandon the view "the aggregates are self." Well I can agree with the underlying sentiment here, namely, that a view that 'the aggregates are self' would not be a correct view. As for abandoning, I believe that is easier said than done. To my understanding, wrong view can be eradicated only by the development of satipatthana and insight into the true nature of presently arising dhammas. Any attempt at 'directed' abandoning will be of no useful effect. Are we in agreement on this point? Jon 18896 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:59am Subject: The Fortress Simile Hi All, I think this Sutta shows very clearly that nibbana is an object to be experienced by consciousness (cittas). Samyutta Nikaya XXXV.204 Kimsuka Sutta The Riddle Tree "Suppose, monk, that there were a royal frontier fortress with strong walls & ramparts and six gates. In it would be a wise, experienced, intelligent gatekeeper to keep out those he didn't know and to let in those he did. A swift pair of messengers, coming from the east, would say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come. Then a swift pair of messengers, coming from the west... the north... the south, would say to the gatekeeper, 'Where, my good man, is the commander of this fortress?' He would say, 'There he is, sirs, sitting in the central square.' The swift pair of messengers, delivering their accurate report to the commander of the fortress, would then go back by the route by which they had come. "I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message is this: The fortress stands for this body -- composed of four elements, born of mother & father, nourished with rice & barley gruel, subject to constant rubbing & abrasion, to breaking & falling apart. The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the fortress stands for consciousness. The central square stands for the four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-204.html In this simile, the pair of messengers (tranquility and insight) deliver the accurate report (nibbana) to the commander (consciousness). The commander reads the accurate report, just as consciousness "reads" (experiences) nibbana. I think this Sutta directly supports the Abhidhamma position that nibbana is experienced as an object of consciousness. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18897 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] intro Hi Dave (& Azita), Let me just second Azita's welcome: --- azita gill wrote: > --- "dave " > > dear Dave, > welcome from another lurker. yes, you can learn > things by just sitting back and 'listening' but it > also raises a lot of puzzles so feel comfortable about > asking questions. Someone usually kindly answers a > question, especially if you are persistent!!! > where do you live? would be nice if you told us > a little about yourself, but under no obligation if > you don't want to. i'm Azita, I live in australia and > have kind of studied the Buddha's teaching for about > 25 years, and i have known some of the others on the > site for about the same time. ..... I'm one of the ones that first met Azita a long time back;-) As she says, we'd be glad to hear anything further you care to share. We have a 'David' as you'll have seen, but if he stays 'David' and you stay 'Dave' we should be alright;-) peace to you both. Sarah p.s David - good to see you around again;-) Azita - (Jon had had a particularly tough week at work and so, after weeks of 'pressure' from my students, I suggested "Lord of the Rings2" yest. evening. Good intentions as I knew I probably wouldn't like it. The only seats left were right at the front. The opening shots of snowy mountains were fine and then the special effects started (and I didn't have my ear-plugs with me). I only lasted 5 minutes, I'm sorry to say. It now holds the record with "Men in Black" for a fast walk out.I have a long way to go with the 'patience and good cheer' here - some 'zap' posts and others 'zap' movies;-)) On the questions to put aside and so on, I think as Nina suggested, so much depends on the context, the person and the understanding. I don't believe it's just a matter of the wording of the questions, though there are of course some which were always put aside. Of course, only the Buddha knew just what was right and just what was in the mind of the one asking. For the rest of us, we just do our best according to very limited knowledge and understanding and often having to take into account other less noble considerations too such as our patience and good cheer at the time. Sometimes at work or at the gym, I put aside ordinary questions, not because they are of no value, but often (if I'm honest about it) because I just don't feel like answering. As usual, it comes down to the citta and mental states, don't you think? Hope you've settled back 'inspired' by your trip. I'm always glad to read your comments. ================ 18898 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:11am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Victor You said: <> and in an earlier post (also to me): << If you see yourself as five aggregates, abandon that view.>> Depending on what you have in mind here, I might be in agreement with your thinking ;-)). The Buddha explained that in reality 'the world' (and this includes ourselves) is only the 5 khandhas. However, he didn't say that we should be *trying to 'see' the world/ourselves as the 5 khandhas*. Similarly, although he also explained that in reality the khandhas are not self, he didn't say that we should be *trying so 'see' the khandhas as not self*. What the Buddha taught as the path to be developed is, as Peter put it in a recent post, a matter of *just understanding*. There is no 'trying to see' things in this way or that. The conditions for developing this mere understanding are not easy to appreciate. I understand them to include: - repeated listening to/reading of the actual teachings (the Tipitaka) and their commentaries, - reflecting on what has been heard or studied and - applying what has been understood from the listening and reflecting. To many people this sounds like a purely intellectual exercise, but properly understood it is much more than that. It is or can be a condition for a better understanding of the presently arising reality. I think part of the reason for the scepticism that many have about this is that there's no immediate and direct 'result'. The results come in their own good time. The accumulation of understanding is very gradual and subtle and is absolutely not self (as in the adze-handle simile). So if by your statements above you mean, Don't try to 'see' yourself as five aggregates, then I can happily agree that that is not what the teachings are about ;-)) Jon 18899 From: david_wheeler58 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:43am Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hello James Ok, I've sniped out here what for me are the important points as this relates to Buddhist meditation and understanding. I'm going to get back to you on this because I want to chose my words carefuly. I to had the same feeling you do about it being impossible for one mind to both be and observe itself being. After all, how could the latter not be part of the former? However I'm no longer so sure that in some way it's not possible. James: > What I am saying is that it has already been proven in modern times, > through empirical data collection and analysis, that introspection, > in the form of meditation or not, is an insufficient means to > establish a phenomenological psychology (A philosophy or method of > inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and > events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness > and not of anything independent of human consciousness). In other > words, it has been scientifically proven that the mind cannot figure > itself out; at least not completely enough to create a > phenomenological psychology. Additionally, the Buddha never > intended meditation to be used as a means to `figure out the mind', > because that is impossible (which I will explain the reasons > momentarily), he meant it as a means to liberate the mind; which > doesn't require a phenomenological psychology. In other words, for > the mind to know itself, there would have to be two minds- one > observing and one being observed. Of course, what he was saying is > that there is no `self' to observe mental processes directly so > introspection is a flawed endeavor. Metta, David 18900 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 5:38am Subject: Re: Control Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: Hello KKT, Herman and all, I am not skilled in debate or in the terms you are using. KKT: Discussion, not debate. At least for me :-)) ------------ May I ask if you believe that anything exists now, or has existed ever, independant of a cause? If so, can you explain (in simple terms for me please) what it is? KKT: I adhere wholeheartedly to the doctrines of << no-self >> and << conditionality >> as I have pointed out that these are << fundamental Buddhist teachings >> that make Buddhism different from other religions and philosophies. The questions I raised are also the questions I raised for myself. I've found that << something >> should be missing somewhere ??? -------------- metta, Christine Metta, KKT 18901 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 37, Comm, Breathing Hi Larry, op 19-01-2003 06:18 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > I see in Way 38 anapanasati culminates in the transcendence of doubt. I > take that to be a sotapanna magga citta; so perhaps the scenario of > jhana and insight may not happen exactly as described the first time you > try it, or even the second or third time. Can we at least say that is > the goal? N: Yes, then he has attained to the stage of the sotåpanna. The sukkha vipassaka does not necessarily have to be aware of breath first, he must thoroughly penetrate the true nature of nama and rupa that appear: any kind of rupa, feeling, citta and cetasikas. As to the jhana labhi, after he emerges from jhana he also must be aware of all kinds of nama and rupa, not merely of breath. First time, second or third, I believe innumerable times of awareness and understanding. As to the attainment of jhana, we have read about the nimitta of breath, that he must be sure that it is the right nimitta, sure of inbreath, sure of outbreath. Thus, panna of the level of samatha has to be very keen and refined, very precise. And no trying with attachment. One should not strive after the goal with lobha. L: I think it would be a good procedure to really get into cultivating > tranquility in this way and then finish up with a somewhat formal > contemplation of breath, its source in the body, the body as part of > namarupa, the components of nama and rupa, their conditional arising, > that they are impersonal, separate and distinct phenomena, not