20000 From: Date: Sun Mar 2, 2003 4:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Hi, all - In a message dated 3/2/03 11:26:00 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > To me, this claim of three times normal size is an absurdity. I don't > believe it to be literally true. However, there could be a *germ* of truth > in > the claim. He might well have been quite large even at birth. Didn't his > mother die during or shortly after the birth if Siddhattha? Could this have > > been due to his being an unusually large newborn? > =========================== A bit more: I just read in a few accounts of the Buddha's birth that supposedly Queen Maya had had a dream of a baby white elephant entering her body from the side. This refers to her conception of the future Buddha. Perhaps the mention of an elephant is a reference to the great size of the newborn (with white, I suppose, signifying purity), though, of course, the reference to an elephant might only have been a metaphorical allusion to greatness. In this regard, some may find the following site interesting: http://www.uwec.edu/greider/Buddha/Buddhism.Course/student.culturetexts.'01/la ura.elephants/sampleweb.htm 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) 20001 From: shakti Date: Sun Mar 2, 2003 9:37am Subject: Anattta and Kamma and Conventional Events(? at end) Hi Rob, Thank you very much for your very comprehensive reply to my question. I appreciate the links and will read more when I have time. Thanks, Shakti "robmoult " wrote:Hi Shakti, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Deanna Shakti Johnson wrote: After reading the above I was reminded of what I thought I heard Ajahn Sujin say while I was in Bangkok. This is how I remember it - The experience of the five senses at contact with an object are always a neutral experience, when an object is perceived at the mind door it can be either pleasant, unpleasant or neutral and finally physical feeling is always only pleasant or unpleasant. Is this correct? I can understand the initial neutral experience as being neutral and then the mind door process that follows being pleasant, unpleasant or neutral but I am not clear about the physical being only pleasant or unpleasant. Why no neutral here??? Can you or anyone give some examples about this. There are five types of feeling that result from contact: - Painful body feeling with akusala vipaka body-consciousness - Pleasurable body feeling with kusala vipaka body-consciousness - Painful mental feeling arising with two dosa-mula cittas - Pleasant mental feeling arising with four lobha-mula cittas, one type of investigating consciousness, the smile producing citta in an Arahant, four sense-sphere wholesome cittas, four wholesome vipaka cittas (bhavanga cittas), four wholesome kiriya cittas (in Arahants) - Mental indifference arising with all other cittas Contact in eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness, nose-consciousness and tongue-consciousness cittas always produces indifferent feeling while contact in akusala body-consciousness citta produces painful feeling and contact in kusala body-consciousness citta produces pleasurable feeling. The commentary (Atthasalini, I believe) explains that body contact only produces pain or pleasure because of the "violence of the impact". The following analogy is given: Imagine that we have five anvils with a cotton ball on each. The cotton balls represent eye, ear, nose, tongue and body sensitivity. - In the first four cases, the cotton ball on the anvil is struck by another cotton ball; visible object, sound, odour and taste. In the first four cases, the anvil does cannot detect the striking and no feeling arises. - The cotton ball of body sensitivity is struck by a hammer of touch. In this case, the anvil detects the striking and the feeling is either painful or pleasurable. Feeling arising with body- consciousness can only be painful or pleasurable, never neutral. In this analogy, the anvil and the hammer are "primary rupas", while the cotton balls are "derived rupas". Contact resulting from coinciding of touch (hardness, temperature and pressure), body-sensitivity and body-consciousness will cause either a pleasurable or a painful feeling to arise. Pleasure is kusala vipaka; the result of past kusala action. Citta with pleasure is not inherently good, it is the result of something good done in the past. A sense-door citta-process in which body- consciousness experiences pleasure is invariably followed by multiple mind-door citta-processes which "think about" the experience. When the senses are not guarded, there is attachment, craving or clinging to the pleasurable experience. The pleasurable experience has finished, but the unguarded mind chases after it. Pain is akusala vipaka; the result of past akusala action. Citta with pain is not inherently bad, it is the result of something bad done in the past. A sense-door citta-process in which body- consciousness experiences pain is invariably followed by multiple mind-door citta-processes which "think about" the experience. When the senses are not guarded, there is aversion to the painful experience. The painful experience has finished, but the unguarded mind still runs away from it. All other sense-consciousness cittas arise with indifferent feeling. A sense-door citta-process is invariably followed by multiple mind- door citta-processes which "think about" the experience. When the senses are not guarded, there is attachment or aversion to the sense- door object. The sense-door experience has finished, but the unguarded mind still chases after it or runs away from it. In English, the term "feeling" is often associated with "emotions". In Abhidhamma, "emotions" are lobha-mula and dosa-mula cittas; very different from the cetasika vedana. Unlike contact arising from body-sensitivity, contact arising from eye-sensitivity, ear-sensitivity, nose-sensitivity and tongue- sensitivity will always cause an indifferent feeling to arise. Contact with mental objects (ideas) results in: - Pleasant feeling (four lobha-mula cittas, one investigating citta, Arahant smile-producing citta, twelve beautiful cittas) - Unpleasant feeling (both dosa-mula cittas) - Indifferent feeling (all remaining cittas) The kammic weight of a citta depends on the intensity of volition. Cittas with pleasant feeling (both lobha-mula cittas and beautiful cittas) are more intense and therefore of greater kammic weight than similar cittas with indifferent feeling. Weighty kusala cittas (i.e. those with pleasant feeling) are very beneficial, but what are the conditions which cause them to arise? Kusala cittas with pleasant feeling arise when there is abundance of confidence (saddha), purity of views and seeing advantage in kusala. Lobha-mula cittas can be accompanied by pleasant or indifferent feeling: - When we are excited about getting something, there is pleasant feeling - When we are clinging to existence or simply looking for a pen, there is indifferent feeling The study of feelings is very important. Feeling is the weakest link in the chain of dependent origination; the bifurcation point at which we can break the chain. The transition from Feeling (a natural, objective occurrence) to Craving (our subjective reaction to feeling) is the transition from present effect (what happens to us) to present cause (creation of kamma). There is an excellent short essay on feeling with many quotes from Suttas at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel303.html Shakti, I hope that this answers your question on feeling. Metta, Rob M :-) 20002 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 2, 2003 11:18am Subject: Modesty Hi all, I am interested to learn more about the virtue of modesty. What does it mean by being modest? How and in what ways should one be modest? What is the benefit of being modest? Regards, Victor 20003 From: connie Date: Sun Mar 2, 2003 0:25pm Subject: Re: a quantum view of free will Hi RobM (and Christine)~ Thanks for the definitions re: soteriology. Another friend of mine wrote me a few months ago: >soteriology: > >1) a treatise on health, or the science of promoting and preserving health >2) in theology, the doctrine of salvation through Jesus Christ > >So.....if you eat the host it's good for your health???? I blame it on her that the word has been conjuring up a picture of toast and a bowl of Cheerios and not of much interest as food for thought. In my dictionary, reading up the page, I get Christine's definition, then the word Soter (Saint/Zeus) and then sot (drunkard). So, forgive me if I take it to be (more or less) the Lord's 12-step (Dep.Orig.) science of saving oneself from their own drunkeness [(self) delusion/intoxication/(delight in) Samsara] and if my speech is sometimes incoherent and rambling. . The Physician said this is an ethical universe and perfect health is Nirvana and left us this fine medicine. We are just blind drunk and haven't reached rock bottom. If a bunch of rupas come falling down and hardness hits hardness, there will be that. I may not hear it, but if the Buddha wanted to, he could have. The Divine Ear is of that nature. I believe in the Buddha's Omniscience. Or have faith, if you like. When I know things I can't explain, like the pit of my stomach telling me that that particular fire alarm and the sirens are because it is my house on fire, I'm inclined to tell myself it's just a fluke. I try to think too much and shove everything Buddha said into my own little categories when all the while, to quote Erik's friend UGKrishnamurti "For all I know, life may not run on logic." Is there a tree if no one is there to name it such? Introducing myself to this list, I claimed I was interested in the Abhidhamma. That might be true. I've never read any of it. I've read what other people say about it. When I think about it, everything I read is someone else's translation of something else. I'm actually fairly loathe to give up the Lotus Sutra with all its fairytale beauty and talk of expedient means. Language has to be the first of those, I think, so I don't insist that we agree on 'science'... how about 'art'? I'll behave myself and not quote from the LS too often here, though. You said "The Buddha was very clear what topics he wanted to talk about and what topic he refused to talk about. Please check out the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta (Mn63)". His refusal doesn't say he didn't know, just that it wasn't something I need to concern myself with... like that handful of leaves story. I think it's telling me my ideas of in/finity and eternity or space and time and existence are all wrong/conventional and it wouldn't make sense to me if he did speak of things directly from his understanding. The point the sutta drives home to me is that I can die without ever knowing. He calls them all 'views' and doesn't claim to hold any. I either want to 'renounce training' or be willing to give up my views. I also said I'd agree with you that Buddhism is phenomological, but I can't go so far as to say 'purely'. Nothing I can verbalize right now, though, sorry. And you're probably right that our conversation "would evolve into a new direction". I seem to have trouble walking a straight line. Also, I've rambled on too long and must thank our hosts for their hospitality and leave. To your health then. connie 20004 From: Date: Sun Mar 2, 2003 8:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna - Looking for feedback! Hi Rob M > The cittas in an eye-door citta process have "visible object" (rupa) > as their object. A "visible object" is not a flower (flower is a > concept). A visible object is a dot, a dot of colour. As an analogy, > consider how television works. What appears on the screen is not > a "flower", but rather many coloured dots that our mind constructs > into an image of a "flower". The TV set simply presents dots to us > Comment: If considering the rods and cones on the retina to be like dots of information, this makes sense. What is actually seen is light. Experience is the result of contact. It seems that perceptions of objects (in the distance) are interpretations of those dots. (Howard's comment that perceptions arise as a "snap shot" seems supported by the notion in abhidhamma materials that perception is a universal mental factors and accompanies all consciousness.) However, it seems that perceptions arise more from a process and the suttas seem to indicate that as well. Perhaps it depends on the "type" or complexity of perception. > > are "short-term" memories, available to provide continuity, but not > used for "long-term memory. It would appear that long-term memories > are tied to naming and this is why we cannot remember our early > Comment: Interesting observation you make! Basically, at that age a human has not yet "learned" how to use the mind so as to store memories. > he Suttas explain that sanna creates concepts. We have seen that > the sense-door citta process a small, elemental bit of information > and the subsequent mind-door citta processes process this into > increasingly complex concepts: > - Dots --> Blocks of colour --> Shapes --> Comment: This seems real solid. Just to "knit-pick" though, perhaps the word create is not appropriate and "generate" or "form a foundation for" would be better. > This stage of judgment is what completes the > link between feeling and craving in dependent origination. > > Craving is conditioned by pleasant feeling associated with concepts. > Visible objects condition neutral feeling and therefore do not > condition craving directly. Pleasant feeling is associated with > current concepts when sanna "remembers" past concepts and the > associated pleasant feeling. Comment A: Judgement or concepts that either intervene or associate between feeling and craving are not necessarily links between the two. The Buddha says: due to feeling, craving arises. He does not say that due to feeling and judgements /concepts, craving arises. I think feeling and craving should be seen as direct links. In fact, it is more likely that due to craving --> judgements and concepts arise. (As forms of clinging.) Craving is the source for mental exploration that result in judgements and concepts that continue to seek out new pleasures. Comment B: Rob M, the above was my initial reaction but after reading again below and above, I think you are right also. I think both are happening depending on the conditions. I tend to look at things from an evolutionary point of view. If extremely simple rudimentary creatures are thought of, they are not forming judgements or concepts most likely. Yet I suspect they have pleasant feeling and craving which is what makes them grasp after existence. In the case of more highly evolved creatures, concepts and judgements are "extra factors" to be considered. Yet, I cannot remember any instance of the Buddha saying that: due to concepts and judgements --> craving arises. I don't think the Honeyball is saying that. "What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one obsesses." I suspect the craving process is accompanying and propagating the -- perceiving, thinking about, and obsession -- being mentioned here. > This progression is described in the Honeyball Sutta (Mn18): > > Dependent on the eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The > meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there > is feeling. > > What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one > thinks about. What one thinks about, that one obsesses. > > What obsesses one is the cause perceptions and notions tinged by > obsession that beset a man with respect to past, future and present > forms cognizable though the eye. > > > ccording to the Suttas, unwholesome sanna conditions the arising of > views (such as the personality view, sakaya-ditthi, based on > ignorance), sorrow and obsession. > > Sanna can also be wholesome (kusala) when it is geared towards the > recognition of elements essential for liberation. When înanda > reported that a monk was sick, the Buddha told înanda to recite > the "ten sanna" in front of the monk to condition kusala thoughts in > the monk. The ten sanna are: > - The recognition of impermanence (aniccasanna) > - The recognition of selflessness (anattasanna) > - The recognition of unpleasantness (asubhasanna) > - The recognition of danger (Adinavasanna) > - The recognition of abandoning (pahanasanna) > - The recognition of dispassion (viragasanna) > - The recognition of cessation (nirodhasanna) > - The recognition of disenchantment with the entire world > (sabbaloke anabhiratasanna) > - The recognition of impermanence in reference to all compounded > things (sabbe sankharesu aniccasanna) > - The mindfulness of breathing (Anapanasati) > > Just as sanna is between feeling (vedana) and craving (taöha) in the > chain of dependent origination, whenever the five aggregates are > listed, sanna is always listed between feeling and sankhara > (sankhara includes craving). Comment: Is this last a true statement? Is sanna mentioned in the 12 Fold Chain? > ================ > > Looking forward to your feedback! > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Let me know what you think Rob M. Thanks. TG 20005 From: Date: Sun Mar 2, 2003 3:52pm Subject: Way 57, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 1. Clear Comprehension in going forwards and backwards, p. 73 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Thus like the elder Maha Naga dweller in the Black Creeper Pavilion and like the bhikkhus who went into rainy season at the Galamba Ford Monastery, the bhikkhu (who does the observance of carrying forth and carrying back the subject of meditation) raises his foot only with mind yoked to the thought of meditation. Having reached the neighbourhood of the village, filled the mouth with a draught of water, and looked at the streets, he enters the street where there are no quarrelsome drunkards, gamesters and such folk or where there are no restive elephants, horses and the like. There, wandering for alms, he does not go speedily like one in a great hurry since there is no ascetic practice of begging food, speedily. He goes, rather, having become motionless, like a water cart on uneven ground. Entering into each house in order, spending such time as is suitable for concluding whether there is or not the tendency to offer alms (on the part of the occupants of each house), he receives alms, and comes to the inner village, outer village or even to the monastery. There he seats himself in a place pleasant and good (proper), attends to the thought of meditation with the setting up of the perception of loathsomeness