a living > being or person and that they have the characteristics of impermanence, > dukkha, and not self. N: All this is not thinking of conditions, thinking of characteristics, it is direct understanding, developed stage by stage. One stage of insight after the other. Is it based on the scriptures that one should first develop tranquillity? L: I'm still not clear on cultivating a nimitta in anapanasati. Perhaps it > is just a matter of cultivating a close, delicate relationship with the > breath and nudging that toward a simple, conceptual purity, in order to > let go of sensory sensations without losing one's stillness and > devolving into internal chatter. The nimita seems to be a reference > point in the background, while the stillness is the primary > consideration. N: As we read, when one is sure about the nimitta of breath, and it is the real one, not a product of miccha samadhi, the hindrances are subdued at that moment, no doubt. It just happens because of the right conditions, the right way of development. There is calm at that moment, no attachment to being calm. Since calm has arisen because of the appropriate condiitons, it is not necessary to have calm (stillness) as one's primary consideration. Nina. 18902 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re:nibbana, and a cook book Dear Num, thanks for a lovely post. You clarified many things and I was delighted to hear about the discussions, so lively, just what I like. . Yes, I think so too, paccavekkhana is so close to the enlightenment process, just as close as sense-door and mind-door. And then the cookbook, I love cooking. Very daily, no words needed for direct awareness, thanks a lot, Nina. the method of cooking from a book, but never know > how does the food taste ( at that moment, I thought of my Saveur cook book > series at home, definitely with lobha, no doubt). One may read a lot about > vinaya, sutta, or abhidhamma but never sees the true characteristic of dhamma( > like reading, memorizing a cook book). That leaded us back to discussion on > satipatthana, sati, panna, and satisampajana. Sati, mindfulness, of the > characteristic of the reality(nama, rupa) is like tasting a food. No word > needed to describe it, but we know how does it taste. 18903 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/19/03 1:43:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi James, > > >Let me put it in simple terms, mind states or thoughts cannot be > >known while they are occurring because there is no self to know > >them, they can only be known after the fact. > > As if there is a self who then appears after the fact to know about > those thoughts. > > That's very illogical. If there is no self to know the thoughts as > they occur, how can there be a self that then arises to know about > those thoughts after the fact? > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > ============================ If I may jump in here - I think this may be James' point.(If not, I apologize, James.) There is no self to be knowing thoughts during their ocurrence (or after, for that matter). There is just knowing, a function that occurs. Whether that knowing is in the form of a thought, i.e. is a knowing through the mind door, or is a knowing through a physical sense door, there is no "self" that stands back and observes the whole thing, engaging in simultaneous apperception. During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the object), together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be cognition of the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". 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) 18904 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 2:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Intention, willing and no-control (was, Descriptive vs Prescriptive) Hi, Jon - In a message dated 1/19/03 2:41:33 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > >Hi, Jon - > ... > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Geez, Jon - I dunno! ;-) I think it is an instance of right > effort to attempt to be mindful, to not get "lost" in thought, to not > permit oneself to be "taken over" by fantasies, etc, etc. I think > these are good and useful things to do, and recommended by the > Buddha. That's about all I can say. > -------------------------------------------------------- > > In an earlier post you quoted 2 passages from the suttas as showing > the 4 right efforts to be quite conventional [and to be something > that one really has to *work* at with diligence and considerable > expenditure of energy led by rigorous application of concentration > and mindfulness]. I take the 3rd of these 4 right efforts, the > 'effort to develop'. > > On the effort to develop, the first passage reads: > "There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavours, arouses > persistence, upholds &exerts his intent for the sake of ... the > arising of skilful qualities that have not yet arisen ..." > > I think the key question is, is this describing a (conventional) > resolve/intention to have kusala in place of presently-arising > akusala, or is it referring to moments at which kusala arises/has > arisen and is actually present? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: To me, to "generate desire, endeavour, arouse persistence, uphold & exert one's intent for the sake of" something is quite conventional effort. The Buddha was very good with language, and, to me my reading is quite straightforward. ------------------------------------------------- > > The second passage gives the following answer to this question [the > *emphasis* is mine]: > > "And what is the *exertion to develop*? > "There is the case where a monk *develops* the *mindfulness factor* > for Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, > resulting in letting go. He *develops* the *investigation of > qualities factor* for Awakening... dependent on seclusion... > dispassion... cessation, resulting in letting go. This is *called the > exertion to develop*." > > So it is the *developing* that is called the *exertion to develop*. > To my reading, this can only be referring to the moment of actual > arising of kusala, rather than any thoughts/intention/resolve about > its development. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: That may be so. It may well be that, despite the misleading name (or misleading tranlation) "exertion to develop", what is referred to here is the developing, itself, which is a consequence in part of the "effort to develop". ---------------------------------------------- > > The other 3 right efforts read similarly (I have copied them below). > > The reason why it cannot be any other way is, I suggest, as obvious > enough when you think about it. If the resolve 'to have kusala' in > order to be free from the akusala of that moment was itself kusala, > then there would be no need 'to have kusala' (since the resolve > itself is kusala). The same goes for 'attempting to be mindful' -- > this must be a moment when mindfulness is absent, otherwise no > attempt would be necessary. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: We can "resolve" to have kusala thought and to mindful all day long, but that resolve, by itself, is insufficient. But hearing from the Buddha the aggregate of conditions needed for any given result, together with a strong desire for that result, may enable the arising of the volition to bring about certain remaining conditions that lead to path factors. By certain physical and mental actions, in the presence of other conditions, concentration and mindfulness, for example, can be increased. And volition plays a crucial role in this, and in all human action. ------------------------------------------------- > > It is perhaps tempting to assume that well-intentioned thinking to > develop the path must be kusala because its object is to have kusala, > to practice the Dhamma, to carry out the Buddha's teaching. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well intentioned thinking is just that. If, because of lack of other conditions, it leads to nothing more, then it is like a pipe dream. But, in particular, if we *stop* with the well intentioned thinking, then we have little hope for further developments. --------------------------------------------------- But that> > is actually a sort of reasoning or 'logical deduction', i.e., 'If the > action is such-and-such kusala action, the mind-state must be > kusala'. However, it is not a conclusion that is borne out by the > teachings. > > We should not underestimate the power and subtlety (trickiness) of > akusala. Even the most well-intentioned resolve on our part is going > to be informed by the same ignorance and wrong view that conditions > the akusala moments that we are resolving to move away from. > ----------------------------------------------- Howard: And we should also not underestimate the power of such thinking to induce in a us a tendency towards inaction, justified by musings such as "We never know for sure what role akusala tendencies are playing, so we'd best do nothing." ------------------------------------------------- > > Jon > ======================== With metta, Howard > > ****************************** > Passages from the Pali Canon > > § 49. There are these four right exertions. Which four? > > There is the case where a monk generates desire, endeavors, arouses > persistence, upholds &exerts his intent for the sake of the > non-arising of evil, unskillful qualities that have not yet arisen... > for the sake of the abandoning of evil, unskillful qualities that > have arisen... for the sake of the arising of skillful qualities that > have not yet arisen...(and) for the maintenance, non-confusion, > increase, plenitude, development, &culmination of skillful qualities > that have arisen. These are the four right exertions. > > Just as the River Ganges flows to the east, slopes to the east, > inclines to the east, in the same way when a monk develops &pursues > the four right exertions, he flows to Unbinding, slopes to Unbinding, > inclines to Unbinding. > > (SN XLIX.1) > > § 50. There are these four exertions. Which four? The exertion to > guard, the exertion to abandon, the exertion to develop, &the > exertion to maintain. > > And what is the exertion to guard? > There is the case where a monk, on seeing a form with the eye, does > not grasp at any theme or variations by which -- if he were to dwell > without restraint over the faculty of the eye -- evil, unskillful > qualities such as greed or distress might assail him. He practices > with restraint. He guards the faculty of the eye. He achieves > restraint with regard to the faculty of the eye. (Similarly with the > ear, nose, tongue, body, &intellect.) This is called the exertion to > guard. > > And what is the exertion to abandon? > There is the case where a monk does not acquiesce to a thought of > sensuality that has arisen [in him]. He abandons it, destroys it, > dispels it, wipes it out of existence. He does not acquiesce to a > thought of ill will... a thought of harmfulness... any evil, > unskillful qualities that have arisen [in him]. He abandons them, > destroys them, dispels them, wipes them out of existence. This is > called the exertion to abandon. > > And what is the exertion to develop? > There is the case where a monk develops the mindfulness factor for > Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, > resulting in letting go. He develops the investigation of qualities > factor for Awakening... the persistence factor for Awakening... the > rapture factor for Awakening... the serenity factor for Awakening... > the concentration factor for Awakening... the equanimity factor for > Awakening dependent on seclusion... dispassion... cessation, > resulting in letting go. This is called the exertion to develop. > > And what is the exertion to maintain? > There is the case where a monk maintains a favorable theme of > concentration -- the skeleton perception, the worm-eaten perception, > the livid perception, the festering perception, the falling-apart > perception, the bloated perception. This is called the exertion to > maintain. > > (AN IV.14) > /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) 18905 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 7:58am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi Howard, My interpretation of James message is that while thoughts are occurring, these thoughts cannot be known. But somehow after those thoughts have subsided, it becomes possible to know them. If thoughts cannot be known at Time A while they are occurring, how can they be known at Time B when they have subsided? What you said in the quoted paragraph below is what I agree with. > During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the object), > together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of > concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be > cognition of the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". I think James is implying that there cannot be knowing of the known (the object) at Time A. This knowing can only take place at Time B. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18906 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 1/19/03 10:59:44 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > My interpretation of James message is that while thoughts are > occurring, these thoughts cannot be known. But somehow after those > thoughts have subsided, it becomes possible to know them. > > If thoughts cannot be known at Time A while they are occurring, how > can they be known at Time B when they have subsided? > > What you said in the quoted paragraph below is what I agree with. > > >During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the object), > >together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of > >concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be > >cognition of the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". > > I think James is implying that there cannot be knowing of the known > (the object) at Time A. This knowing can only take place at Time B. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > ============================== Hmm. I'm not sure. When I'm thinking about my car (a complex process consisting of a string of thoughts), the primary object of awareness is 'the car'. (Throughout the train of thought, there may actually be some variation with regard to object. Sometimes "the car as a whole" is grasped, sometimes just elements of it, sometimes associated concepts are grasped.) The mode of cognizing it is conceptual - through the mind door. Immediately following the thought of 'the car' there may be an awareness of that very thought, of the immediately preceding mindstate, or aspects of it, as a fresh memory. It does seem to me, by introspection, that there is a difference between the discernment occurring while "having a thought" and the discernment *of* that thought (as an object of consciousness), the latter, I believe, occurring *after* the thought, per se, has subsided, and only a fresh memory remains. Now that may or may not be what James was going for, and it may or may not be your understanding. And for that matter, it may or may not be the Abhidhammic take on the matter. I'm really not at all sure about this. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 18907 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:45am Subject: Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi Howard and All, > Immediately following the thought of 'the car' there may be an > awareness of that very thought, of the immediately preceding > mindstate, or aspects of it, as a fresh memory. It does seem to > me, by introspection, that there is a difference between the > discernment occurring while "having a thought" and the discernment > *of* that thought (as an object of consciousness), the latter, I > believe, occurring *after* the thought, per se, has subsided, and > only a fresh memory remains. I totally agree with you on this! > And for that matter, it may or may not be the Abhidhammic > take on the matter. I'm really not at all sure about this. Would any Abhidhamma gurus please clarify on this matter? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18908 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:05am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? Dear Nina (and NEO Swee Boon), I didn't look up the references (yet). The information (that I remember) comes from a tape given by A. Sujin about what cittas experience Nibbana. I vividly remembers the mano-dvara-vacana: she said this citta is great from the standpoint that it experiences all aramanas, including nibbana, but unlike lokuttara cittas (and perhaps the reviewing nana-sampayutta), it doesn't truly know what nibbana is. The simile is then given: it is like a lowly person who serves the king - a lowly person may experience the same object as the king (people he serves the king), but doesn't appreciate all the subtleties of the object as the king is. In this tape she doesn't explain which of the nana-sampayutta experiences nibbana (perhaps all 4, perhaps just 2). She also doesn't exclude the tadalambana explicitly, although I think what you say makes sense. I have a similar question about path and fruition cittas (for somebody who hasn't attained jhana): is it with somanassa or without? The last time I asked this question, I was given the answer "both", but I didn't get to ask why one over another, so this is still all muddy for me. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 9:32 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Which cittas experience nibbana? > > 18909 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ============================ > If I may jump in here - I think this may be James' point. (If not, I > apologize, James.) > There is no self to be knowing thoughts during their ocurrence (or > after, for that matter). There is just knowing, a function that occurs. > Whether that knowing is in the form of a thought, i.e. is a knowing through > the mind door, or is a knowing through a physical sense door, there is no > "self" that stands back and observes the whole thing, engaging in > simultaneous apperception. During a mindstate there is knowing and known (the > object), together, as a single event, and accompanied by a variety of > concomitant operations (the cetasikas). Afterwards, there may be cognition of > the earier event, as what I call a "fresh memory". > > With metta, > Howard Howard, Yes, you caught my meaning. I apologize that I wasn't clearer but my written words don't always fill in the details of what I am thinking (I write a lot of words as it is! ;-). I didn't mean that the previous mind state or thought is really `known' after it occurs. What is really known is the `fresh memory' of it, as you state; I also think of it in terms of a quickly fading footprint. The thought will leave a `footprint' in consciousness, as all mental processes are chemical in nature and it takes some time for the chemicals (neurotransmitters) to leave the synapses of the neurons, and then other firing neurons can know (piece together) what proceeded previously because there are some traces of what just occurred. However, the neurons must work very fast to catch this and it usually takes many tries, feedback loops, to get a clear picture of the proceeding memory from its footprint. In my meditation experience I have found that there is an outside `awareness' of this process, but it doesn't associate cognitive labels to the processes. This `awareness', when cognized afterward (by a method I can't pin down as of yet…but seems to be possible because the awareness is an undercurrent to all mental processes), is only that the processes are empty and transient. Metta, James 18910 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:57am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello Jon, all >"The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in >general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of >these khandhas is not self." > >Do you see any problems with this? Not really, but I have a question concerning seeing the khandhas as the world. I've never really been clear on this. Rupa is taken to mean not just the physical body but matter, or the world, in general. I have some thoughts on this but I just want to ask the elementary question: why? If the khandhas are one of the analysis of the conventional self then how does rupa get interpreted as all rupa, not just the body? The other four khandha are not so regarded. Vinnana also exists 'out there' so why isn't it also regarded as all sentience: yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. As rupa is yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. metta, stephen (I hope we can avoid quibbling over pronouns ;-) 18911 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:59am Subject: Armadillos, cheetahs, samma dithi, Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Frank, and All, Language should certainly be used in a manner which is sensitive to the situation and social environment. At the hospital, the more scatologically inclined patients would not 'hear' language more familiar to the Surgeons or Chaplains. They would think it pompous and patronising, and it would not serve the main purpose of spoken language which is to communicate clearly. The reverse could also be true - language they might understand and be comfortable with would be innapropriate for use with the medicos and religious ones. All the Buddha had to communicate with was the spoken word. It is natural that he used it to induce certain mind states in his audience. He had to draw a fine line between 'frightening the horses' and making an impact. I don't think he used language carelessly, though translations may seem awkward at times. I