in food, and reflects by way of the similes of axle-greasing, applying ointment to ulcer and feeding on own child's flesh, and eats the food fully followed with awareness of the eight attributes, (and) not for sport, intoxication, adornment or the filling up of those places of his body that have a deficiency of flesh. And he, having eaten, washes. Then he rests for a while the body that is tired with the business of eating. He attends to just the thought of meditation, in the time after eating as in the time before eating, and in the last watch of the night as in the first watch. This person is called one who carries forth and carries back the subject of meditation. The person who fulfills this observance of one who carries forth and carries back, called the carrying forth (of the thought of meditation) when going out for alms and the bringing back (of the thought of meditation) when returning from the alms-round, reaches Arahantship even in the period of youth (i.e., early age or the first stage of life), if he is possessed of the sufficing condition, the wherewithal to accomplish the destruction of ignorance and its defilements. If he fails to reach Arahantship, in early age, then he reaches it in middle age; if he fails in middle age, then at the time of death; if he fails at the time of death, then, after becoming a deva; if he fails as a deva, then, at a time when no Buddha has appeared on earth, he is born as a man and realizes the truth as a Buddha who is not able to communicate the truth to others; and if he fails to realize the truth in that way, then, immediately on meeting a Fully Enlightened Buddha he becomes a person who intuits quickly like the elder Bahiya Daruciriya, or a greatly wise one like the elder Sariputta, or one of great psychic power like the elder Mogallana the Great, or an exponent of ascetic practice like the elder Kassapa the Great, or one endowed with clairvoyant power like the elder Anuruddha, or an expert in discipline like the elder Upali or an expounder of the Dhamma like the elder Punna Mantaniputta, or a forest dweller like the elder Revata, or one of great learning like the elder Ananda, or one desirous of training like the elder Rahula, the Buddha's son. 20006 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Mar 2, 2003 7:25pm Subject: Re: preliminary practice Dear Connie, Thanks for your letter, I was happy to read it. Didn’t get a chance to be at the computer before this. You wrote: Thank you. I didn’t come up with a way to take the original phrase I wondered about out of context and still say where it came from. I also thought it would apply to other situations. When I first read the phrase ‘deliberate preliminary practice’, I thought it might even refer to reading and thinking about Dhamma. Sukin: Actually I am quite impressed with your apparent lack of mana, you go straight to the point, I think it is good accumulations for dhamma study;-). Does ‘reading and thinking about Dhamma’ count as ‘deliberate preliminary practice’? I think any activity can, if it is done without the understanding about conditions and anatta, and if it is seen as an activity to be performed ritualistically in connection to realizing the Truth. Pariyatti is not just the external activity of reading and listening. Many conditions can lead one to do this, mostly it can be Lobha and wrong view. But not only is chanda accompanied by a level of panna a more useful motivation, but pariyatti would be the actual moment of understanding on the intellectual level. What would condition this moment? Not the activity of reading and listening itself, but the right accumulations and I believe, kamma. So a person may learn the teachings by heart, but if he does not understand it, then it is not pariyatti I think. Connie: I like that “developing ignoranceâ€? idea. Hadn’t ever thought of it that way. Sukin: I think each dhamma that arises conditions more of the same as tendency. In a day, in my own case, it is almost all the time Lobha, dosa and moha. But when I consider dhamma, at least here I hope my views get progressively made more right. I find it a waste that a person comes upon Dhamma and has a wrong understanding about it. Particularly I find annoying is the fact that some people are taught to observe such things as bodily postures; sitting rupa, standing rupa etc., as though these existed. They are in reality being taught to take for real what is only concept. There is no atta, but they are being encouraged to increase atta-sanna. Connie: I agree & having said that, also admit that my new year’s resolution was to be more respectful and appreciative... which I suppose could be considered trying to cultivate an offshoot of metta. I wasn’t really thinking about that at the time. Just thought I might enjoy myself more. Sukin: I would not consider this seriously wrong as would have been were it with the view that Buddha taught it and encouraged it. Besides at the moment of making the resolution, if it is done with panna, I think it can be positive on the accumulations. ;-) We all have many accumulated wrong views and ignorance, but like I said above, when it comes to studying the Dhamma, hopefully we don’t misunderstand this. Since only the correct understanding of the Buddha’s teaching can liberate us, not sitting cross-legged with eyes closed! Connie: If nothing else, I seem to pay more attention to the thoughts I have about people I see on the street, or even noticing such things as â€?I don’t like that shade of greenâ€?... of course, it’s a lot of thinking and more concepts... even when I tell myself “dosaâ€? or “manaâ€? with = or without claiming it as mine. I suppose I could even be developing more of a sense of self now that I think about it. Sukin: This is almost how my own mind works ï?Š. In my case however, it happens too rarely, I like to blame this on ‘circumstance’, but that would be wrong ï?Œ. And I don’t worry too much about the ‘sense of self’, because even this can be observed and seen as conditioned. Connie: S: This is why according to my understanding, any development along the path of buddhadhamma, hinges upon the distinction between concept and reality. And that distinction can only start with the intellectual knowledge of the Teachings. ======== C: Not to disagree, but I wonder if there isn’t a level of emotional understanding as well. One reads the word “joyâ€? a lot... even equanimity would seem to be an emotional balance. Sukin: I don’t think that there is any such thing as emotional understanding. There can be understanding accompanied by certain feelings. But I think what you may be referring to, is the difference when there is verbalization of what is understood and when the understanding seem to be without words. Ultimately the moment of understanding does not require a label, labels are for communication and for further development of intellectual understanding. But many can be mistaken to believe that ‘silent knowing’ is real knowing when in reality, lobha is mistaken for sati. And one is unaware of the papanca moving with great force as undercurrent. Besides most prematurely dismiss descriptions of reality as being superfluous, having come to the conclusion by logical deduction, not by actual experience of dhamma. I think for most of us not only the words, but repeated exposure to the Teachings is crucial. After all concept-forming is inevitable, and even a deaf and dumb person repeatedly forms them all the time. Isn’t it then good to be exposed to the correct interpretation of ‘reality’ as in the Tipitaka so as to at least be given the chance to not take our own views too seriously? And being exposed to Buddhadhamma, doesn’t it also then protect us from being influenced by the teachings of other religions and philosophies? Left to our own device, I think we keep spinning our own theories of consciousness as can be seen in the hundreds of theories available today, both in the east and the west. I believe that we all are easy prey to “explanationsâ€?, I know that I am, whether it be our own conclusions or that of recognized and established teachings. The Buddha was not so, this is why he was not satisfied, and in the end he came upon the Truth. But of course this is all about accumulated understanding and other parami through countless lifetimes ;-/. Connie: I don’t know what sacchayana is. Or why my friends call me patient. Sukin: Perhaps if I corrected my spelling to sacchannana? The thing about this which attracts me is that it implies a stage of understanding where one sees that mere intellectualizing and ‘thinking about’ dhamma is different from the study of realities arising now. One is firm about the priority given to arising dhamma and is not attracted by explanations about it. This can only happen when one has had some practical experience with Satipatthana. From then on much experience with satipatthana and firm understanding of nama and rupa would qualify for the next stage of kicchannana. And finally when enlightenment is reached, it would be katannana, I think. This is another long post; I hope I haven’t taken too much advantage of your patience ;-). Hear from you. Metta, Sukin. 20007 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 1:14am Subject: Anatta -no control( was Comfort --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive " wrote: Dear Swee boon, Thanks for continuing this discussion, a very useful one. > Hi RobertK, Robert: Thein Nyun: "Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of > > continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: > > 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a > > deed is about to be performed and > > 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed > to > > its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas > > 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary > > characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted > belief > > in their existence. >------------ > SW: I do not understand how "conceit" and "personality belief" can be > called ideas. I know that "conceit" is a cetasika and not an idea. I > know that "personality belief" is a cetasika and not an idea. How > are "effort" and "care" imaginary characteristics? I don't think my > effort and care to write you this letter is an imaginery > characteristic. It is as real as the khandas as it can be. I don't > think the effort and care expended by the Buddha to teach his Ø Disciples is an imaginary characteristic. ----------------------- _____________ When studying the Dhamma a prime requisite is to understand the difference between concept and reality (paramattha dhamma) . In the case you mention above "I don't think my effort and care to write you this letter is an imaginary characteristic" you are talking about a long chain of events, moments. The story – writing a letter – is a concept. Even in one second so many dhammas have arisen and passed away. When we talk about long periods like writing a letter it is countless . During the writing effort arose and fell away – and each moment was different from the other- but because each moment also is one of the conditions (among many ) for the next this is not fully realised. There may have been some moments with kusala effort , some without, some with weak concentration – (right or wrong) some with stronger. Moments of energy, moments of slightly less energy: and all usually taken as `my' energy. Even when we talk about one brief moment this is a very complex thing – many different conditions needed. Without hearing the dhamma we imagine "we" are controlling everything, not understanding the intricate conditions that make up each moment. Take the act of seeing while you were writing the letter. So many different moments of seeing and each moment conditioned: "firstly the eye element is a condition in six ways – namely, dissociation, prenascence, presence, non-disapearance, support, and faculty for the eye-consciouness (cakkhu vinnana) element. The visible object is a condition in four ways , namely, prenascent, presence, non-disapearance, and object for the eye- consciousness element…."visuddhimagga xv40 Then following that flash of seeing there are many mental processes similarly conditioned by several factors, none of which are in the control of anyone. And these conditioning factors are all likewise conditioned by many conditions…. Because of ignorance of this the illusion of beings and self, like actors in an endless play, continues. We can understand conceptually how this is by looking at bodily functions- say the way the body heals cuts– very complex , and if even one condition is not present then infection can arise – and so other complex conditions are needed to heal. Nama- mentality is more subtle than rupa and more complex : "It would be better for the unlearned worldling to regard this body, built up of the four elements, as his self, rather than the mind. For it is evident that this body may last for a year, for two years, for three years, four, five, or ten years, or even a hundred years and more; but that which is called thought, or mind, or consciousness, is continuously, during day and night, arising as one thing, and passing away as another thing." S. XII. 62 ============================ > > Robert: because of continuity there is a belief, a vipallasa, > perversion > > of perception, that believes there is somewhere , somehow a > controller > > of the whole complex. > ---------------------------------- >SW: I do not understand how this continuity can result in "personality > belief". It it because of this continuity that magga and then phala > arises. It is because of this continuity that the Noble Eightfold > Path can be perfected. If it is because of this continuity that > there arises "personality belief", then there can be no escape from samsara. The Buddha could not rightly proclaim his Lion's Roar. ----------------------------------------------- "When continuity is disrupted by discerning rise and fall, the characteristic of impermanence becomes apparent in its true nature." (visuddhimagga xxi4) Of course continuity is only one aspect of why it is hard to discern the tilakkhana. > -------------------------------- SW:What is the actual root cause of "personality belief"? __________-------------------------- This is like asking what is the root cause of ignorance. No beginning is discerned to the paticasamuppada, the wheel of dependent origination) but personality belief is uprooted gradually by seeing the actual characteristics of the different dhammas: "when the resolution of the compact is effected by resolution into elements (dhatus), the characteristic of not-self become apparent in its true nature: Visuddhimagga xx15 This `being' is simply a puppet with manifold parts – all coming together in different combinations – lasting for an instant and then falling away again. Because the conditions that make up each moment are often similar "we" look and feel somewhat the same from moment to moment – and this is one aspect of how continuity deludes. ""Therefore, just as a marionette is void, soulless and without curisosity, and while it works and stands merely through the combination of strings and wood yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness, so too this materiality (rupa)- mentality (nama) is void, soulless and without curiosity, and while it walks and stands merely through the combination of the two together, yet it seems as if it had curiosity and interestedness." Visuddhimagga xviii31 The conditions that make up what we think of as a human being are of course more complex than a marionette, and hence more difficult to fathom. The first steps, of this very long untanglement, are about identifying, with right wisdom, the various characteristics of the different phenomena that comprise this `being' this manisfestion of paticcasamuppada. Usually we think "I'm interested or bored or excited or calm, or sad or happy or wise or confused or making effort or being negligent. But there are only different elements performing different functions - and they have no agenda: "[The] uninterestedness becomes evident to him though seeing rise and fall according to condition owing to his discovery of the inability of states to have mastery exercised over them. Then he more thoroughly abandons the self view"visuddhimagga xx102 The characteristic of not-self becomes evident to him through seeing rise according to conditions owing to his discovery that states have no curiosity and have their existence depending upon conditions" xx102 "All the formed bases(eye base, ear base, tongue base etc) should be regarded as having no provenance and no destination. On the contrary, before their rise they had no individual essence and after their fall their individual essences are completely dissolved. And they occur without mastery being exercisable over them since they exist in dependence on conditions and in between the past and the future. "XV15 I think everyone has no problem in accepting that there is no control over the eye or ear base. But the same applies also to the other elements which are all equally conditioned – whether they be nama or rupa. They often talk about dhatus (elements) in the suttas. What does it mean – element? There are several definitions including this:. "Element is a term for what is soulesss, xv22 and "They are only mere sortings out of suffering because no mastery is exercisable over them"visuddimagga xv20 Visuddhimagga XX83 "there is removal of false view in one who sees thus: "If formations were self it would be right to take them as self; but being not-self they are taken as self. Therefore they are not self in the sense of no power being exercisable over them; they are impermanent in the sense of non-existence after having come to be; they are painful in the sense of oppression by rise and fall" ______________________________ > > >Robert: > there are only elements arising and ceasing and performing their > many > > different functions which - like a brilliant puppet show - delude > one > into thinking there is some special element behind it all. _________________ > >SW: Is it the case that the arising and ceasing of the elements > performing their different functions the actual root cause of this > delusion? --------------------------------------- It is not seeing the actual arising and ceasing that allows the delusion to continue. ------------------------------- ----------------- > > >Robert: He writes that in fact all elements, including cetana disapear so > > fast: "The elements..arise and cease within a very short > > time. In the wink of an eye or a flash of lightning the mental > > elements arise and cease a trillion times.`This is just an > > estimate . the subcommentary takes an even higher figure....." > ________________________________________ > SW: If the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out > the "I can perform" or "I can feel", then I do not see how > these can survive in the first place. For without the elements, there cannot be the . ____________________________________________- The ideas are the shadows of what is really there. I recently quoted a letter Kom wrote which helps to explain this: ""Before a process (3) can arise, there must be "thousands" of (1), and (2) |processes already taken place repeatedly. By this description, we can deduce that, it is not enough for a single rupa (17 moments of cittas) to condition the cittas to start experiencing pannati. It must take "thousands" of panja-dvara-javana-vithi and mano-dvara- javana | vithi, which actually experience paramatha aramana, for the citta to | start "organizing" and "arranging" the sense objects into a concept. The concepts also change as the mano-dvara-javana vithi (3), experiencing the concept, repeats. For seeing, in the beginning we may just see an unidentified shape, and then it becomes a familiar shape, and then we may attach a name to the shape. At this point, the process of taking paramatha object all the way to a memorable, identifiable, namable concept is complete: a perfect aramana for upadana to hold on to."endquote I can write more about this if you wish. > _____________ > > >Robert: . In the Atthasalini it notes that > the monks who > > are reciters of the suttanta (the second basket which includes the 5 nikayas) > > may come to wrong view because in the suttas they often talk about beings > > and things. In reality there are simply dhammas arising and > passing, > > utterly conditioned. > _____ > SW: It seems that the Buddha liked to perform linguistic acrobatics... > really? Isn't the Buddha speaking in "conventional language" when he > said in Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59: > > And it is not possible [to say] with regard to consciousness, 'Let > MY consciousness be thus. Let MY consciousness not be thus.' > > The Buddha is basically performing linguistic acrobatics all over > the Suttas. What gives? ========================== ______________________ Important to know when conventional speech(vohara vacca) is being used: "as with the assembly of parts the word chariot is countenanced, So, when the aggregates are present, A being: is said in common usage."(samyutta I, 135) 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. The suttas often use such words as MY, and we can too, but we need to know that they are mere concepts. "Such forms as woman or man are local forms of speech. ..In those who have not fully understood what a physical base is there comes to be the misinterpretation "this is really a woman.."But since this is mere concept, which depends on states made to occur in such ans such a wise , one who sees and knows the dependent origination does not interpret it as ultimate meaning"Note 4 visud. vii (pm) _______________________________ ________________________ >SW: The five aggregates can never be willed not to dissolute. This is an > impossiblity. > > Yet, to suit your own agenda of "no control", you have perversed the > very meaning of this statement. > _____________ > > > Robert:The literal translation of the Anatta lakkhana sutta is "the > characteristic > > of not-self" and that characteristic is no control. > > ""The mode of insusceptibility to having power exercised over > > them is the characteristic of no-self.""Sammohavinodani>>> > _______________________ >SW: Sammohavinodani (whatever that is, I have not come across this funny > name) did not say "characteristic of no control". That is your own Ø extrapolation. ___________ Yes, I shortened it , I think the meaning remains the same. The sammohavinodani is the commentary to the second book of the Abhidhamma. Anyway for this letter I use the visuddhimagga as I know most members have a copy. _____________________________________ > >SW: The statement "the mode of insusceptibility to having power > exercised over them" must be understood in the context of what was > said. And what did Sarah say? > > For the fully Englightened One, when teaching the characteristic of > no-self, teaches it by means of the impermanent, or by means of > suffering, or by means of (both) the impermanent and suffering." > > > This means that there can be no power that can be exercised over the > impermanent and dukkha elements such that they become permanent and > non-dukkha. This is an impossibility. In reference to this was this > statement uttered. This impossibility manifests the characterisitc Ø of no-self. Ø _____________ The characteristic of anatta is "the insusceptibilty of having power exercised over them" (no control, for short). This is so difficult to see and to help the Buddha teaches it by means of impermanence or by means of suffering. The same dhammas- all elements (except nibbana) have the same Tilakkhana of aniccum ,dukkhum and anatta (nibana only has the last). So by properly understanding either impermanence or dukkha one also can understand anatta. It is also understood by conditionality. There is much more to be said on all this – a topic which we can never hear enough of – but as this letter is already long I will stop for now. RobertK 20008 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Kom and Jim) - > > Not to be offensive, but merely to be a bit skeptical of matters > such > as this: ..... I’m sceptical too. Rest assured, in the 3 years of so that you've been posting very regularly on DSG, I've never known you be in the least bit offensive, either of the Buddha’s teachings, of any members or of any contrary views and understandings;-) I think it’s a bit baffling to us all....one of those somewhat academic points that may be clarified when someone comes across some detail unexpectedly. Another detail in it that puzzles me is the calculation of the hattha. According to Horner, the measurement (elbow to tip of middle finger) works out at 15”. Well, for me (and it would have been about the same for Miss Horner) that’s about correct. But then, I’m small even by modern dwarf sizes;-) It would be twice that length of someone of 10’ and so on. Hmmm....time for me to put it aside. ..... I wonder whether Siddhattha was this way only after becoming > the > Buddha or whether he was this gigantic size prior to the conception of > Rahula! > To me, this claim of three times normal size is an absurdity. I > don't > believe it to be literally true. However, there could be a *germ* of > truth in > the claim. He might well have been quite large even at birth. Didn't his > > mother die during or shortly after the birth if Siddhattha? Could this > have > been due to his being an unusually large newborn? ..... I don’t think this was the reason for her death. Afew quotes from “The Clarifier of Sweet Meaning”, comy to “Buddhavamsa”, PTS ch XXVI, Gotama: 1.“...He thought , “A Buddha’s mother is not a wanton or a drunkard. On the contrary, for a hundred thousand eons she has fulfilled the perfections; never since her birth has she torn the five moreal habits. And this queen named Mahamaya is such a one. She shall be my mother”. And then, thinking what would be the extent of her life-span, he saw it would be ten months and seven days.” 2.“...but as the womb where a Bodhisatta has dwelt is like the interior of a cetiya and can be neither made use of nor occupied by another, so the bodhisatta’s mother, having done her (kammic) time, was reborn in Tusita city a week after the bodhisatta was born”. 3.related to size of the baby?? As soon as he was born: “When he had surveyed the ten quarters thus, not seeing one like himself he tool seven strides facing northward. As he was walking on the ground thus, he did not go through the sky, he went like an unclothed (ascetic), not like one who was clothed, and he went LIKE A BOY, not as one who was in his sixteenth year; but, to the populace HE WAS WALKING AS THOUGH THROUGH THE SKY AND AS THOUGH HE WERE DECKT OUT AND ADORNED AND AS THOUGH HE WERE IN HIS SIXTEENTH YEAR. Then, at the seventh step he stood still, and at once sending forth his noble voice, he roared the lion’s roar, “I am the highest in the world.” “ Thanks for your interest and a math professor may be just what we need here with all the measurements;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Maybe the Buddha could make himself appear normal size as appropriate or is that a stretch?? ====== 20009 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 1:42am Subject: mindfulness Dear Kom, Thank You for explaining to me about the mindfulness word. Do you ever celebrate Chinese New Year? Does every Buddist believe that mindfulness is essential to them? Was the real Buddha Gold ? Is mindfulness always good or sometimes bad as well? Metta, Janice 20010 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 1:45am Subject: temples Hi James, You know you said about the temple you go to.Is there anything like going to the temple every Sunday? So Buddhists are really different to both Christians and Jews, where they sing to thank for the blessing or anything similar. You said that said people go to the temple to meditate. When you meditate what do you have in mind? Thanks for the poems! Metta Hilary 20011 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 1:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... --- Just a point; occasionally either anuruddha or nanda , I forget which, were mistaken as the Buddha from a distance because they were about the same height - both tall and well proportioned -according to a commentary I read. robertk In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Kom and Jim) - > > > > Not to be offensive, but merely to be a bit skeptical of matters > > such > > as this: > ..... > I'm sceptical too. Rest assured, in the 3 years of so that you've been > posting very regularly on DSG, I've never known you be in the least bit > offensive, either of the Buddha's teachings, of any members or of any > contrary views and understandings;-) > > I think it's a bit baffling to us all....one of those somewhat academic > points that may be clarified when someone comes across some detail > unexpectedly. > > Another detail in it that puzzles me is the calculation of the hattha. > According to Horner, the measurement (elbow to tip of middle finger) works > out at 15". Well, for me (and it would have been about the same for Miss > Horner) that's about correct. But then, I'm small even by modern dwarf > sizes;-) It would be twice that length of someone of 10' and so on. > Hmmm....time for me to put it aside. > ..... > I wonder whether Siddhattha was this way only after becoming > > the > > Buddha or whether he was this gigantic size prior to the conception of > > Rahula! > > To me, this claim of three times normal size is an absurdity. I > > don't > > believe it to be literally true. However, there could be a *germ* of > > truth in > > the claim. He might well have been quite large even at birth. Didn't his > > > > mother die during or shortly after the birth if Siddhattha? Could this > > have > > been due to his being an unusually large newborn? > ..... > I don't think this was the reason for her death. > > Afew quotes from "The Clarifier of Sweet Meaning", comy to "Buddhavamsa", > PTS ch XXVI, Gotama: > > 1."...He thought , "A Buddha's mother is not > a wanton or a drunkard. On the contrary, for a hundred thousand eons she > has fulfilled the perfections; never since her birth has she torn the > five moreal habits. And this queen named Mahamaya is such a one. She > shall be my mother". And then, thinking what would be the extent of her > life-span, he saw it would be ten months and seven days." > > 2."...but as the womb where a Bodhisatta has dwelt is like the interior of > a cetiya and can be neither made use of nor occupied by another, so the > bodhisatta's mother, having done her (kammic) time, was reborn in Tusita > city a week after the bodhisatta was born". > > 3.related to size of the baby?? As soon as he was born: > > "When he had surveyed the ten quarters thus, not seeing one like himself > he tool seven strides facing northward. As he was walking on the ground > thus, he did not go through the sky, he went like an unclothed (ascetic), > not like one who was clothed, and he went LIKE A BOY, not as one who was > in his sixteenth year; but, to the populace HE WAS WALKING AS THOUGH > THROUGH THE SKY AND AS THOUGH HE WERE DECKT OUT AND ADORNED AND AS THOUGH > HE WERE IN HIS SIXTEENTH YEAR. Then, at the seventh step he stood still, > and at once sending forth his noble voice, he roared the lion's roar, "I > am the highest in the world." " > > Thanks for your interest and a math professor may be just what we need > here with all the measurements;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s Maybe the Buddha could make himself appear normal size as appropriate > or is that a stretch?? > ====== 20012 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 3:15am Subject: Re:(3) Anattta and Kamma and Conventional Events(? at end) Hello Rob M, You wrote; ---------- > I think that eye-door consciousness, ear-door consciousness, nose-door consciousness and tongue-door consciousness is always accompanied by neutral feeling. It doesn't matter if it is akusala eye-door consciousness (the result of past akusala javana) or kusala eye-door consciousness (the result of past kusala javana). > ------------- Yes, that's what I thought. Perhaps my referring to all vipaka cittas as either pleasant or unpleasant experiences, gave the impression that I was disagreeing. Do you see them that way, or does an accompanying neutral feeling prevent a kusala eye-door vipaka citta from being regarded as pleasant? ---------- > My recent post has lots more details (please let me know if you find any mistakes). > ------------ If there were any mistakes, I'm sure they'd be too technical for me to pick out, but thanks for asking :-) ------------- > You might find my recent post on Sanna interesting as it does touch on feelings arising at the mind door rather than at the sense door. > ------------- I've always found sanna a difficult topic and haven't bothered with it much. That was until Andrew assigned me a question on memory to discuss at a meeting this weekend. So I was pleased to read that post, thank you. The question of what visible object looks like -- whether it's a coloured pixel or more like a single frame in a movie film -- has been brought up before. Most memorably, Nina said that this is thinking, not seeing. (I must look for that post in my dsg scrap book, it was very good.) She advised us that, "visible object is what appears at the eye, that is all." Kind regards, Ken H 20013 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 3:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi again, Connie - > > In a message dated 2/17/03 5:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, > nichicon@h... writes: > > > I'm not sure what you mean by a causal connection between kamma > and > > corresponding vipaka. Are you saying there should be some > recognizable > > linear relationship? ... > ======================== > I realize that I didn't directly answer this question in my > previous > reply. What I mean by a "causal connection" is a relationship the > four main > characteristics of which are (taken from Samyutta Nikaya 2.25, and > as > reported by Kalupahana) the following: "... objectivity (tathata), > necessity > (avitathata), invariability (ana~n~nathata), and conditionality or > interdependence (idappaccayata). ... I would like to follow up on these 4 characteristics of a realtionship that constititute a causal connection (very interesting), but I've not had any luck finding the sutta. Is there any other information you can give about it? Thanks. Jon > .... It is a relation of the general form of > dependent origination: > > 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. [S.II.28,65] > > Causality in this sense does not require some hidden "causal > power", > but only the objectivity, necessity, invariability, and > conditionality of the > relationship between the conditions and their result. > > With metta, > Howard 20014 From: Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 0:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/3/03 4:37:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Maybe the Buddha could make himself appear normal size as appropriate > or is that a stretch?? > ===================== Pun intended? ;-)) 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) 20015 From: Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 0:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Hi, Jon - I've been doing an internet search, but no luck yet. Sorry. (I will continue to search.) With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/3/03 6:26:32 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Howard > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi again, Connie - > > > >In a message dated 2/17/03 5:07:34 PM Eastern Standard Time, > >nichicon@h... writes: > > > >>I'm not sure what you mean by a causal connection between kamma > >and > >>corresponding vipaka. Are you saying there should be some > >recognizable > >>linear relationship? ... > >======================== > > I realize that I didn't directly answer this question in my > >previous > >reply. What I mean by a "causal connection" is a relationship the > >four main > >characteristics of which are (taken from Samyutta Nikaya 2.25, and > >as > >reported by Kalupahana) the following: "... objectivity (tathata), > >necessity > >(avitathata), invariability (ana~n~nathata), and conditionality or > >interdependence (idappaccayata). ... > > I would like to follow up on these 4 characteristics of a > realtionship that constititute a causal connection (very > interesting), but I've not had any luck finding the sutta. Is there > any other information you can give about it? Thanks. > > Jon > > > .... It is a relation of the general form of > >dependent origination: > > > > 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. [S.II.28,65] > > > > Causality in this sense does not require some hidden "causal > >power", > >but only the objectivity, necessity, invariability, and > >conditionality of the > >relationship between the conditions and their result. > > > >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) 20016 From: m. nease Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 6:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) (Sorry if I sent this before--I just found it apparently 'unsent' in my 'outbox'). Hi Jon, Sarah Et Al., I do understand the difference between kamma (cetanaa) and kamma-patha in a general way--though I'm not crystal clear on where to draw the line (I suspect it may be naturally a little blurred). My interest in lobha in this context is because of its basic position as one of the three unwholesome roots. In the context of lobha-dosa-moha, lobha has always seemed to me to include all forms of lobha including all those mentioned in Htoo Naing's recent reminder as well as kaama and maybe others. Otherwise, why not 'kaama-dosa-moha' or raaga-dosa-moha'? Though I do recall instances in the discourses of failure of attainment (of nirodha) resulting from akusala vipaaka (resulting in turn from akusala kamma-patha), it seems to me that everyday attachments and aversions (and identification with them), and their perpetual, moment-to-moment reinforcement (by volitional action) are far more central to the most central problem of all--conditioned origination. (I'm not sure that this view is supportable from the texts). To put it another way, it seems to me that the main issue isn't kusala vs. akusala, but rebirth vs. cessation. Kusala kamma-patha leads to pleasant rebirth/sense impingement; pa~n~naa leads to nibbaana. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 9:38 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) > Mike > > Great to have you back again :-)), :-)). I hope you don't mind me > jumping in here. > > Kamma is a vast and complex subject, which I do not pretend to even > partly grasp (I mean of course at an intellectual level). > > However, I believe we need to distinguish between the moments of > kusala/akusala volition that constitute 'completed action' or > 'courses of action' (kamma patha) and those moments of kusala/akusala > volition that are not of that strength or nature but simply > accumulate as a tendency. > > While it's true that the latter may play a part in our committing > more of the former at some time in the future, even this is not > necessarily so with all instances of akusala volition. For example, > the attachment that motivates our normal living activities (eating, > brushing teeth, going to work etc) is not regarded as leading us in > the direction of committing more akusala kamma patha. If I remember > correctly, this class of attachment is referred to somewhere in the > teachings as attachment that is 'to be followed' (perhaps someone > will remember the source, it has been quoted on-list before). Put > another way, this akusala volition simply does not involve the degree > of danger that other akusala volition does. > > In addition to that, even among the akusala volition that constitutes > akusala kamma patha, some plays only a supporting role, and so is > dependent for its efficacy on other (more weighty) kamma coming to > fruition. > > I have pasted below some extracts from Nyanatiloka's Buddhist > Dictionary that might be of interest. > > Jon > > Nyanatiloka's Buddhist Dictionary > A. Kamma-patha > <<< > kamma-patha: 'course of action', is a name for the group of 10 kinds > of either unwholesome or wholesome actions, viz. > I. The tenfold unwholesome courses of action (akusala-kamma-patha): > - 3 bodily actions: killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; > - 4 verbal actions: lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; > - 3 mental actions: covetousness, ill-will, evil views. > II. The tenfold wholesome course of action (kusala-kamma-patha): > - 3 bodily actions: avoidance of killing, stealing, unlawful sexual > intercourse; > - 4 verbal actions: avoidance of lying, slandering, rude speech, > foolish babble; i.e. true, conciliatory, mild, and wise speech; > - 3 mental actions: unselfishness, good-will, right views. > > Unwholesome mental courses of action comprise only extreme forms of > defiled thought: the greedy wish to appropriate others' property, the > hateful thought of harming others, and pernicious views. Milder forms > of mental defilement are also unwholesome, but do not constitute > 'courses of action'. > >>> > > B. Kamma > <<< > kamma: 'action', correctly speaking denotes the wholesome and > unwholesome volitions (kusala- and akusala-cetaná) and their > concomitant mental factors, causing rebirth and shaping the destiny > of beings. > These karmical volitions (kamma cetaná) become manifest as wholesome > or unwholesome actions by body (káya-kamma), speech (vací-kamma) and > mind (mano-kamma). > .. .. .. > With regard to their functions one distinguishes: > 1. regenerative (or productive) karma (janaka-kamma), > 2. supportive (or consolidating) karma (upatthambhaka-kamma), > 3. counteractive (suppressive or frustrating) karma > (upapílaka-kamma), > 4. destructive (or supplanting) karma (upaghátaka- or > upacchedaka-kamma). > (1) produces the 5 groups of existence (corporeality, feeling, > perception, mental formations, consciousness) at rebirth as well as > during life-continuity. > (2) does not produce karma-results but is only able to maintain the > already produced karma-results. > (3) counteracts or suppresses the karma-results. > (4) destroys the influence of a weaker karma and effects only its own > result. > >>> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 7:26 AM > > > Hi Nina, > > Thanks for you comments, > > "If we like our food or laugh, there is no akusala kamma. We just > discussed this again with A. Sujin. If we would think that laughing > brings an unpleasant result, how unnatural our life would be. It > could cause lots of scruples to people." > > If thought, speech or action with regard to a pleasant impingement > (of thought of flavor e.g.) is conditioned by attachment to the > pleasant feeling--that is, tending to continue or repeat the > impingement--this is perfectly natural but still akusala, I think, > however subtle. (I mean that that volition does accumulate as > akusala kamma and as a condition for > future akusala kamma). > > In fact I think most akusala is 'perfectly natural' and learning to > see the danger in it (especially in lobha) is rather un-natural. > Naturally, people like to think that their everday pleasures and > attachments are harmless, but this is not borne out by my (obviously > very limited) understanding of Buddhadhamma. > > Am I missing or miscontruing something? Thanks in advance... > > mike 20017 From: m. nease Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 6:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Just a note: Seems to me that whether we're talking about these odd descriptions of the Buddha, minced and reconstituted arahats flying through the air, talking animals or terrorists (American, Arab or whatever)--whether 'myth' or 'reality', are all papa~nca--but moments of feeling, thought, various emotions etc. with regard to the papa~nca are all potentially bases of insight. My apologies if I'm just restating the obvious. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: mailto:rjkjp1 wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Kom and Jim) - > > > > Not to be offensive, but merely to be a bit skeptical of matters > > such > > as this: > ..... > I'm sceptical too. Rest assured, in the 3 years of so that you've been > posting very regularly on DSG, I've never known you be in the least bit > offensive, either of the Buddha's teachings, of any members or of any > contrary views and understandings;-) > > I think it's a bit baffling to us all....one of those somewhat academic > points that may be clarified when someone comes across some detail > unexpectedly. > > Another detail in it that puzzles me is the calculation of the hattha. > According to Horner, the measurement (elbow to tip of middle finger) works > out at 15". Well, for me (and it would have been about the same for Miss > Horner) that's about correct. But then, I'm small even by modern dwarf > sizes;-) It would be twice that length of someone of 10' and so on. > Hmmm....time for me to put it aside. > ..... > I wonder whether Siddhattha was this way only after becoming > > the > > Buddha or whether he was this gigantic size prior to the conception of > > Rahula! > > To me, this claim of three times normal size is an absurdity. I > > don't > > believe it to be literally true. However, there could be a *germ* of > > truth in > > the claim. He might well have been quite large even at birth. Didn't his > > > > mother die during or shortly after the birth if Siddhattha? Could this > > have > > been due to his being an unusually large newborn? > ..... > I don't think this was the reason for her death. > > Afew quotes from "The Clarifier of Sweet Meaning", comy to "Buddhavamsa", > PTS ch XXVI, Gotama: > > 1."...He thought , "A Buddha's mother is not > a wanton or a drunkard. On the contrary, for a hundred thousand eons she > has fulfilled the perfections; never since her birth has she torn the > five moreal habits. And this queen named Mahamaya is such a one. She > shall be my mother". And then, thinking what would be the extent of her > life-span, he saw it would be ten months and seven days." > > 2."...but as the womb where a Bodhisatta has dwelt is like the interior of > a cetiya and can be neither made use of nor occupied by another, so the > bodhisatta's mother, having done her (kammic) time, was reborn in Tusita > city a week after the bodhisatta was born". > > 3.related to size of the baby?? As soon as he was born: > > "When he had surveyed the ten quarters thus, not seeing one like himself > he tool seven strides facing northward. As he was walking on the ground > thus, he did not go through the sky, he went like an unclothed (ascetic), > not like one who was clothed, and he went LIKE A BOY, not as one who was > in his sixteenth year; but, to the populace HE WAS WALKING AS THOUGH > THROUGH THE SKY AND AS THOUGH HE WERE DECKT OUT AND ADORNED AND AS THOUGH > HE WERE IN HIS SIXTEENTH YEAR. Then, at the seventh step he stood still, > and at once sending forth his noble voice, he roared the lion's roar, "I > am the highest in the world." " > > Thanks for your interest and a math professor may be just what we need > here with all the measurements;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s Maybe the Buddha could make himself appear normal size as appropriate > or is that a stretch?? > ====== > > 20018 From: htootintnaing Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 6:24am Subject: Re:(3) Anattta and Kamma and Conventional Events(? at end) Dear Ken H and Friends, Vipakacittas of sense-door either Akusala or Kusala always have natural feeling with exception of Bodily-touch. Agreeing or disagreeing is the matter of the individual. The scene of human excreta is an obscene and anyone who sees it will disgust(there might be Domanassa-javanas).But it may be a pleasurable scene for a dog(Somanassa-javanas).Arahats will definitely view it naturally(Upekkha-Kiriya-javana). The Golden Image of The Buddha is not a special scene for Non- Buddhists even though they may have some interest for other reasons (Upekkha-Javanas).Those who hate believing in Images or so will view with Domanassa-javanas and they may even destroy the Image.For those who believe deeply in The Buddha and Dhamma will view as a wonderful scene(Somanassa-Javanas). Sight initially is just Upekkha but later Vithicittas hold different views depending on the individual's wisdom. May you all have a right view on The Dhamma. With Metta, Htoo Naing ^^^^^^ --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau " wrote: > Hello Rob M, > > I think that eye-door consciousness, ear-door > consciousness, nose-door consciousness and tongue-door > consciousness is always accompanied by neutral feeling. > It doesn't matter if it is akusala eye-door consciousness > (the result of past akusala javana) or kusala > eye-door consciousness (the result of past kusala > javana). > > ------------- > Yes, that's what I thought. Perhaps my referring to all > vipaka cittas as either pleasant or unpleasant > experiences, gave the impression that I was disagreeing. > Do you see them that way, or does an accompanying neutral > feeling prevent a kusala eye-door vipaka citta from being > regarded as pleasant? > > ---------- > > My recent post has lots more details (please let me > know if you find any mistakes). > > ------------ > > If there were any mistakes, I'm sure they'd be too > technical for me to pick out, but thanks for > asking :-) > > ------------- > > You might find my recent post on Sanna interesting as > it does touch on feelings arising at the mind door rather > than at the sense door. > > ------------- > > I've always found sanna a difficult topic and haven't > bothered with it much. That was until Andrew assigned me > a question on memory to discuss at a meeting this > weekend. So I was pleased to read that post, thank you. > > The question of what visible object looks like -- whether > it's a coloured pixel or more like a single frame in a > movie film -- has been brought up before. Most > memorably, Nina said that this is thinking, not seeing. > (I must look for that post in my dsg scrap book, it was > very good.) She advised us that, "visible object is what > appears at the eye, that is all." > > Kind regards, > Ken H 20019 From: m. nease Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... p.s. Ditto 'woeful realms' etc. ----- Original Message ----- From: m. nease To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 6:14 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Just a note: Seems to me that whether we're talking about these odd descriptions of the Buddha, minced and reconstituted arahats flying through the air, talking animals or terrorists (American, Arab or whatever)--whether 'myth' or 'reality', are all papa~nca--but moments of feeling, thought, various emotions etc. with regard to the papa~nca are all potentially bases of insight. My apologies if I'm just restating the obvious. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: mailto:rjkjp1 wrote: > Hi Howard, > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah (and Kom and Jim) - > > > > Not to be offensive, but merely to be a bit skeptical of matters > > such > > as this: > ..... > I'm sceptical too. Rest assured, in the 3 years of so that you've been > posting very regularly on DSG, I've never known you be in the least bit > offensive, either of the Buddha's teachings, of any members or of any > contrary views and understandings;-) > > I think it's a bit baffling to us all....one of those somewhat academic > points that may be clarified when someone comes across some detail > unexpectedly. > > Another detail in it that puzzles me is the calculation of the hattha. > According to Horner, the measurement (elbow to tip of middle finger) works > out at 15". Well, for me (and it would have been about the same for Miss > Horner) that's about correct. But then, I'm small even by modern dwarf > sizes;-) It would be twice that length of someone of 10' and so on. > Hmmm....time for me to put it aside. > ..... > I wonder whether Siddhattha was this way only after becoming > > the > > Buddha or whether he was this gigantic size prior to the conception of > > Rahula! > > To me, this claim of three times normal size is an absurdity. I > > don't > > believe it to be literally true. However, there could be a *germ* of > > truth in > > the claim. He might well have been quite large even at birth. Didn't his > > > > mother die during or shortly after the birth if Siddhattha? Could this > > have > > been due to his being an unusually large newborn? > ..... > I don't think this was the reason for her death. > > Afew quotes from "The Clarifier of Sweet Meaning", comy to "Buddhavamsa", > PTS ch XXVI, Gotama: > > 1."...He thought , "A Buddha's mother is not > a wanton or a drunkard. On the contrary, for a hundred thousand eons she > has fulfilled the perfections; never since her birth has she torn the > five moreal habits. And this queen named Mahamaya is such a one. She > shall be my mother". And then, thinking what would be the extent of her > life-span, he saw it would be ten months and seven days." > > 2."...but as the womb where a Bodhisatta has dwelt is like the interior of > a cetiya and can be neither made use of nor occupied by another, so the > bodhisatta's mother, having done her (kammic) time, was reborn in Tusita > city a week after the bodhisatta was born". > > 3.related to size of the baby?? As soon as he was born: > > "When he had surveyed the ten quarters thus, not seeing one like himself > he tool seven strides facing northward. As he was walking on the ground > thus, he did not go through the sky, he went like an unclothed (ascetic), > not like one who was clothed, and he went LIKE A BOY, not as one who was > in his sixteenth year; but, to the populace HE WAS WALKING AS THOUGH > THROUGH THE SKY AND AS THOUGH HE WERE DECKT OUT AND ADORNED AND AS THOUGH > HE WERE IN HIS SIXTEENTH YEAR. Then, at the seventh step he stood still, > and at once sending forth his noble voice, he roared the lion's roar, "I > am the highest in the world." " > > Thanks for your interest and a math professor may be just what we need > here with all the measurements;-) > > Metta, > > Sarah > > p.s Maybe the Buddha could make himself appear normal size as appropriate > or is that a stretch?? > ====== > > > 20020 From: nidive Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 6:52am Subject: Re: Anatta -no control( was Comfort Hi RobertK, I hope you are not annoyed with me. Those things said by Thein Nyun are very unacceptable as I have pointed out. Continuity of the elements does not cause "personality belief". It is not the direct cause of it. I do think there is no cause, but the Buddha did talk of a "root" sequence of all phenomena though. See: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html Let me use a "theoretical approach" to try to convey my message of "control without a controller" to you. Suppose you need to move your right hand from point A to point D. Suppose it takes one abhidhammic moment at each points, A, B, C, D. We know that at each of the points a single cetana arises, coordinates the rest of the elements to do their jobs and then ceases together with those elements. We know that cetana is not-self. It arises, does its job and then ceases. Yet, when we look at all four cetanas in sequence, did they perform their job of coordinating your right hand from point A to point D step-by-step? A single cetana by itself cannot do this. It's coordination is microscopic. But with four cetanas, this is possible. The coordination becomes macroscopic. When this progression is viewed strictly from the point of view of cetana A to cetana D, can it be rightly said that the cetanas, working in sequence after one another, did not control/direct/coordinate the right hand to move from point A to point D? A single cetana performs it's coordination at the microscopic level. The aggregate of cetana performs it's coordination at the macroscopic level. When viewed at the macroscopic level, I do not see a self within or without the four impermanent cetanas. Yet, there is controlling/directing/coordinating of the hand from point A to point D. "Whatever (mental) fabrications are PAST, FUTURE, or PRESENT; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: those are called the aggregate of fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-048.html It is this cetaná that is ALLUDED TO AS sankhára and (Kamma) bhava in the Paticca Samuppáda. In the pañcakkhandha, by sankhárakkhandha are meant the fifty mental states, excluding vedaná and saññá, with cetaná AS THE FOREMOST. http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_2.htm I have put down what I have known for myself through insight into theoretical form. If I do not have this insight, I would probably have agreed with you about "no-control". But precisely because I have this insight, I cannot agree with you. That would be a falsehood for me. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20021 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 8:00am Subject: RE: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Hi Sarah & Robert & Mike, > -----Original Message----- > > p.s Maybe the Buddha could make himself appear > normal size as appropriate > or is that a stretch?? > ====== Ah, but have you seen the description in the comy that the Buddha hid his size? We saw comy descriptions about the Buddha hiding his 32 and other minor characteristics, as well as the radiated lights. Robert's point just raises even more questions... Nanda probably looks very much like the Buddha. Not only he was a relative, but he was also endowed with the 32 great-man characteristics, but on the other hand he doesn't radiate lights either.... Of course, Mike's answer is the best for this one, and it is a point that is never too obvious! We can go on forever on a thread about all these, as well as the size of the universe, the potency of Jhana, probably all brings madness eventually... kom 20022 From: Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 3:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Anatta -no control( was Comfort Hi, Swee Boon (and Robert) - I'd like to make a comment or two. Swee Boon, I think the points you make here are quite valid (realizing, of course, that the referring to only for moments of cetana is just for purposes of illustration). Actually, I don't really think that what you write contradicts the points made in Robert's outstanding post to which you are here replying. As I see it, the microscopic and macroscopic perspectives are complementary but compatible, and it is understanding both and their relationship that gives the full picture. Also, while it is not continuity per se which causes self-view, I do think that the *misunderstanding* of the apparent continuity is a major factor in I-making. Now, with regard to control/no-control, I've already weighed in on that, supporting the perspective of control but no controller. However, it is the impersonal function of many moments of cetana, together with the sense of continuity, which, under the influence of avijja, play a major role in our sensing and believing in a controlling self. So, this issue is a very important one, probably critical. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/3/03 9:53:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi RobertK, > > I hope you are not annoyed with me. > > Those things said by Thein Nyun are very unacceptable as I have > pointed out. > > Continuity of the elements does not cause "personality belief". It > is not the direct cause of it. > > I do think there is no cause, but the Buddha did talk of > a "root" sequence of all phenomena though. See: > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn001.html > > Let me use a "theoretical approach" to try to convey my message of > "control without a controller" to you. > > Suppose you need to move your right hand from point A to point D. > Suppose it takes one abhidhammic moment at each points, A, B, C, D. > > We know that at each of the points a single cetana arises, > coordinates the rest of the elements to do their jobs and then > ceases together with those elements. > > We know that cetana is not-self. It arises, does its job and then > ceases. > > Yet, when we look at all four cetanas in sequence, did they perform > their job of coordinating your right hand from point A to point D > step-by-step? > > A single cetana by itself cannot do this. It's coordination is > microscopic. But with four cetanas, this is possible. The > coordination becomes macroscopic. > > When this progression is viewed strictly from the point of view of > cetana A to cetana D, can it be rightly said that the cetanas, > working in sequence after one another, did not > control/direct/coordinate the right hand to move from point A > to point D? > > A single cetana performs it's coordination at the microscopic level. > The aggregate of cetana performs it's coordination at the > macroscopic level. > > When viewed at the macroscopic level, I do not see a self within or > without the four impermanent cetanas. Yet, there is > controlling/directing/coordinating of the hand from point A to > point D. > > > "Whatever (mental) fabrications are PAST, FUTURE, or PRESENT; > internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or > near: those are called the aggregate of fabrications. > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-048.html > > It is this cetaná that is ALLUDED TO AS sankhára and (Kamma) bhava > in the Paticca Samuppáda. In the pañcakkhandha, by sankhárakkhandha > are meant the fifty mental states, excluding vedaná and saññá, with > cetaná AS THE FOREMOST. > > http://www.palikanon.com/english/sangaha/chapter_2.htm > > > I have put down what I have known for myself through insight into > theoretical form. If I do not have this insight, I would probably > have agreed with you about "no-control". But precisely because I > have this insight, I cannot agree with you. That would be a > falsehood for me. > > 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) 20023 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 9:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna - Looking for feedback! Hi Howard, Sorry for the delay in responding. I am in Bangkok today and very busy. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Someone then on the list told me that, no, a > visual object is the entire "snapshot" that appears at one moment, for > example when one opens the eyes - so that sa~n~na then subsequently carves > out and identifies parts of what is already entirely present). I have no axe > to grind in his matter. As far as I'm concerned, the mattter is simply as it > is. But there does seem to be a difference in perspective here. Though my understand is "a dot", if somebody were to show me a reference that it was a total snapshot that was later "carved out" by mind-door citta-processes, I would see it as a minor, technical clarification... the main points about the function of sanna as memory and the relative importance of the mind-door citta process wouldn't change at all. Metta, Rob M :-) 20024 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 9:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna - Looking for feedback! Hi TG, Thanks for your input. I have inserted a few comments below. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Comment: If considering the rods and cones on the retina to be like dots of > information, this makes sense. What is actually seen is light. Experience > is the result of contact. It seems that perceptions of objects (in the > distance) are interpretations of those dots. (Howard's comment that > perceptions arise as a "snap shot" seems supported by the notion in > abhidhamma materials that perception is a universal mental factors and > accompanies all consciousness.) However, it seems that perceptions arise > more from a process and the suttas seem to indicate that as well. Perhaps it > depends on the "type" or complexity of perception. ===== As I replied to Howard, I see this as a "tactical" point, not a "strategic" one. ====== > > he Suttas explain that sanna creates concepts. We have seen that > > the sense-door citta process a small, elemental bit of information > > and the subsequent mind-door citta processes process this into > > increasingly complex concepts: > > - Dots --> Blocks of colour --> Shapes --> > > > Comment: This seems real solid. Just to "knit-pick" though, perhaps the word > create is not appropriate and "generate" or "form a foundation for" would be > better. ====== I pick, "form a foundation for" as being closest to my understanding. ===== > > This stage of judgment is what completes the > > link between feeling and craving in dependent origination. > > > > Craving is conditioned by pleasant feeling associated with concepts. > > Visible objects condition neutral feeling and therefore do not > > condition craving directly. Pleasant feeling is associated with > > current concepts when sanna "remembers" past concepts and the > > associated pleasant feeling. > > Comment A: Judgement or concepts that either intervene or associate between > feeling and craving are not necessarily links between the two. The Buddha > says: due to feeling, craving arises. He does not say that due to feeling > and judgements /concepts, craving arises. I think feeling and craving should > be seen as direct links. In fact, it is more likely that due to craving --> > judgements and concepts arise. (As forms of clinging.) Craving is the source > for mental exploration that result in judgements and concepts that continue > to seek out new pleasures. > > Comment B: Rob M, the above was my initial reaction but after reading again > below and above, I think you are right also. I think both are happening > depending on the conditions. I tend to look at things from an evolutionary > point of view. If extremely simple rudimentary creatures are thought of, > they are not forming judgements or concepts most likely. Yet I suspect they > have pleasant feeling and craving which is what makes them grasp after > existence. In the case of more highly evolved creatures, concepts and > judgements are "extra factors" to be considered. Yet, I cannot remember any > instance of the Buddha saying that: due to concepts and judgements --> > craving arises. I don't think the Honeyball is saying that. > > "What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one > thinks about. What one thinks about, that one obsesses." > > I suspect the craving process is accompanying and propagating the - - > perceiving, thinking about, and obsession -- being mentioned here. ======== I see "judgement" as having a very specific function of accessing the feeling that is associated with the name in long-term memory. Judgement drags that feeling from memory and this feeling is what "craving" chases after. I would associate "judgement" with the "thinking about" stage of the Honeyball Sutta, which comes before obsession. In the Honeyball Sutta, the term "thinking about" is a translation of vitakka, which when used as a cetasika means "initial application". To me, this is an "unconscious bias" applied by the mind to the object; a semi- automatic response which has the same flavour as "inital application". "Judgement" was the name used by Shwe Zan Aung in his introductory essay to the Abhidhammatthasangaha (PTS version) as one of the stages before conceptual proliferation (I can't remember the exact sequence and I am now on the road, so I need to check the exact sequence). ====== > > Just as sanna is between feeling (vedana) and craving (taöha) in the > > chain of dependent origination, whenever the five aggregates are > > listed, sanna is always listed between feeling and sankhara > > (sankhara includes craving). > > > Comment: Is this last a true statement? Is sanna mentioned in the 12 Fold > Chain? > ===== You are correct that sanna is not one of the links. I took this idea from the book, "The Five Aggregates - Understanding Theravada Psychology and Soteriology" which stresses the role that sanna plays in the transition from feeling to craving. Metta, Rob M :-) 20025 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 10:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Dear Rob M, op 02-03-2003 06:49 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > This is something that I am not clear about. What makes a > kamma, "kamma-patha"? > > I thought that every javana citta created the potential for future > vipaka (when conditions allowed). If I understand Jon correctly, he > disagrees and feels that only certain javana cittas create the > potential for future vipaka. Please help me understand better. Nina: I think you know the texts of the Atth, where it is explained that certain factors make kamma a kamma patha. Like in the case of killing, etc. We had many posts on this subject, also long ago. Num warned: kamma is the field of the Buddhas. We have a few explanations from Tipita and Co, but it does not help to go on reasoning. A. Sujin will say: through satipatthana you will understand. What about this moment: is it kusala, akusala, vipaka, kiriya? You need not worry when you think, in a minute I shall have a delicious dessert, or, what a long flight, I feel so tired (dosa). You know that this is not akusala kamma patha. But we know so little about this moment, the characteristic of kusala or akusala is not clearly understood. We are not sure about the characteristic of seeing, and thus, how can we clearly understand vipaka? If you get this post in time, you could bring it up, also the free will and control, in case you have still doubts. I hope you meet A. Sujin. Tell us all, I wish you a very fruitful time, Nina. 20026 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 10:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Anatta -no control( was Comfort --- Dear Howard and Swee Boon, Yes, I think you are right here, Howard (leaving aside control without controller;)). Ultimate truth does not contradict conventional truth. When we refer to 'intention'(in normal speech) it is a conglomeration of many different cetasikas -vitakka, vicara, cetana, viriya, chanda..etc, and comprising a long chain of moments, which because these are taken as a whole give such a sense of control. As you said:""it is the impersonal function of many moments of cetana, together > with the sense of continuity, which, under the influence of avijja, play a > major role in our sensing and believing in a controlling self. So, this issue > is a very important one, probably critical." RobertK > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Swee Boon (and Robert) - > > I'd like to make a comment or two. Swee Boon, I think the points you > make here are quite valid (realizing, of course, that the referring to only > for moments of cetana is just for purposes of illustration). Actually, I > don't really think that what you write contradicts the points made in > Robert's outstanding post to which you are here replying. As I see it, the > microscopic and macroscopic perspectives are complementary but compatible, > and it is understanding both and their relationship that gives the full > picture. > Also, while it is not continuity per se which causes self- view, I do > think that the *misunderstanding* of the apparent continuity is a major > factor in I-making. Now, with regard to control/no-control, I've already > weighed in on that, supporting the perspective of control but no controller. > However, it is the impersonal function of many moments of cetana, together > with the sense of continuity, which, under the influence of avijja, play a > major role in our sensing and believing in a controlling self. So, this issue > is a very important one, probably critical. > > With metta, > Howard > > In a message dated 3/3/03 9:53:55 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... > writes: > > > Hi RobertK, > > > > I hope you are not annoyed with me. > > > > Those things said by Thein Nyun are very unacceptable as I have > > pointed out. > > > > Continuity of the elements does not cause "personality belief". It > > is not the direct cause of it. > > 20028 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 0:22pm Subject: Contentment Hi all, I am interested in engaging in talk on contentment with anyone is interested in the same. I have look into the definition of the word "content" and found that it means desiring no more than what one has, satisfied, feeling or manisfesting satisfaction with one's possession, status, or situation. Contentment is the state of being content. I am interested in anyone's opinion on contentment. Regards, Victor 20029 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 0:50pm Subject: Re: Modesty Hi Victor, I can think off hand of a few meanings - e.g. 1. 'She has a modest income' or 'he was a modest eater' - i.e. had sufficient but not a large amount. 2. 'She was so modest that she was embarrassed when the doctor needed to examine her. i.e. inhibited by cultural/spiritual/familial beliefs 3. Even though he had won the chess title five years in a row, out of modesty he never mentioned it in discussions.' i.e. no boasting 4. She dressed modestly and did not wear her diamond and gold jewellery. ie her style of dress was restrained. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi all, > > I am interested to learn more about the virtue of modesty. What > does it mean by being modest? How and in what ways should one be > modest? What is the benefit of being modest? > > Regards, > Victor 20030 From: connie Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 2:07pm Subject: Re: prelimary practice Dear Sukin, I had to laugh out loud when you said something about my 'apparent lack of mana'. If only it were more real than apparent! Still, any time I'm aware of my embarrassing tendencies towards conceit it's a good reminder of my lack of understanding. Even to calling them my accumulations and being embarrassed about it, no doubt. Anyway, thank you for the nice thoughts and talking about 'deliberate preliminary practice.' There's plenty to think about there. Seems I will be stuck with doing 'deliberate preliminary practice' for at least as long as I think about what I 'should' do instead of just learning to pay attention to what Is. I have a lot of wrong understanding of Dhamma and take for granted things I don't even give any real thought to. That, too, must involve a kind of pride/conceit or at least a lot of misplaced confidence in my own delusion. Just yesterday I read the following exchange in the archives and learned something new even though I could have parrotted the last sentence... Howard: Really! So are you saying, then, that there were moments at which the Buddha was without wisdom? Sarah: Yes. For example whenever vipaka cittas (such as seeing, hearing and so on arise). These are never accompanied by wisdom or awareness. Only the 7 universal cetasikas arise with all cittas. As you say, there's a difference between learning and understanding. And still, this is just more conceptual knowledge on my part. I'd like to call it a step in the right direction but it's probably closer to barely opening my eyes to get some idea of where I am without turning my head. Still can't say I know what sacchannana is. Or kicchannana and katannana. I'll spare you my guessing and hope I avoid trying your patience. 8) peace, connie 20031 From: royhgordon Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 4:28pm Subject: numerical discourses on karma In the Numerical Discourses in the section of fours there are three discourse on karma: Four Kinds of Kamma Four Upadanas Four Constituents of the Body (in particular, Kammaja rupa) Does anyone know if these are available on line? Thanks. Roy 20032 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 4:47pm Subject: Re: numerical discourses on karma Hi Roy, Here is what is available on-line from the Anguttara Suttas: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/index.html A quick scan did not reveal the Suttas that you were looking for. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "royhgordon " wrote: > In the Numerical Discourses in the section of fours there are three > discourse on karma: > > Four Kinds of Kamma > > Four Upadanas > > Four Constituents of the Body (in particular, Kammaja rupa) > > Does anyone know if these are available on line? > > Thanks. > > Roy 20033 From: bodhi2500 Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 4:58pm Subject: Re: numerical discourses on karma Hi Roy and All It seems this site has a complete english translation of the Anguttara Nikaya on it, which was a delight to find. :0) http://www.metta.lk/ Take care Steve --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "royhgordon " wrote: > In the Numerical Discourses in the section of fours there are three > discourse on karma: > > Four Kinds of Kamma > > Four Upadanas > > Four Constituents of the Body (in particular, Kammaja rupa) > > Does anyone know if these are available on line? > > Thanks. > > Roy 20034 From: Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 0:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna - Looking for feedback! In a message dated 3/3/2003 9:44:33 AM Pacific Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > You are correct that sanna is not one of the links. I took this idea > from the book, "The Five Aggregates - Understanding Theravada > Psychology and Soteriology" which stresses the role that sanna plays > in the transition from feeling to craving. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > Hi Rob M. During pleasant and painful experience craving probably arises immediately. In these cases I suspect craving is extremely rudimentary and absolutely "next" to feeling without the need of perception or more developed mental states to explain it. During neither pleasant nor painful feeling, craving perhaps arises more as you point out -- after a "more sophisticated" search with more complicated mental factors involved and supporting craving. TG 20035 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 10:58pm Subject: kamma, a correction Dear Rob M. and all, A correction to be made: I wrote to Rob M that the Tipitaka and Co give a few explanations: should be: many explanations. The Dependent Origination, so often explained, is essential for the understanding of vipaka, defilements and kamma, three cycles, in our life. The Buddha explained cause and effect all the time. Another matter is: do we understand Dependent Origination just now, at this very moment? Nina. 20036 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 11:12pm Subject: Re:(3) Anattta and Kamma and Conventional Events(? at end) Dear Htoo Naing, Thank you for this explanation. Unfortunately, it has left me confused. You wrote: --------- > Vipakacittas of sense-door either Akusala or Kusala always have natural feeling with exception of Bodily- touch. > Agreeing or disagreeing is the matter of the individual. > The scene of human excreta is an obscene and anyone who sees it will disgust(there might be Domanassa- javanas).But it may be a pleasurable scene for a dog(Somanassa-javanas).Arahats will definitely view it naturally(Upekkha-Kiriya-javana). > -------------- I take this to mean that, in javana cittas, arahats will cognize any visible object "naturally," and by that you mean, with a naturally corresponding neutral mental feeling. But Arahats have upekkha javana even where the vipaka feeling was pleasant or unpleasant -- i.e., at the body door. So in that case, the 'natural' correlation is not present. --------------- > Sight initially is just Upekkha > . . --------------- I would have thought, sight (both seeing and visible object), initially is just pleasant or unpleasant, never neutral. (There is no neutral kamma for us worldlings, and so there is no neutral vipaka.) In the case of body-sense, the accompanying physical feeling is appropriately pleasant or unpleasant, never neutral. This WOULD BE the same for eye-sense, WERE IT NOT FOR the physical frailty of eye-sense contact (like two cotton balls colliding). My version seems to be consistent with what other people have written here in the past -- or at least, with how I have understood what they have written. I will keep an open mind. Kind regards, Ken H --------- > but later Vithicittas hold different views depending on the individual's wisdom. > ---------------- 20037 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: numerical discourses on karma Hi Steve, I share your delight!! This is the most wonderful gift! Thank you. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi Roy and All > It seems this site has a complete english translation > of the Anguttara Nikaya on it, which was a delight to find. :0) > > http://www.metta.lk/ > > Take care > Steve 20038 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 3, 2003 11:35pm Subject: RE: [dsg] mindfulness Hi Janice, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 1:42 AM > > Dear Kom, > Thank You for explaining to me > about the mindfulness word. Do you ever celebrate > Chinese New Year? When I was in Thailand, my parents cerebrated Chinese New Year. We often goes see relatives, have food, etc. Of course, when I was a kid, I used to get money from my relatives too. > Does every Buddist believe that > mindfulness is essential to them? Well, a Buddhist who understands what the Buddha teaches understands that without mindfulness, we can't follow in his path. Mindfulness is essential in following the teaching of the Buddha. > Was the real Buddha > Gold ? You've got me there. I have never seen a real Buddha myself ;-). If you do good, avoid doing bad, and become wise, maybe one day you can see another Buddha for yourself. > Is mindfulness always good or sometimes bad as > well? That's a great question. I wrote to you the last time: "There are many different kinds of mindfulness, but whenever you remember to 1) do something good, 2) avoid doing something bad, or 3) develop good qualities of the mind and also wisdom, these are all mindfulness." Do you see anything that is bad above? You can see it for yourself instead of just taking it from me. When you are kind to people, is kindness good or bad? How about when you are angry with people, is the anger good or bad? How about when you are about to kill something, do you feel good (peaceful) or do you feel uneasy? But what about when you about to kill, but you remember that other beings (be it an ugly bug, or whatever) too don't like being hurt and also like to be happy, and you then don't kill, how do you feel? Being good is not just because somebody says it is good, but it is really good. You can test it. kom 20039 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 0:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re:Kom's letter Dear Kimmy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom. > > Thanks for your letter about rebirth. It's interesting > and I would like to ask how can we know which > existence we will belong to in our next life? Nobody can know except for the Buddha himself. On the hand, he teaches that good deeds will bear good results, and bad deeds will bear bad results. If one is reborn into an unhappy plane of existence, it is because of (past) bad deed. If one is born into a happy plane of existence, it is because of (past) good deed. > Why does somebody say that they have ever seen a > ghost? I think it is because of many reasons. One is, they are just imagining it. Two is, they really see something else, but think they see a ghost. And three is, they really see the ghost! > Do they really have a pair of eyes which are > specially different from ours? This is a very good question. Have you ever noticed that sometimes, when two people are at the same place, they don't see the same thing? Sometimes when you hang out with a friend, you may see something, but your friend doesn't. Everybody, even if they are at the same place, don't see exactly the same thing. How about eye sights? You can notice some of your friends see better than the others. Some have to wear eye glasses, some just see perfectly. Not only our eyes are different, we almost always never see the same way. > When I went home yesterday, I started a seriuos > quarrel with my mother, she didn't allow me to go to > school today (Saturday) to do my artwork, but I > really needed to do it, if not i would be scolded by > my art teacher. At first, I was using a very good > attutide to talk to my mother, however, when > my mother said I was wrong, I started to use a bad > attitude. So I would like to ask how can the Buddhist > stories help these kind of problem. > What the Buddha teaches (and what his stories teaches) allows us to see how things really are. For example, when you were quarreling with your mother, you may feel angry. Is anger good or bad? Is your anger different from any other people's anger? When you hear something you don't like, can you control the anger? If you are not angry when you hear something you don't like, why is that? Does the anger last forever? When you know how things work, you are bound to get less upset since you *know* why things come to be this way. Sometimes, even when we do our very best, things don't work out the way we want them to. This is one of the thing that will be true through out your (and my) life. The Buddha, who is a knower of all people's habits, sometimes cannot convince other people to stop quarreling. Should we stop being good because things don't turn out the way we want to? I don't' think so. We shouldn't do good because we want things to turn out a certain way, but we should know the values of being good. If we know that, then being good is OK, even when things don't turn our way. kom 20040 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 0:06am Subject: I read this really good book! Dear James, Today I saw a picture of you! You were with this really young asian girl while you were praying...I think...well you were wearing white clothes. I wanted to ask you what grade do you teach? If I ever become a teacher, I would teach kindergardens. I read a book called "The Visons of The Buddha" which is about Buddhism in different parts of the world such as China, Thailand, Japan and so on, I thought that it was a truly great book. I also read another book called "The Giver" and that was also a very good book. A quote from "The Visons Of The Buddha" In the chapter about Westeners becoming interested in Buddhism: "The leaf of this tree, entrusted to my garden from the east, offers the experience of secret meaning."- Goethe I don't really understand what that meant and I was wondering if could you explain it to me. Bye! Jan Chearavanont P.S: Plz write me some more funny poems or quotes! P.P.S: This is a funny quote that I got "I am NOBODY and NOBODY is perfect...that makes me perfect!" 20041 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 0:08am Subject: Introducing a book>>> Dear Everyone> I am Kiana. I hope all of you would not mind that I am going to introduce a book to you again. It is called "The British Museum Buddha" It introduces every Buddha e.g. Death of the Buddha or The Laughing Buddha and so on. It was great! There are also a lot of beautiful pictures and not many words. You can finish it in one day. You can also know more about Buddha in this book. I think all of you'll love it . Love, Kiana. 20042 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 0:52am Subject: Re: prelimary practice Hi Connie, To me it feels so true that the more we know ourselves the more we realize how ignorant we are? And what is this 'ignorance' if it is not in relation to what is arising at this moment? We may make a generalized estimation of who we are and where we stand, but the realization of ignorance would be in seeing that this is all just thinking. Sacchannana is still a long way, how unrealistic would it be to aim for sotapattimaga, that aim being limited by the memories attached to this single lifetime?! A few months ago, lobha, dosa, upadana, mana etc. were understood as obstacles to clear comprehension, but this was all mostly theory. It is = still theoretical now, but there have been moments when application of theory has been a few trillion cittas closer to the actual arising. Though = still trillions of cittas away, the effect is quite powerful and encouragin= g of saddha. I know that mana is eradicated only by the arahata, but it can be observed, even it be only the very gross manifestation and after already conditioning much akusala and papanca. When sati arises even at this small level, the cetasikas which would normally send the mind rolling into more akusala do not get the chance to arise. Also one begins to have a glimpse of what it would be like to have satisampajanna of higher levels. So when I refer to your ¡¥apparent lack of mana¡¦, I base my observation on the fact that you manage to go straight to the point, it seems that it must be because you are not too influenced by ¡¥self¡¦. Obviously we mostly remember our akusala quite clearly, so when someone else says otherwise, we will have to laugh. Besides when someone says I have less mana, I remember mostly my superiority mana, at that moment being embarrassed I fail to see the inferiority mana at work, and next moment I may even think to myself ¡§I know myself¡¨ and that would be mana again¡K :-/. One thing though, even if one sees how far one is from the goal, whatever that is, the study of cittas and cetasikas can be quite powerful. = I only wish those people who are skeptical about the Abhidhamma wouldn¡¦t be so. I know that without aiming for enlightenment ¡§in this very life¡¨, what little has been gained is at least productive of more saddha. I have seen on the other hand, people getting more and more attached to meditation practice as time progresses. Some start with half an hour a day and will end up after a few years to several hours. They will not consider their practice as attachment, but instead as ¡§right practice¡¨, but if you asked them about the nature of reality, or what one = knows now, they can only say that they are more at peace with themselves. Many believe that what is required is a sudden breakthrough. But as you know, panna can only be developed upon weaker levels of panna, certainly not by following some practice just because some seemingly wise person advised us to do so. If you asked about saddha, their reference point would be their practice, they would not feel any inclination towards trying to understand more of the Buddha¡¦s teachings. As Nina has suggested on more than one occasion, ¡¥the practice must not cause us to be stressful¡¦. The middle way is narrow and it is hard to = keep the balance, but wanting and wishing and having a ¡¥thing to do¡¦ does not make this possible. Our accumulated ignorance makes it hard to walk straight, but why make it more difficult by believing in things tha= t do not happen naturally and calling it ¡§right practice¡¨?! Ignorance is ignorance, concept is concept, let us learn to recognize and become more and more familiar with these. A non-questioning attitude towards any kind of practice does not help us along this path of enquiry. Connie I know that you have a very good understanding of dhamma and whatever I say here, if it is valid is nothing new to you. But I almost never get the chance to express myself, hence a long letter again, and I hope you do not mind the mental proliferation. ƒº Will end now. Best wishes, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "connie" wrote: > Dear Sukin, > > I had to laugh out loud when you said something about my 'apparent 20043 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Sanna - Looking for feedback! Hi Rob M (Howard, TG, Suan & All), --- "robmoult " There are quite a few points I’d be interested to discuss further, but let me just take up the first one for now: > The cittas in an eye-door citta process have "visible object" (rupa) > as their object. A "visible object" is not a flower (flower is a > concept). A visible object is a dot, a dot of colour. ..... You mention elsewhere that you don’t “see Buddhism as a “science” “, but aren’t these ideas from science intruding? I liked the way Howard suggested “a visual object is the entire "snapshot" that appears at one moment, for example when one opens the eyes - so that sa~n~na then subsequently carves out and identifies parts of what is already entirely present.” I believe this can indeed be tested and proved." ..... Simply put, as I understand, visible object is just that which is seen at this moment. If there is an idea of dots this is surely thinking about what is seen? At this moment of opening the eyes, the seeing sees what it’s always seen and accordingly as you say, sanna can mark the various objects and there are conditions for the mind-door activity. If there is any idea of seeing something special or different, such as dots or blank colours or light, then it is not awareness of visible object and is probably an aspect of wrong practice (not that I’m suggesting you or anyone else is trying this). I think the realities to be known are in a way very obvious and simple - just as they’ve always been, but covered up by moha(ignorance). I tend to think that the reason there is so little awareness relates to the lack of understanding of anatta. Even though visible object is in front of our eyes at this moment, whilst there is any idea of ‘doing’ or ‘practising’ or ‘noting’ now, there won’t be conditions for awareness to arise. Just an idea. In the texts (Suttanta and Abhidhamma in particular), it is always visible object (ruupa) that is referred to rather than dots or anything else. “Visual consciousness arises because of eye and visible object, the meeting of the three is contact...” and so on. From the Sammohavinodani (Disp. of Delusion, ch2, 211) we read; “Herein, firstly (as to meaning) in particular: “it relishes” (cakkhati), thus it is an eye (cakkhu); the meaning is that it enjoys a visble datum (ruupa) and reveals it. “It makes visible” (ruupayatti), thus it is a visible datum (ruupa)...” ..... The following is another quote from the same source(227) stressing the anatta-ness and lack of control of these various elements: “visible data, odour and flavour bases...sound base...but as to classification acording to similarity and dissimilarity, they are all of infinite variety... all these bases should be regarded as having no provenance and no destination. For they do not come from anywhere previous to their rise, not do they go anywhere after their fall; but rather before they rise they had not obtained their intrinsic nature (sabhava) and after their fall their intrinsic nature is completely broken up; in between what is before and after, they occur without power (being exercisable over them) owing to dependence on conditions. Therefore they should be regarded as having no provenance and no destination. ‘Likewise (they should be regarded) as inactive and unoccupied. For it does not occur to they eye and visible-datum and so on: ‘Would that consciousness might arise from our concurrence.’