wonder what exactly the Buddha was meaning when he said we should see danger in the slightest fault. This weekend I seem to see frequent mention of 'danger' in the suttas. I don't think it can only mean that by not being careful about 'small' faults, they grow into 'bigger' faults - (or he could have just said that ...). Words like 'danger' and 'revulsion' convey a 'seriousness' that, I think, was intended to arouse alertness. But of what specific danger? Death coming at any time? The possibility of being swept away to lower births for uncountable lives? Slipping backwards and not being born again when the teachings of a Buddha are extant? (Would that be possible ... never to hear the Teachings again? ... a horrifying idea). Frank - I'm really glad for your recent posts - often yours aren't the first I answer, simply because there is nothing much else that needs to be said. Your thoughts are always in tune with the Dhamma and are expressed in a straightforward, commonsense way - usually there is nothing confusing in them or anything that I empatically disagree with. Mostly I find myself saying, 'Yep, that's what I think too' and 'good point' as I read through. They always clarify and are a calming support. Thanks. metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Frank Kuan wrote: 18912 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello Stephen, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: Hello Jon, all >"The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in >general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of >these khandhas is not self." > >Do you see any problems with this? Not really, but I have a question concerning seeing the khandhas as the world. I've never really been clear on this. Rupa is taken to mean not just the physical body but matter, or the world, in general. I have some thoughts on this but I just want to ask the elementary question: why? If the khandhas are one of the analysis of the conventional self then how does rupa get interpreted as all rupa, not just the body? The other four khandha are not so regarded. Vinnana also exists 'out there' so why isn't it also regarded as all sentience: yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. As rupa is yours, mine, and the fish in the sea. metta, stephen (I hope we can avoid quibbling over pronouns ;-) KKT: In general, when people describe the world, they divide into matter/mind. Talking about a human being they divide into body/mind. The Buddha used the same analysis and called rupa/nama. Rupa = Body Nama = Mind He also analysed rupa/nama into more details as 5 aggregates: Body = Rupa Mind = Sensation + Perception + Mental Formations + Consciousness When Abhidhamma analysed the 5 aggregates into more details as 82 paramattha dhamma, Rupa now << embraces >> the whole world of Matter. KKT PS. FYI, the Sarvastivada analysed into 75 Dharmas. The Sautrantika, 84 Dharmas. The Yogacara of Mahayana, 100 Dharmas (The One Hundred Dharmas) 18913 From: nidive Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:38pm Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi James, > The thought will leave a `footprint' in consciousness, as all > mental processes are chemical in nature and it takes some time > for the chemicals (neurotransmitters) to leave the synapses of > the neurons, and then other firing neurons can know (piece > together) what proceeded previously because there are some traces > of what just occurred. However, the neurons must work very fast > to catch this and it usually takes many tries, feedback loops, > to get a clear picture of the proceeding memory from its footprint. If this is how you explain thought processes, then how do you explain the thought processes of devas and brahmas (both material and immaterial realms) and those of hell beings and petas? Do you mean these beings of other realms also have the same kind of chemical reactions taking place? I don't think so. Do beings in the immaterial realms have the same kind of brains as ours? Do they even have brains in the first place? I don't think thought processes should be understood in this manner. It's wacky. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18914 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:47pm Subject: Way 39, Comm, Breathing "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Yhera, Commentary, The Section on Breasthing, p. 51 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Iti ajjhattam va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Thus he lives contemplating the body in the body internally." This bhikkhu dwells in contemplation of the body in his own respiration body. [Tika] By way of the practice of quietude [samatha bhavana] however there is no arising of the sign of full absorption [appana nimittuppatti] in another's respiration-body. Bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives contemplating the body in the body externally." Or this bhikkhu dwells in contemplation of the body in another's respiration-body. [T] "Or... in another's respiration-body." This portion deals with reflection for the growth of insight and has no reference to the growth of full absorption of quietude... Ajjhatta-bahiddha va kaye kayanupassi viharati = "Or he lives contemplating the body in the body internally and externally." At one time in his own and at another in another's respiration-body, he dwells in contemplation of the body. By this there is reference to the time when the yogi's mind moves repeatedly back and forth (internally and externally by way of object) without laying aside the familiar subject of meditation [kalena attano kalena parassa assasapassasakaye etenassa pagunakammatthanam atthapetva aparaparam sañcarana kalo kathito]. [T] "Without laying aside" at intervals, nor from time to time nor occasionally [antarantara na thapetva]. [T] "The time when the mind moves repeatedly back and forth." Or the time when the meditation proceeds incessantly, in the internal and external phenomena [ajjhatta-bahidha dhammesu pi nirantaram va bhavanaya pavattana kalo]. Both cannot occur at once [eka kale pana idam ubbayam na labbhati]. [T] This pair of things stated in combination as internal and external cannot be found in the form of an object at one time, simultaneously. It is not possible to objectify (these two) together is the meaning [ajjhattam bahiddhati ca vuttam idam dhammadvayaghatitam ekasmim kale, ekato arammanabhavena na labbhati. Ekajjham alambitum na sakkati attho]. 18915 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:38pm Subject: Some Basics of Brain Function Hi All, I don't mean to insult those who already know this information, but it has come to my attention that some don't. Skip or read as you please. From encyclopedia.com: Sensory nerve cells feed information to the brain from every part of the body, external and internal. The brain evaluates the data, then sends directives through the motor nerve cells to muscles and glands, causing them to take suitable action. Alternatively, the brain may inhibit action, as when a person tries not to laugh or cry, or it may simply store the information for later use. Both incoming information and outgoing commands traverse the brain and the rest of the nervous system in the form of electrochemical impulses. The human brain consists of some 10 billion interconnected nerve cells with innumerable extensions. This interlacing of nerve fibers and their junctions allows a nerve impulse to follow any of a virtually unlimited number of pathways. The effect is to give humans a seemingly infinite variety of responses to sensory input, which may depend upon experience, mood, or any of numerous other factors. During both sleep and consciousness, the ceaseless electrochemical activity in the brain generates brain waves that can be electronically detected and recorded Neurotransmitter is a chemical that transmits information across the junction ( synapse ) that separates one nerve cell (neuron) from another nerve cell or a muscle. Neurotransmitters are stored in the nerve cell's bulbous end (axon). When an electrical impulse traveling along the nerve reaches the axon, the neurotransmitter is released and travels across the synapse, either prompting or inhibiting continued electrical impulses along the nerve. There are more than 300 known neurotransmitters, including chemicals such as acetylcholine , norepinephrine , adenosine triphosphate , and the endorphins , and gases, such as nitric oxide . Neurotransmitters transmit information within the brain and from the brain to all the parts of the body. Acetylcholine, for example, sends messages to the skeletal muscles, sweat glands, and heart; serotonin release underlies the process of learning and consciousness. The actions of some drugs mimic those of naturally occurring neurotransmitters. The pain-regulating endorphins, for example, are similar in structure to heroin and codeine, which fill endorphin receptors to accomplish their effects. The wakefulness that follows caffeine consumption is the result of its blocking the effects of adenosine, a neurotransmitter that inhibits brain activity. Abnormalities in the production or functioning of certain neurotransmitters have been implicated in a number of diseases including Parkinson's disease , amyotrophic lateral sclerosis , and clinical depression . Synapse is a junction between various signal-transmitter cells, either between two neurons or between a neuron and a muscle or gland. A nerve impulse reaches the synapse through the axon, or transmitting end, of a nerve cell, or neuron. Most axons have terminal knobs that respond to the impulse by releasing a chemical substance known as a neurotransmitter. Crossing a gap of less than a millionth of an inch (the synaptic cleft), the neurotransmitter contacts the adjacent muscle, gland, or nerve cell or its branch receptor sites, called dendrites. Neurotransmitters known to scientists today include acetylcholine , epinephrine, and norepinephrine. These neurotransmitters either excite or inhibit the recipient cell, depending on the particular reaction between the two. In other words, a neurotransmitter may inhibit activity in the post-synapse cell when attached to a certain receptor, but may excite activity when attached to others. If sufficiently excited, the second cell transmits the impulse, typically to a muscle, gland, or another synapse. An electric synapse, unlike a chemical one, uses channels known as gap junctions to permit direct transmission of signals between neurons. Such synapses are found in the human body, within many organs and in the glial cells of the nervous system. Electrical synapses are also found among invertebrates and some lower vertebrates Metta, James 18916 From: Egberdina Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 8:28pm Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Swee Boon, I have not spoken directly with you before. I hope you don't mind if I get down to brass tacks immediately. I like the fourth precept very much. Not that I'm any good at keeping it. I also like the line "Thus have I heard", which prefaces many of the suttas. I like the combination of both of these, because from the context I can tell whether people are talking about something they know, or something they have heard. There is no such caveat prefacing your email. I would like to ask you: What do you *know* about immaterial beings? I think you quoting something that you have read and taken on faith, and know nothing about, and then using it to dispute something concrete and empirical that you can test for yourself is whacky. Wishing you well Herman --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi James, > > If this is how you explain thought processes, then how do you > explain the thought processes of devas and brahmas (both material > and immaterial realms) and those of hell beings and petas? > > Do you mean these beings of other realms also have the same kind of > chemical reactions taking place? > > I don't think so. Do beings in the immaterial realms have the same > kind of brains as ours? Do they even have brains in the first place? > > I don't think thought processes should be understood in this manner. > It's wacky. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 18917 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 9:16pm Subject: Perfections, Ch 7, patience, no . 15 Perfections, Ch 7, patience, no . 15 To the Buddha the thought did not occur that he was of delicate constitution, that he had travelled all the way of fortyfive leagues within one day, and that he would take the ³lion¹s posture² [17] first, just for a moment, so that he could recover from tiredness caused by his journey. Therefore, the Buddha sat down and entered fruition attainment (phala samåpatti) [18] . As regards Pukkusåti, it did not occur to him that he had travelled all the way of hundred and twentynine leagues and that he should first take a rest, just for a moment, to dispel the tiredness caused by his journey. He sat down and entered the fourth jhåna with Mindfulness of Breathing. Question: Did the Buddha not come there with the thought to teach Dhamma to the son of a prominent family? Why did he not teach? Answer: He did not teach because the son of a prominent family was tired from his journey, and thus he had not sufficient calm to receive the teaching of Dhamma. First he should be able to overcome the tiredness of his journey and become calm. Further on we read: When the Buddha had emerged from his fruition attainment he saw that Pukkusåti was thoughtful as to the position of his hands and legs, that his head was stable, and that he sat steadfast like the foundation of a dam firmly constructed. He was immovable like a golden statue. The son of a prominent family had a posture that inspired confidence. If a posture inspires confidence it is in that way. Of the four postures three are not beautiful. When someone walks, his hands swing, his legs move and his head shakes. When someone stands, his body is harsh and rigid, and when he lies down, his body is not beautiful. However, when a monk has brushed and swept the place where he will rest at day time, after his meal, when he has spread out a cloth to sit on, well cleansed his hands and legs and sits crosslegged in the lotus position, then his posture is indeed beautiful. The son of a prominent family sat down crosslegged and entered the fourth jhåna with Mindfulness of Breathing in that way. We read in the Sutta, the ³Analysis of the Elements², that at that time the Buddha asked Pukkusåti: ³On account of whom have you, monk, gone forth? Who is your teacher? Whose Dhamma do you profess?² Pukkusåti answered: ²There is, friend, the recluse Gotama, son of the Sakyans, gone forth from the Sakyan clan; concerning this Lord Gotama a lovely reputation has gone abroad thus: He is indeed Lord, perfected one, fully Self-Awakened One, endowed with right conduct and knowledge, well-farer, knower of the worlds, matchless charioteer of men to be tamed, teacher of devas and mankind, the Awakened One, the Lord. On account of this Lord have I gone forth, and this Lord is my teacher; I profess this Lord¹s Dhamma.² Footnotes: 16. The khattiya clan was the highest clan. (belongs to Ch 7, no. 14) 17. The Buddha¹s sleeping posture on his right side. 18. Ariyans who have attained jhåna can have fruition-consciousness, lokuttara vipåkacitta, which experiences nibbåna, arising again many times after the moment of enlightenment. 18918 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:35pm Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Hello KKT, So I understand your answer but I don't understand it. Things often go that way ;-) Okay, mind/ body, nama/rupa; yes. And various ways of making other subdivisions (as you wryly note, depending on whose abhidhamma). Khandha, as an analysis of a person into five components: fine. But rupa is taken to mean all matter, not just the physical body. But the mental components are just one's 'own', as it were; vinnana isn't consciousness at large. I know I'm just re-asking the original question. Perhaps it could be put polemically: rupa just means the body (the corpse), not materiality in general. (But I'm fairly sure it does have a broader range, even in the suttas.) Remaining somewhat perplexed on this one, metta, stephen 18919 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 4:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Basics of Brain Function Hello James, Based on your post would you agree that, given the speed with which neural impulses are transmitted, synapses bridged, etc., that the theory of bhavanga, which says that consciousness consists of untold billions of separate sequences each second, is, in fact, *known* to be impossible? Just to state the obvious. metta, stephen 18920 From: James Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Basics of Brain Function --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: > Hello James, > Based on your post would you agree that, given the speed with which neural > impulses are transmitted, synapses bridged, etc., that the theory of > bhavanga, which says that consciousness consists of untold billions of > separate sequences each second, is, in fact, *known* to be impossible? > Just to state the obvious. > metta, stephen Hi Stephen, I shall have to investigate that theory and get back to you. Unfortunately, without access to the original texts, I have to depend on the analysis and extrapolations of second party Abhidhamma scholars. And, contrary to what many believe, they are not all in agreement as to what the Abhidhamma states. If do find Nina's writings to be probably the most accurate reflection of its contents because of her minimal personal extrapolation of them. However, since her writings are so close to the actual contents of the Abhidhamma, without a lot of explanation, they are thick with Pali terms without explanation. And, because each Pali Term actually means several different things and is imprecise (later corrected with the invention of Sanskrit) I feel as if I am trying to read hieroglyphics. ;-) However, going by your description of this theory, I would say that it is quite impossible to `know' billions of brain sequences occurring simultaneously. Consciousness can hold only one mind object at a time. It appears as if there are more but that is only because they occur one after the other so quickly. However, since I believe that nibbana transforms a person's mind and its functioning completely, all bets are off when it comes to that. It is hard to say what an enlightened person knows. Along those lines, there have been studies into Buddhist meditation and how it does permanently change the structure and functioning of the brain in scientifically measurable ways. I will post some more on that tomorrow. Metta, James 18921 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: unconditioned state Hi Larry, Sorry for the delay - I get behind over the weekend when it’s busy work-wise for me. I think Nina may have given answers to similar questions you asked her, but I’ll give my reply anyway. > I thought pure insight vehicle was satipatthana without jhana. It is > mundane. Nibbana is not the object. ..... Before we get to yr Qu., as I understand, when we refer to the ‘pure insight vehicle’ or the sukkha vipassaka, this refers to the realization of nibbana without having attained any of the jhanas. Sometimes it is called ‘dry insight’ because sukkha (dry) is unmoistened by jhana. I agree that in ‘Way’ it is mundane satipatthana development being discussed. The realization of nibbana either for the sukkha vipassaka or the samathayanika (one who has also attained jhana) is therefore the culmination of this development. .... >My question is, do we need access > concentration to practice satipatthana? Is access concentration, in the > pure insight vehicle, merely the clear, intimate experience of the > object, or something else? ..... There is concentration (ekaggata cetasika) accompanying each citta. At moments of satipatthana, it must be kusala, but is only of access level at the moment of realizing nibbana in the ‘pure insight vehicle’.At that moment of sotapatti magga citta, I understand that because nibbana is the object the concentration is of this degree. When you ask if it is the ‘clear, intimate experience’ I’m not quite sure of your meaning. Panna still has the role of realization and full-knowing. Concentration still has the role of focusing or being ‘one-pointed’ on the object. So at this moment of lokuttara (supramundance) citta, it focuses on nibbana very strongly and unwaveringly. ..... >Is the counterpart sign different if one is > intending to practice insight rather than jhana? ..... When you put it like this, it sounds like there is some idea of selection or choice (see other threads;-)) As Nina mentioned, I think, it’s very easy for wrong concentration to be taken for right concentration and as I understand, whenever there is any wishing to concentrate or practise insight or jhana, a subtle (or not so subtle) attachment and often wrong view of self is there. Any moments of bhavana (development), whether of samatha or satipatthana, develop by conditions and especially depends on the understanding of the objects to be known and the knowledge of the distinction between moments of kusala and akusala. ..... >I am understanding the > two vehicles, tranquility and pure insight, to be part of the > satipatthana process. In other words, it could go either way. After > jhana or access concentration, satipatthana resumes. Is this correct? ..... Yes, ‘it could go either way’ or even ‘no way’;-) Like now at this moment, it could go the way of lobha, dosa, moha or kusala at the next moment. Who knows? As Christine explained so well imho, who can really make the next citta any particular way? It depends on all those different conditions coming together at this moment. At any moment of satipatthana or other wholesome state, it is calm from unwholesomeness at that moment. It depends on conditions whether samatha or satipatthana will develop to what degree. As Nina has explained, jhana is never the ultimate goal, because it only suppresses, not eradicates defilements. Life continues and satipatthana has to continue being aware of many different objects over and over again, even for those who have reached stages of jhana or even of enlightenment. I hope I haven’t confused further. Let me know if I have or if you disagree with anything. Sometimes I miss your point, I know;-) Thanks for persevering and for all the helpful comments and questions. Sarah ====== 18922 From: Frank Kuan Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 10:57pm Subject: Re: Armadillos, cheetahs, samma dithi, Re: [dsg] Strong language Hi Chris, The urgency and seriousness behind words like 'revlusion' do not refer only to this life. In the Samyutta especially, with the numerous discourses dealing with dependent arising and cessation of rebirth, we can see that the reason for the urgency is for this ceaseless cycle of suffering through repeated rebirth. -fk --- "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Frank, and All, > > Language should certainly be used in a manner which > is sensitive to > the situation and social environment. At the > hospital, the more > scatologically inclined patients would not 'hear' > language more > familiar to the Surgeons or Chaplains. They would > think it pompous > and patronising, and it would not serve the main > purpose of spoken > language which is to communicate clearly. The > reverse could also be > true - language they might understand and be > comfortable with would > be innapropriate for use with the medicos and > religious ones. > All the Buddha had to communicate with was the > spoken word. It is > natural that he used it to induce certain mind > states in his > audience. He had to draw a fine line between > 'frightening the > horses' and making an impact. I don't think he used > language > carelessly, though translations may seem awkward at > times. I wonder > what exactly the Buddha was meaning when he said we > should see danger > in the slightest fault. This weekend I seem to see > frequent mention > of 'danger' in the suttas. I don't think it can > only mean that by > not being careful about 'small' faults, they grow > into 'bigger' > faults - (or he could have just said that ...). > Words like 'danger' > and 'revulsion' convey a 'seriousness' that, I > think, was intended to > arouse alertness. But of what specific danger? Death > coming at any > time? The possibility of being swept away to lower > births for > uncountable lives? Slipping backwards and not being > born again when > the teachings of a Buddha are extant? (Would that be > possible ... > never to hear the Teachings again? ... a horrifying > idea). > Frank - I'm really glad for your recent posts - > often yours aren't > the first I answer, simply because there is nothing > much else that > needs to be said. Your thoughts are always in tune > with the Dhamma > and are expressed in a straightforward, commonsense > way - usually > there is nothing confusing in them or anything that > I empatically > disagree with. Mostly I find myself saying, 'Yep, > that's what I > think too' and 'good point' as I read through. They > always clarify > and are a calming support. Thanks. > > metta, > Chris > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Frank Kuan > > wrote: > 18923 From: Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 6:09pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Some Basics of Brain Function Hello James, >Along those lines, there have >been studies into Buddhist meditation and how it does permanently >change the structure and functioning of the brain in scientifically >measurable ways. I will post some more on that tomorrow. Good. ...and good night, metta, stephen 18924 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Dear Stephen, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, oreznoone@a... wrote: Hello KKT, So I understand your answer but I don't understand it. Things often go that way ;-) Okay, mind/ body, nama/rupa; yes. And various ways of making other subdivisions (as you wryly note, depending on whose abhidhamma). Khandha, as an analysis of a person into five components: fine. But rupa is taken to mean all matter, not just the physical body. But the mental components are just one's 'own', as it were; vinnana isn't consciousness at large. I know I'm just re-asking the original question. Perhaps it could be put polemically: rupa just means the body (the corpse), not materiality in general. (But I'm fairly sure it does have a broader range, even in the suttas.) Remaining somewhat perplexed on this one, metta, stephen KKT: Since the Buddha was interested exclusively in how to liberate mankind then when he analysed a person into five components, he designated exclusively Rupa as the physical body. But the Abhidhamma was interested in how to explain the whole world, therefore Rupa was designated as the materiality in general. As for your question about << vinnana isn't consciousness at large >> I think your notion of << consciousness at large >> appeared only with the Yogacara of Mahayana when they used the word Alayavijnana (Storehouse Consciousness) to denote a << super >> consciousness which is both individual and collective and contains everything, people as well the world. Thus the name of this school: << Mind-Only or Mere-Consciousness School >> (i.e. everything is illusion, only Consciousness is real) Metta, KKT 18925 From: Sarah Date: Sun Jan 19, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi NEO (Howard and Peter), (I think I’m going to follow James’ lead on your name as it’s short and easy and you haven’t stated any preference between the two camps....sorry Howard, I think we’re out-numbered;-)) "nidive " wrote: > Hi Howard and All, > > > Immediately following the thought of 'the car' there may be an > > awareness of that very thought, of the immediately preceding > > mindstate, or aspects of it, as a fresh memory. It does seem to > > me, by introspection, that there is a difference between the > > discernment occurring while "having a thought" and the discernment > > *of* that thought (as an object of consciousness), the latter, I > > believe, occurring *after* the thought, per se, has subsided, and > > only a fresh memory remains. ..... > Would any Abhidhamma gurus please clarify on this matter? .... Put like this is I’m sure a condition to get no response;-) ..... Anyway, a few ignorant worldling non-guru comments: Howard and I have discussed this before and it’s pretty much in agreement with the abhidhamma as I understand. I’m assuming that by ‘thought’, Howard is referring to the citta that thinks and not the concept of ‘car’ which of course can not be the object of awareness, not being a paramattha dhamma (ultimate reality). So yes, the thinking (or ‘thought’) thinks of the car. The characteristic of thinking can be the object of awareness, strictly speaking, immediately following its arising, but we still refer to it as present object, not memory. I know this is a difficult point for some people. Like a perfect photocopy, it isn’t the original thinking (or discernment) of the concept, but the characteristic that appears as object which is to all intents and purposes just the same as the original in a practical sense. Yesterday, prompted by a post of Nina’s, I was reading the notes at the back of the Wheel ‘Ideal Solitude’ by B.Nanananda. It contains a wealth of useful info (not sure if it’s on line - I have a very old falling-to-pieces as I read it copy in front of me). He’s discussing the phrase ‘Atiita.m naanaagameyya’ (‘Let one not trace back the past’) from the Bhaddekeratta sutta and similar to the phrase in the Thera Sutta - both recently quoted. He writes: “This phrase helps us to understand the significane of the Buddha’s constant advice to ‘let-go’ the past. The exposition clearly reveals that it is not so much the mere recollection of the past that is the bondage, as the element of delight (nandi) or ‘desire and lust’ (chandaraaga) one finds therein. It is the tendency to retrace, revive, relive and relish the past, that has to be eliminated and hence there comes in the necessity of detachment even with regard to thought processes.” (Peter - do you have this wheel? It continues with a discussion on sati and memory which you might find of interest). In other words, it’s not a matter of not thinking or not using concepts, as some believe (but not by anyone I’ve read on DSG as far as I recall), but of understanding and detachment whilst thinking of whatever concept. he gives 2 footnotes to this para: 1. “mind is not the bondage for ideas; ideas are not the bondage for the mind; but whatever desire and lust that arises therein dependent on them both - that is the bondage therein.” S1V 163 (Kotthika S.). 2. Cf Bahiya S, Ud. p8 ‘Vi~n~naate vi~n~naatamatta.m bhavissati’ - ‘in the thought, there will be just the thought.’ Later he discusses the same with regard to thoughts about the future: “ ‘Nappa.tika.nkhe anaagatam’: As in the case of the past, so with regard to the future too, it is the ‘delight’ or ‘desire and lust’ that gives rise to yearning or anxiety. The aspiration for acquisition is the condition for delight in this case and in being delighted one is yearning for the future.” This is followed by some comments I’m not sure I agree with, so I’ll leave it here;-) Sarah ====== 18926 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Dear Nina, (Frank. Chris & All), --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > thank you for the quotes, and also what Jon hears from tapes, excerpts > most > welcome. ..... After discussing the Thera Sutta on tape (perhaps the part about pakati was from the commentary?), K.Sujin continues by discussing the Gulissani Sutta (MN 69). I didn’t hear any of her comments, but I was interested to read the sutta after the Thera sutta. There are plenty of helpful reminders I find. Gulissani is a forest-dwelling bhikkhu ‘of lax behaviour’. The first point Sariputta makes is that when a ‘forest-dwelling’ bhikkhu joins the Sangha ‘he should be respectful and deferential towards his companions’ to prevent adverse comments about the benefits of a forest dwelling bhikkhu. So it continues with ‘good behaviour’,and then to entering the village not too early or late, not making ‘untimely’ visits to families, not being ‘haughty and personally vain’, not being ‘rough-tongued and loose-spoken’, ‘easy to correct and should associate with good friends’, ‘guard the doors of his sense faculties’, ‘moderate in eating’, ‘devoted to wakefulness’, ‘energetic’, ‘established in mindfulness’, ‘concentrated’, ‘wise’, ‘should apply himself to higher Dhamma and the higher discipline’, the 