.... ‘Furthermore, the internal (bases) should be regarded as an empty village because they are devoid of lastingnes, beauty, pleasure and self; and the external (bases) as village-raiding robbers (Siv 175) because they raid (impinge) on the internal (bases). For this is said: ‘The eye, bhikkhus, is struck by agreeable and disagreeable visible data.’.....” ***** You write later in your post: ..... > Craving is conditioned by pleasant feeling associated with concepts. > Visible objects condition neutral feeling and therefore do not > condition craving directly. Pleasant feeling is associated with > current concepts when sanna "remembers" past concepts and the > associated pleasant feeling. ..... I’m not sure I agree here. Visible objects by way of arammana paccaya (object condition) can condition craving very directly. Lobha can be attached to sense objects, feelings or concepts surely? Feeling is given as the proximate or perhaps principal condition, but not the only one. Also from Sammohavinodani (837) under the section of “With Feeling as Condition, Craving” “The meaning is that in this description of “with feeling as condition, craving (arises)”, these six kinds of craving are illustrated.......”visible-data craving...mental-data craving”, being called after their object as a son is called after his father “rich man’s son”, “brahman’s son”. Herein, “visible-data craving” (ruupata.nha) is craving in respect of a visible datum; ...Similar comments are made for the other sense doorways. ‘But a regards these (six) kinds of craving, each kind is held to be threefold, according to its mode of occurrence as craving for sense desire, craving for existence and craving for non-existence. For when visible-data craving occurs in the form of delighting with sense delight in a visible datum as object that has come into the focus of the eye, it is then called craving for sense desire.....” ..... Later, we also read about how in any case all kinds of feelings condition all kinds of craving, but yet they depend on the accumulated tendencies as well(842): “One who suffers yearns for happiness; one who has happiness wants more; Yet equanimity, took, is knowm as happiness since it is peaceful. Since all three feelings thus can be conditions for all kinds of craving, “With feelings as condition, there is craving” has been said by the Greatest Sage. Though feeling is condition, still without inherent tendency No craving can arise, and so from this the perfect saint is free.” ***** Conditions are very complicated and intricate. Other passages in the same chapter give a taste of this intricacy. I believe that if there is any idea of ‘breaking the link’ or preventing craving from arising on account of feelings, it is to underestimate the power of conditions and to not fully comprehend the nature of anatta. The “perfect saint” is free, or the link is broken, throught the comprehension and full knowledge of conditioned realities and thereby the eradication of kilesa (defilements) on account of transitory phenomena. ..... > This progression is described in the Honeyball Sutta (Mn18): > > ----- > Dependent on the eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The > meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there > is feeling. > > What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one > thinks about. What one thinks about, that one obsesses. > > What obsesses one is the cause perceptions and notions tinged by > obsession that beset a man with respect to past, future and present > forms cognizable though the eye. ..... These are very helpful reminders to read over and over. You may not have ready access to the The ~Nanamoli/Bodhi transl which adds a Ms note by ~Nm which you may like to read(p1204,232: “The meeting of eye, form, and eye-consciousness is called contact. Contact, according to dependent origination, is the principal condition of feeling. Feeling and perception are inseparable (MN43.9). what is perceived as ‘this’ is thought about in its differences and is thus diversified from ‘that’ and from ‘me’. This divesification -involving craving for form, wrong view about permanence of form, etc, and the conceit ‘I am’ - leads to preoccupation with calculating the desirability of past and present forms with a view to obtaining desirable forms in the future.” ***** I’ll leave it here and look forward to any further comments. Metta, Sarah ===== 20044 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 4:45am Subject: Re: Modesty Hi Christine, Thank you for the response and I agree with what you say. From what I read and what I can think of, being modest means sufficient but not excessive, not self-aggrandizing, not boasting, not showing off. I am thinking what are the benefits of being modest. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I can think off hand of a few meanings - e.g. 1. 'She has a modest > income' or 'he was a modest eater' - i.e. had sufficient but not a > large amount. 2. 'She was so modest that she was embarrassed when > the doctor needed to examine her. i.e. inhibited by > cultural/spiritual/familial beliefs 3. Even though he had won the > chess title five years in a row, out of modesty he never mentioned it > in discussions.' i.e. no boasting 4. She dressed modestly and did > not wear her diamond and gold jewellery. ie her style of dress was > restrained. > > metta, > Christine 20045 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 5:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abandoning Howard Thanks for coming in on this thread. Herman has gone somewhat quiet of late, so rather than wait for his input I'll simply respond on your points. H: When one is instructed to abandon what is unskillful, and told that it is possible to do so, this implies straight out that it is within one's power to take steps to accomplish that task. J: Yes, although I would rather say that what it implies is, as I think the Buddha put it in one sutta, that there is the possibility of this being done. H: It seems to me that ... [this sutta is] an example of the Buddha indicating that it is possible to proactively exert effort and volition to accomplish things, and that, in fact, the Buddha is exhorting his listeners to do exactly that. J: Well, this is the all-important question. I think we agree that the answer is not to be found simply in a reading of this one sutta, but depends on one's reading of the whole body of the Tipitaka. There is nothing in this particular sutta that compels the inference of 'proactive [or reactive] exertion of effort and volition', as opposed to, say, the resolve that flows naturally from a recognition or understanding of the importance of the abandoning/development that is discussed in the sutta. At any moment of satipatthana, the hindrances are abandoned and the mundane path is being developed; the Buddha's exhortation is being fully heeded. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Herman) - ... > **************************************************** > > This sutta certainly seems to be as straightforward and > clear as can > be. I find it hard to imagine that the Buddha would teach such an > apparently > clear lesson with it being actually a cryptic lesson requiring > detailed > explanation and additions. But, be that as it may, it seems to me, > and I may > be quite wrong on this and await correction from Herman, Herman's > asking > whether you are at odds with the contents in any way relates to the > following: When one is instructed to abandon what is unskillful, > and told > that it is possible to do so, this implies straight out that it is > within > one's power to take steps to accomplish that task. It seems to me > that Herman > might have been pointing out this sutta as an example of the Buddha > indicating that it is possible to proactively exert effort and > volition to > accomplish things, and that, in fact, the Buddha is exhorting his > listeners > to do exactly that. Again, Herman, I await correction. In any case, > however, > that is certainly how I understand this sutta. > > With metta, > Howard ============================== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an02-019.html "Abandon what is unskillful, monks. It is possible to abandon what is unskillful. If it were not possible to abandon what is unskillful, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because it is possible to abandon what is unskillful, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' If this abandoning of what is unskillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' But because this abandoning of what is unskillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Abandon what is unskillful.' "Develop what is skillful, monks. It is possible to develop what is skillful. If it were not possible to develop what is skillful, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because it is possible to develop what is skillful, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' If this development of what is skillful were conducive to harm and pain, I would not say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.' But because this development of what is skillful is conducive to benefit and pleasure, I say to you, 'Develop what is skillful.'" 20046 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 6:05am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a quantum view of free will Rob M In a post to Connie you said: "In my mind, the purpose of science is to create a model for some aspect of reality. In my opinion, the Buddha did not offer any models for reality (some of the later commentators may have added some in, but that doesn't count). The Buddha was focused on the mind. The mind is the realm of ethics and soteriology (wow, that twice in one posting!). When the Buddha discussed rupa, he only did it in reference to rupa impacting the mind. I see Buddhism as being purely phenomenological. For example, according to the Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali, the proximate cause of rupa is consciousness (vinnana). In other words, without consciousness you don't get rupa (if a tree falls in the forest with none to hear, then there is no sound)." I'd be interested to see any reference from the texts to the effect that without consciousness you don't get rupa (meaning that if a tree falls in the forest with none to hear, then there is no sound). I have never come across such myself. To my understanding of the texts, in the case of hearing consciousness experiencing sound, the sound must always have arisen first, before the hearing consciousness that experiences it, which seems to contradict what you say above. Jon 20047 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 6:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Mike I agree in general with what you say here, and particularly with the conclusion in your last paragraph. Just one minor refinement, and that is that not all kusala kamma-patha leads to continued existence; the panna that is kusala kamma-patha of the level of satipatthana/vipassana leads to the breaking of the bond to existence. But I think you are wanting to emphasise that the important thing is not how much kusala vs. akusala there is one's life, but how much of the understanding that leads eventually to nibbana (or the conditions for the arising of such understanding) is being developed. Jon --- "m. nease" wrote: (Sorry if I sent this before--I just found it apparently 'unsent' in my'outbox'). Hi Jon, Sarah Et Al., I do understand the difference between kamma (cetanaa) and kamma-patha in a general way--though I'm not crystal clear on where to draw the line (I suspect it may be naturally a little blurred). My interest in lobha in this context is because of its basic position as one of the three unwholesome roots. In the context of lobha-dosa-moha, lobha has always seemed to me to include all forms of lobha including all those mentioned in Htoo Naing's recent reminder as well as kaama and maybe others. Otherwise, why not 'kaama-dosa-moha' or raaga-dosa-moha'? Though I do recall instances in the discourses of failure of attainment (of nirodha) resulting from akusala vipaaka (resulting in turn from akusala kamma-patha), it seems to me that everyday attachments and aversions (and identification with them), and their perpetual, moment-to-moment reinforcement (by volitional action) are far more central to the most central problem of all--conditioned origination. (I'm not sure that this view is supportable from the texts). To put it another way, it seems to me that the main issue isn't kusala vs. akusala, but rebirth vs. cessation. Kusala kamma-patha leads to pleasant rebirth/sense impingement; pa~n~naa leads to nibbaana. mike 20048 From: Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 2:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abandoning Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/4/03 9:00:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > H: When one is instructed to abandon what is unskillful, and told > that it is possible to do so, this implies straight out that it is > within one's power to take steps to accomplish that task. > > J: Yes, although I would rather say that what it implies is, as I > think the Buddha put it in one sutta, that there is the possibility > of this being done. > ========================== Yes, of course. My statement was formulated quite conventionally. Your reformulation was less conventional, closer to paramattha sacca. The ultimate/perfect formulation would be silence. (The Zen folks emphasize that.) I suspect that our differences here may be stylistic, with me seeing some danger in the attempt to avoid conventional speech (as there most certainly also is, generally moreso, in being taken in by conventional speech!). 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) 20049 From: m. nease Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:34 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) > Mike > > I agree in general with what you say here, and particularly with the > conclusion in your last paragraph. Just one minor refinement, and > that is that not all kusala kamma-patha leads to continued existence; > the panna that is kusala kamma-patha of the level of > satipatthana/vipassana leads to the breaking of the bond to > existence. Thanks, important correction (that some kusala kamapatha can lead to the end of rebirth). The way you've put this puzzles me though--is pa~n~naa (or sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? > But I think you are wanting to emphasise that the > important thing is not how much kusala vs. akusala there is one's > life, but how much of the understanding that leads eventually to > nibbana (or the conditions for the arising of such understanding) is > being developed. Yes, that was the idea. The more kusala (and less kusala) the better, of course, but understanding is so much more important, I think. mike 20050 From: m. nease Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 7:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a quantum view of free will Dear Rob M & Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 6:05 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a quantum view of free will > Rob M > > In a post to Connie you said: > "In my mind, the purpose of science is to create a model for some > aspect of reality. In my opinion, the Buddha did not offer any models > for reality (some of the later commentators may have added some in, > but that doesn't count). The Buddha was focused on the mind. The mind > is the realm of ethics and soteriology (wow, that twice in one > posting!). When the Buddha discussed rupa, he only did it in > reference to rupa impacting the mind. I see Buddhism as being purely > phenomenological. For example, according to the > Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali, the proximate cause of rupa is > consciousness (vinnana). In other words, without consciousness you > don't get rupa (if a tree falls in the forest with none to hear, then > there is no sound)." Though I do think it can be a very interesting question whether ruupa exists without naama, I also think it's beside the point of Buddhadhamma. Why did the Buddha discuss ruupa in relation to naama? Not for cosmological, phenomenological or philosophical reasons, I think, but because both are pertinent to pa.ticcasamuppaada and the four noble truths. > I'd be interested to see any reference from the texts to the effect > that without consciousness you don't get rupa (meaning that if a tree > falls in the forest with none to hear, then there is no sound). I > have never come across such myself. > > To my understanding of the texts, in the case of hearing > consciousness experiencing sound, the sound must always have arisen > first, before the hearing consciousness that experiences it, which > seems to contradict what you say above. > > Jon p.s. Great posts Rob M. (and Jon as always). 