8 attainments, all supramundane states. We might think that these increasingly tough stipulations only apply to forest-dwellers or that the sutta is suggesting that forest-dwelling is necessary for following the stipulations. However, at the very end Maha Mogallana asked Sariputta “should these things be undertaken and practised only by a forest-swelling bhikkhu or by a town-dwelling bhikkhu as well?” Sariputta replies: “Friend Moggallana, these things should be undertaken and practised not only by a forest-dwelling bhikkhu, but by a town-dwelling bhikkhu as well.” ***** > O yes, here it is, in Wheel 188, Ideal Solitude: > > Idha Thera ya.m atiita.m pahiia.m > what is past is abandoned > > ya.m anaagata.m pa.tinissata.m > The future is relinquished > > Paccupannesa ca attabhaavapa.tilaabhesu chandaraago suppa.tiviniito > And the desire and lust for the present modes of personality is well > under > control > Eva.m kho Thera ekavihaaro vitthaarena paripu.n.no hoti > It is thus, Elder, that (the ideal of) lone-dwelling becomes > fulfilled,in > all its details. ..... I found it interesting (with your prompt) to read all the discussion in this Wheel on ‘eka’ (lone) after our discussions on ‘Way’ for ekapada. This meaning of ‘eka’(alone without desire as companion) has taken on more significance for me. From Nanananda’s comments: “We saw above how the Theranamo Sutta expounds the true ideal of solitude (ekaviharo) as against the popular and commonplace concept of solitude. The true ideal is depicted as a ‘solitude’ of mind, gained by giving up everything belonging to the past and the future and by disciplining well the desire and lust for one’s present modes of personality. “The concluding verse makes it clear that the ideal lone-dweller is unsoiled as to all phenomena and is ‘well released, renouncing all’. This reminds us of the term ‘upadhiviveka’ (detachment from all assets or substrata) denoting Nibbana, which is the highest mental solitude (citta viveka, citta vuupakaasa)......”. metta, Sarah ........ p.s. Nina, I can’t really add to anything on attabhaava as I haven’t given it sufficient attention as you have. However, B.Bodhi adds another footnote to Lakkhanasamyutta in SN, Nidanavagga (11, 255): “Evaruupo pi naama satto bhavissati evaruupo pi naama yakkho bhavissati evaruupo pi naama attabhaavapa.tilaabho bhavissati” (“That there could be such a being, that there could be such a spirit, that there could be such a form of individual existence!”) Commentary: “Spk: In saying this Moggallana shows his ense of urgency in Dhamma, arisen out of compassion fo such beings. “The expression attabhaavapa.tilaabho, which literally means “acquisition of selfhood,” is used idiomatically to denote a concrete form of individual identity. Attabhaava sometimes occurs in a more restricted sense with reference to the physical body, for instance at Ud 54, 17-19 ======================================== 18927 From: rahula_80 Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 1:40am Subject: Renunciation Hi, Han Yu, a famous literateur in Tang dynasty, said: " now (the Taoists and Buddhists) seek to govern their hearts by escaping from the world, the state, and the family. They destroy the natural principles of human relations so that the son does not regard his father as a father, the minister does not regard his ruler as a ruler, and people don't attend to their work---"( A Source Book of Chinese Philosophy, 455) What is the Buddhist reply to this criticism by Confucianism? Best wishes, Rahula 18928 From: Sarah Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 2:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] More on Forest and Lone Dwelling Hi Frank, Always good to see you around.... Some useful comments in your posts to Chris as well. --- Frank Kuan wrote: > Sarah, I can appreciate the alternate understanding of > "alone", but I personally doubt that kind of "alone" > can be realized without the aid of the standard > understanding of alone. .... Thanks for coming in on this thread. I can certainly appreciate the value of the monk’s life too and I can appreciate that living physically alone comes naturally for some (especially for those with highly developed samatha). ..... > > As the crested, > blue-necked peacock, > when flying, > never matches > the wild goose > in speed: > Even so the householder > never keeps up with the monk, > the sage secluded, > doing jhana > in the forest. > Sn.I.12 .... I don’t have any commentary notes. In the Saddhatissa transl for the last lines, it has “Similarly, the householder can never resemble the monk who is endowed with the qualities of a sage who meditates , aloof, in the jungle." What is the meaning of aloof? In the very first line of the sutta we read ‘Fear arises because of intimacy’ or in the Thanissaro transl you refer to, Danger is born from intimacy,[1] In his footnote to this, he says intimacy refers to ‘craving and views’. There are other references to wandering alone and being undisturbed or unaffected by the wordly conditions and attachments. We read that the wise sage is the one who has crossed the flood and completely freed from the asavas and hence a householder still ensnared by the intoxicants cannot compare to the arahant bhikkhu dwelling ‘in bliss’ in the forest. Thanissaro mentions this was a favourite sutta of King Asoka’s. Does it mean we would all be better off by going to the forest? I don’t read it that way. ..... > bodhisattva practice #3 of 37 > Withdrawing completely from things that excite us, > Our mental disturbances slowly decline. > And ridding our mind of directionless wandering, > Attention on virtue will surely increase. > > As wisdom shines clearer, the world comes in focus, > Our confidence grows in the Dhamma we've learned. > Live all alone far away in seclusion - > The Sons of the Buddhas all practice this way. .... When I read accounts of the lives of the Buddha as a Bodhisatta or other Buddhas or read about the birth stories of ‘the ten Bodhisattas’ to come, what they all have in common is the development of the parami(perfections) in the most difficult of circumstances, usually amongst other sentient beings. For example, this morning I was reading the account of the ‘Monkey-king’ Jataka which James kindly included for the Kids. I read of great renunciation, patience, generosity and wisdom, but little in the way of physical seclusion. As I say, it’s certainly not that I don’t and can’t appreciate the secluded forest life for some or the monk’s life for many, but I think as the earlier suttas I quoted from show, one really has to know one’s accumulations and have the right ‘requisites’, otherwise it can lead to very disturbed mental states and take one further away from the path if it's with the idea that 'seclusion' is a necessary condition for developing insight. Just a few ideas. I’ll be glad to hear any more of your well-considered reflections. Sarah ====== p.s the astanga yoga is going well - I definitely appreciate the group support for this too;-)Hope your teaching and yoga are also going well. 18929 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 3:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Herman Since I'm no doubt perceived as being 'one of them', I had better come in with a contribution ;-)) I am quite comfortable with the concept of control in a conventional context. For example, the fact that we manage to get around most of the time without injuring ourselves or others can quite properly be said to be due to the 'care' that we take (i.e., the control we exercise). Also, a person highly trained in a particular physical/mental discipline can be said to have a higher degree of bodily/vocal/mental control than someone not trained in that discipline. In an ultimate (paramattha) sense, the picture is quire different. According to the teachings, all dhammas are conditioned and arise by virtue of a number of conditions that are unseen/unknown to us. Furthermore, these dhammas are said to arise and fall away at an extremely rapid rate and, in the case of cittas, in specific processes. If that is the case, then it seems to me that dhammas are not subject to control in any meaningful sense of the word. My conclusion. It's OK to say that the Buddha had a highly controlled (i.e., trained) mind, or that the Buddha had a very high degree of control over his mind, or however you wish to put it. This is an appropriate conventional perspective. However, in paramattha terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were no more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we take for you or me. Jon PS I liked your earlier post on the futility of arguing over the 'correct' label. I've tried to refer here to specific circumstances or instances. --- "Egberdina " wrote: > Hi all, > > I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not > possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings > :- > ). > > Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? > > All the best > > > Herman 18930 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:44am Subject: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Jon, I would be interested to know where in the Pali Canon the Buddha taught that "whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas." I do see some problem with the statement "whatever is taken for oneself or the world in general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas." The problem I see is not that whether it is true or false. The problem I see is whether the Buddha actually taught it. I am not sure what you mean by "directed" abandoning and would be interested to know what you mean by that. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > --- "yu_zhonghao " > wrote: > > Jon, > > > > There are two points I would like to make: > > > > 1. You said that: > > "The Buddha taught that what we take for ourselves and the world > > around us is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that > > each of these khandhas is not self." > > > > Whom is the pronoun "we" referring to? Is it referring to you and > > me? Or is it referring to you and some others? Or is it referring > > to everyone? > > We are at cross-purposes here, Victor. I am summarising or > paraphrasing the words of the Buddha from the suttas (to the best of > my understanding), while you are taking my statement as an expression > of my own experience or developed view, which it certainly is not. > > If you find any inaccuracy in the statement *as simply a restatement > of what was taught by the Buddha*, then by all means share your > thoughts with us. > > BTW, if it is just the pronoun "we" that is a concern, the statement > could be rephrased as follows: > "The Buddha taught that whatever is taken for oneself or the world in > general is in fact nothing more than the 5 khandhas, and that each of > these khandhas is not self." > > Do you see any problems with this? > > > If you take the five aggregate for yourself, I would suggest you > > abandon the view "the aggregates are self." > > Well I can agree with the underlying sentiment here, namely, that a > view that 'the aggregates are self' would not be a correct view. > > As for abandoning, I believe that is easier said than done. To my > understanding, wrong view can be eradicated only by the development > of satipatthana and insight into the true nature of presently arising > dhammas. > > Any attempt at 'directed' abandoning will be of no useful effect. > > Are we in agreement on this point? > > Jon 18931 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Jon, It is not skillful to assume that one is made up of the five aggregates. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Herman > > Since I'm no doubt perceived as being 'one of them', I had better > come in with a contribution ;-)) > > I am quite comfortable with the concept of control in a conventional > context. For example, the fact that we manage to get around most of > the time without injuring ourselves or others can quite properly be > said to be due to the 'care' that we take (i.e., the control we > exercise). > > Also, a person highly trained in a particular physical/mental > discipline can be said to have a higher degree of bodily/vocal/mental > control than someone not trained in that discipline. > > In an ultimate (paramattha) sense, the picture is quire different. > According to the teachings, all dhammas are conditioned and arise by > virtue of a number of conditions that are unseen/unknown to us. > Furthermore, these dhammas are said to arise and fall away at an > extremely rapid rate and, in the case of cittas, in specific > processes. If that is the case, then it seems to me that dhammas are > not subject to control in any meaningful sense of the word. > > My conclusion. It's OK to say that the Buddha had a highly > controlled (i.e., trained) mind, or that the Buddha had a very high > degree of control over his mind, or however you wish to put it. This > is an appropriate conventional perspective. However, in paramattha > terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were no > more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we take > for you or me. > > Jon > > PS I liked your earlier post on the futility of arguing over the > 'correct' label. I've tried to refer here to specific circumstances > or instances. > > --- "Egberdina " wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I am pitching this question at those who argue that control is not > > possible. (I know who you are, I have filmed your secret gatherings > > :- > > ). > > > > Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? > > > > All the best > > > > > > Herman 18932 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 4:56am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) Hi Herman, According to the Abhidhamma, all brain chemical reactions are merely rupas. None of them are namas. Herein lies the mystery. If you accept that all brain chemical reactions are merely rupas, can you call them "thought processes"? Knowing that brain chemical reactions are not "thought processes", I also know that immaterial beings cannot have brain chemical reactions. Of course, you can argue that I am using circular logic with the Abhidhamma as a "closed system". But I take the Buddha's words on faith. I don't take science on faith. And how do you know that whatever brain chemical reactions that take place in your brains represent the very thoughts of yours? Don't you take that on faith as well? Do you really know that Brain Chemical Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? It's all just scientific assumptions. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18933 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:06am Subject: [dsg] Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma Hi Sarah, > > Would any Abhidhamma gurus please clarify on this matter? > Put like this is I'm sure a condition to get no response;-) ..... Thank you Sarah. I correct myself. Would any person with sufficient knowledge in the Abhidhamma please clarify on this matter? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18934 From: ranil gunawardena Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? Dear Herman, A king will have control over his kingdom. Likewise the Buddha is called "chiththeshwara" - meaning, having control over the mind. So to answer your question "Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind?" well, you have to refer the pitakas, "but" as he is having control over his mind - he could. ~with meththa ranil >Did the Buddha exercise any control over his mind? 18935 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:00am Subject: Re: Awareness was Re: [dsg] Hello Stephen --- oreznoone@a... wrote: > > Hello Jon, all ... <> It's not an easy area to get to grips with. <> The khandhas are, to my understanding, a description of the dhammas (realities) that make up the present moment, and are capable of being directly experienced (by awareness/insight). In the case of the 4 khandhas that are nama, these will in practice be our own nama-khandhas, since the namas of another cannot be the object of our direct expereince (as a general case). In the case of the rupa-khandha, however, this includes rupas other than those we take for our own body, since we experience 'external' rupas also. At this very moment of reading a message, for example, the rupa of visible object is being experienced by seeing. To summarise, the 4 nama khandhas and 1 rupa khandha include all the namas and rupas that are experienced at the present moment. In this sense, there is no difference in the scope of the 2. I hope this is clear. Please don’t hesitate to say if it's not. <<(I hope we can avoid quibbling over pronouns ;-)>> (I think we've manaaged to do so, so far ;-)) Jon 18936 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: However, in paramattha > terms, the dhammas that made up what we take for the Buddha were no > more subject to control than the dhammas that make up what we take > for you or me. > > Jon Jonathan, I would disagree. The Buddha must have had complete control over his body and mind. The Lord Buddha was able to multiply himself, pass his body through solid objects, and transport his body to alternate realms…and other enlightened monks and nuns could levitate and fly…according to the written suttas, which I don't think are lying. If you think these are exaggerations or fantasy, well, sutta- yourself. ;-)just kidding. I don't have concrete proof. But I think that far too many members of this group are evaluating what the Buddha could or could not do based on themselves, and forgetting the highest of human potential. We are limited, the Buddha was not. Metta, James 18937 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Did the Buddha have any control? --- "James " wrote: > - If you think these are exaggerations or fantasy, well, > sutta-yourself. No commentary. 18938 From: nidive Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:23am Subject: Re: Some Basics of Brain Function Hi James, > I don't mean to insult those who already know this information, > but it has come to my attention that some don't. Skip or read as > you please. From encyclopedia.com: ... I think a crucial question to ask is this: Is the brain considered as part of the body? I think that the brain is considered as part of the body. If this is the case, then a look at Kimsuka Sutta would tell us that the body and consciousness (mind) are different things. "I have given you this simile, monk, to convey a message. The message is this: The fortress stands for this BODY-- COMPOSED OF FOUR ELEMENTS, BORN OF MOTHER & FATHER, NOURISHED WITH RICE & BARLEY GRUEL, SUBJECT TO CONSTANT RUBBING & ABRASION, TO BREAKING & FALLING APART. The six gates stand for the six internal sense media. The gatekeeper stands for mindfulness. The swift pair of messengers stands for tranquillity (samatha) and insight (vipassana). The commander of the fortress stands for CONSCIOUSNESS. The central square stands for the four great elements: the earth-property, the liquid-property, the fire-property, & the wind-property. The accurate report stands for Unbinding (nibbana). The route by which they had come stands for the noble eightfold path: right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn35-204.html James, I am very sure that the brain is part of the body. A look at the following picture might convince you. Go to http://geostone.cjb.net/ Website title: Suicide and Attempted Suicide: Methods and Consequences. Click on "Suicide methods: photos and drawings (WARNING: GORY)" Then click on "Gunshot to head." under the Section Guns. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 18939 From: James Date: Mon Jan 20, 2003 6:27am Subject: Thus have I heard (was Re: accumulations and Abhidhamma) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: > Hi Herman, > > According to the Abhidhamma, all brain chemical reactions are merely > rupas. None of them are namas. > > Herein lies the mystery. If you accept that all brain chemical > reactions are merely rupas, can you call them "thought processes"? > > Knowing that brain chemical reactions are not "thought processes", I > also know that immaterial beings cannot have brain chemical > reactions. > > Of course, you can argue that I am using circular logic with the > Abhidhamma as a "closed system". But I take the Buddha's words on > faith. I don't take science on faith. > > And how do you know that whatever brain chemical reactions that take > place in your brains represent the very thoughts of yours? Don't you > take that on faith as well? Do you really know that Brain Chemical > Reaction A corresponds to Thought X? It's all just scientific > assumptions. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon Hi NEO, Thank you for blowing the fallacies of the Abhidhamma wide open!! It's concept of rupa and that rupa isn't capable of thought is completely absurd; actually, it smacks of belief in a spirit or soul or self that is separate from matter. In mundane reality, we are all composed of the same materials as stars. Everything in the universe came from one element: hydrogen. In material substance, what composes us is little different from the material that composes rocks. Yes, the brain thinks with chemicals. If you doubt that, take some mind-altering drugs like LSD, cocaine, or heroine, and see how they will change your thinking (however, I would recommend just drinking some coffee with caffeine, because that will change your thinking also…and you won't be breaking the precepts). Setting aside the fact that the Buddha didn't teach nama/rupa, your choice to have faith in the Buddha's teachings, on faith alone, is in direct contradiction to what he wanted. He told everyone not to have faith in what he taught but to practice it, consider it, and observe it for oneself…and then choose to b