20051 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 10:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] the central problem, dependent origination. Dear Mike, see below op 03-03-2003 15:06 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: >(snipped) it seems to me that everyday attachments and aversions (and > identification with them), and their perpetual, moment-to-moment > reinforcement (by volitional action) are far more central to the most > central problem of all--conditioned origination. (I'm not sure that this > view is supportable > from the texts). > > To put it another way, it seems to me that the main issue isn't kusala vs. > akusala, but rebirth vs. cessation. Kusala kamma-patha leads to pleasant > rebirth/sense impingement; pa~n~naa leads to nibbaana. Nina: You are right to remind us that we are all the time adding bricks, to use the simile of Atthasalini, and that the wall gets very high, it is not broken down yet. I think the accumulation of defilements is because of contiguity condition, each moment is succeeded by a following moment, I do not see accumulation to occur by volitional action. It is a warning that even now accumulations of akusala continue. Kusala is beneficial, because at such moments we do not accumulate akusala. A. Sujin said, if we do not develop the perfections, we have more hard work to do later on, this is in conventional language. We should not be attached to the accumulation of kusala, the goal is detachment. Thus, so much akusala just now. The only thing that can be done is: knowing it, realizing it as a conditioned reality. Not suppressing it, or having anxiety about it, then we accumulate even more dosa. You are right to remind us of the central problem. Otherwise people will worry only about what kind of vipaka is awaiting them. Theoretical understanding of the dependent origination is not enough, it is going on now. We experience a pleasant object through the senses, vipaka vatta, we react with lobha, kilesa vatta, and this can motivate akusala kamma, kamma vatta, three cycles as Rob K. reminded us often. May we all develop panna with patience and truthfulness, so that the bricks of the wall, that is the cycle of birth and death, be broken down. Nina. 20052 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 10:12am Subject: FW: Commentary Raahulovaadasutta, no 7 ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Tue, 04 Mar 2003 14:32:19 +0100 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Commentary Raahulovaadasutta, no 7 Commentary Rahulovaadasutta, no 7. bhagavaa tassa ohiinabhaava.m jaanantopi neva attanaa khaadaniiya.m bhojaniiya.m gahetvaa agamaasi, na aanandattherassa hatthe pesesi, na pasenadimahaaraajaanaathapi.n.dikaadiina.m sa~n~na.m adaasi. The Blessed One, even though he knew that Rahula was left behind, did not go himself after he had received hard and soft food, nor did he send it through (by the hand of) the Elder Aananda, nor did he inform King Pasenadi, Anaathapi.n.dika or others. sa~n~naamattaka~nhi labhitvaa te kaajabhatta.m abhihareyyu.m. yathaa ca bhagavaa, eva.m saariputtattheropi na ki~nci akaasi. raahulatthero niraahaaro chinnabhatto ahosi. Had they only been informed only received a notification, sa~n~naamattaka~nhi) they would have brought food with a carrying pole (kaaja). Just as the Blessed One, the Elder Sariputta did not take any action either. Rahula went without food, he had to go hungry. tassa panaayasmato -- ``bhagavaa ma.m vihaare ohiina.m jaanantopi attanaa laddhapi.n.dapaata.m naapi saya.m gahetvaa aagato, na a~n~nassa hatthe pahi.ni , na manussaana.m sa~n~na.m adaasi, upajjhaayopi me ohiinabhaava.m jaananto tatheva na ki~nci akaasii''ti cittampi na uppanna.m, kuto tappaccayaa omaana.m vaa atimaana.m vaa janessati. However, the following thoughts did not occur to the venerable Rahula: ³Although the Blessed One knows that I am left behind in the monastery, he has not, after he has personally received alsmfood, taken it and come himself, nor did he send me food (by the hand of) through someone else, nor indeed did my preceptor do anything at all, although he knows that I am left behind.² Why should there be conditions for the arising of self-disrespect (omaana.m) or pride (atimaana.m)? ***** Nina. 20053 From: m. nease Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 9:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) > The more kusala (and less kusala) the better, of > course, but understanding is so much more important, I think. Of course I meant 'less akusala'...! mike 20054 From: m. nease Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 10:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] the central problem, dependent origination. Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2003 10:12 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] the central problem, dependent origination. > Nina: You are right to remind us that we are all the time adding bricks, to > use the simile of Atthasalini, and that the wall gets very high, it is not > broken down yet. I think the accumulation of defilements is because of > contiguity condition, That's the conclusion I've come to too, but-- > each moment is succeeded by a following moment, I do > not see accumulation to occur by volitional action. --maybe I've been confusing kamma paccaya with kamma as cetanaa cetasika (sorry, I'm very rusty on all this). I may have been confusing the accumulation of kamma with the accumulation of defilements. Two completely separate kinds of accumulation? > It is a warning that > even now accumulations of akusala continue. > Kusala is beneficial, because at such moments we do not accumulate akusala. > A. Sujin said, if we do not develop the perfections, we have more hard work > to do later on, this is in conventional language. We should not be attached > to the accumulation of kusala, the goal is detachment. Right... > Thus, so much akusala just now. The only thing that can be done is: knowing > it, realizing it as a conditioned reality. Not suppressing it, or having > anxiety about it, then we accumulate even more dosa. Agreed--though of course we can't decide whether we want to suppress or be anxious about (especially) dislike-rooted citta, accompanied by unpleasant feeling (dosa-múla-citta domanassa-sahagataÿ paìigha-sampayuttaÿ) with anger because of the resultant desire to get rid of the unpleasant feeling (and anger?). Anxiety or the desire to suppress arises according to conditions, in other words. > You are right to remind us of the central problem. Otherwise people will > worry only about what kind of vipaka is awaiting them. > Theoretical understanding of the dependent origination is not enough, it is > going on now. Right! Thanks, Nina, mike p.s. Off-list, can you read the Pali diacriticals in this post? Are you using Outlook? If so, you can choose pCharter for the various fonts in Tools/Options and exchange Pali-embedded emails. 20055 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 0:05pm Subject: Re: Modesty Hello Victor, I looked up the Gotami Sutta 'To Gotami' in the Anguttara Nikaya VIII.53 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-053.html "As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self- aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's instruction.'" It appears to me that 'modesty' is not a practice in itself (which could simply be a form of 'mana' conceit), but is part of an end result. The result is having the qualities that arise in one who has correct understanding of the Doctrine and the Discipline. What do you think? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao " wrote: > Hi Christine, > > Thank you for the response and I agree with what you say. From what > I read and what I can think of, being modest means sufficient but > not excessive, not self-aggrandizing, not boasting, not showing > off. I am thinking what are the benefits of being modest. > > Regards, > Victor 20056 From: m. nease Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 11:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] the central problem, dependent origination. The phrase, > I may have been confusing the accumulation of kamma with the accumulation of > defilements. should have read > I may have been confusing the accumulation of akusala kamma with the > accumulation of defilements. 20057 From: Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 3:45pm Subject: Way 58, Comm, Clear Coprehension 1 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 1. Clear comprehenson in ging forwards and backwards, p. 74 Amongst these four that form the set, he who carries forth and carries back the subject of meditation reaches the crest of the clear comprehension of resort. Further, non-confusion in going forwards and so forth is the clear comprehension of non-delusion. That should be understood in the following way: -- In this Dispensation, a monk, without confusing himself, like a blinded worldling who, while going forwards or backwards, becomes muddle-headed, and believes thus: "The soul (or self) goes forward" or "The act of going forwards is produced by the soul," or "I go forwards" or "The act of going forwards is produced by me," and the like, thinks: "When there is the arising in one of the thought 'I am going forwards,' just with that thought, appears the process of oscillation originating from mind which brings to birth bodily expression (or intimation). Thus by the way of the diffusion of the process of oscillation due to mental activity, this skeleton called the body goes forward." In raising up the foot A [paduddharane] two processes [dhatuyo]: extension [pathavi] and cohesion [apo], are low, weak [omatta honti dubbala], and the other two processes: caloricity [tejo] and oscillation [vayo] are high, powerful [adhimatta honti balavatiyo]; so, too, in stretching out the foot B [atiharane] and in shifting away the foot C [vitiharane]. But in dropping down the raised foot D [vossajjane], and likewise in keeping the foot on the ground E [sannikkhepane] and in pressing the foot against the ground F [sannirumbhane] the first two processes are high and powerful and the second, low and weak. There, the material and mental phenomena in A do not occur in B; those in B do not occur in C; those in C do not occur in D; those in D do not occur in E; those in E do not occur in F. These phenomena after coming into existence in the form of several sections, links, and parts, break quickly just in those places, crackling like sesamum seeds thrown into a heated pan. In this matter, who is the one that goes forward, or whose going forward is there? In the highest sense (paramatthato) what takes place is the going, the standing, the sitting down and the lying down of the processes. With material form in the several divisions (groups or parts), One conscious state arises And quite another ceases, In sequence, like a river's flow, These states (of mind and matter) go. (aññam uppajjate cittam aññam cittam nirujjhati avicimanusambandho nadi soto va vattati]. 20058 From: connie Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 4:59pm Subject: Re: preliminary practice Dear Sukin, When I was 16 or 17, my teacher's meditation instruction was "just pay attention." There was no reason given or any 'goal' for a lot of the exercises she gave us. If and when we got it, we would just know. Anything she would tell us to do, it was "just get out of your way and do it or leave and let the rest of us." She really didn't even talk about Buddha but I think she had to walk a fine line to avoid getting in trouble for mixing religion into a public school setting. "What is happening now?" "So you're angry. Good. What does that feel like?" Other people, she would answer their questions. Me, she would say things like "you're not allowed to ask 'why'" or "you think too much" and change the subject. It wasn't that she said "don't question", just that I was asking the wrong things or looking to her for answers I should come up with on my own for them to mean anything. We were to 'pay attention' all the time, not just when we were 'meditating'. I think you might have liked her. I think if I saw her today, she would still be saying the same things to me. It does seem that the more I learn, the less I know. Or the more I know I'm ignorant, as you said. I get frustrated now when I go to my meditation group because I think they should know the things I have been learning about and I don't know how to explain the teachings to them or they say they don't want to know all that 'hard core stuff'... they just want to be more happy in their daily life. I think what you're calling 'attached to peace'. For some of my other friends, the answer to everything is just to chant more and that no other knowledge has any purpose. Anyway, you told me off-list not to be too concerned about certain things and I want to thank you for making me take another look at myself and my attachments. I still care, but I realize that I can only do what I think is right and do the best I can with that. What other people do is up to them and I can care without being all tied up and putting more things into my stories. As they say, "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear." As you said, it is up to our accumulations. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Best wishes, connie 20059 From: connie Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 5:14pm Subject: thanks for the laugh dear New Yorkers, have to say I enjoyed this ~ Robert: "Anatta day, anatta dollar". Howard: "If ya got anicca, ya gotta scratch it!!" I guess Bhante might say "laughter is good metta-cine". peace, connie 20060 From: royhgordon Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 5:34pm Subject: Re: numerical discourses on karma Steve, Thank you! Roy --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi2500 " wrote: > Hi Roy and All > It seems this site has a complete english translation > of the Anguttara Nikaya on it, which was a delight to find. :0) > > http://www.metta.lk/ > > Take care > Steve > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "royhgordon " > wrote: > > In the Numerical Discourses in the section of fours there are three > > discourse on karma: > > > > Four Kinds of Kamma > > > > Four Upadanas > > > > Four Constituents of the Body (in particular, Kammaja rupa) > > > > Does anyone know if these are available on line? > > > > Thanks. > > > > Roy 20061 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 6:29pm Subject: Re: Modesty Hi Christine, I think modesty is a wholesome personal quality, a wholesome way of being and living and is aligned with the teaching of the Buddha. I don't think being modest is a form of conceit, and I would think it is hard for one who is not modest to live in accordance with the Buddha's teaching. I am thinking about the questions: In what ways is modesty wholesome? And what is the benefit of being modest? What do you think? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth " wrote: > Hello Victor, > > I looked up the Gotami Sutta 'To Gotami' in the Anguttara Nikaya > VIII.53 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-053.html > "As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead to > dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being > fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to self- > aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, not > to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being > unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely > hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the Teacher's > instruction.'" > It appears to me that 'modesty' is not a practice in itself (which > could simply be a form of 'mana' conceit), but is part of an end > result. The result is having the qualities that arise in one who has > correct understanding of the Doctrine and the Discipline. What do > you think? > > > metta, > Christine 20062 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 9:13pm Subject: Nice to meet you !!! Dear Eddie, Hello! I'm Kiana! That was so nice that you wrote me a letter(quite a suprise!^.^) I am a twelve year old girl that is living in Hong Kong. Can you introduce youself too? I hope you would not mind! I agree that the human nature is here to stay in the past, now or even in the future! On the other hand, I think we need the "Human Nature", because if we have no pain such as when someone treats or did something bad to you, then how can we have gain (the victory)? We should learn when we fall!!! You're right, Buddha is very warm and gentle, I knew that from the sentences or books that they wrote. And can I ask why do you think Buddha is gentle and warm too ? Love , Kiana. 20063 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 10:10pm Subject: Re: Buddhist monks --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > I read your writing that you sent to Ki Yong. It was > very interesting to read your reply to Ki Yong about > the American monks. This is my first time writing a > letter to you, so please let me introduce myself. My > name is Se Yeon from Korea. I'm 14 years old. Although > I am Christian, I began to be interested about the > Buddhism. > > I really wantd to know about the monks. Actually, what > is the purpose of the monks? What do they do? Hmm... I > hope you could reply to me and the answers to my > questions. Sorry that my letter is too short. :) > > Thank you. > Se Yeon Hi Star Kid Se Yeon! It is very nice to meet you. Thank you for writing. So, I see that you read the letter I sent to Ki Yong. Did anyone ever tell you that it's against the law to read other people's mail? Hehehe…just kidding ;-) I am glad that you read the letter and that you have more questions about monks. You ask, "Actually, what is the purpose of the monks? What do they do?" A monk's purpose it to live the eightfold path in the best way possible so that they can become enlightened. What they do is practice the eightfold path and they teach that path to others. Let me explain, one doesn't need to be a monk to practice the eightfold path, but it is more difficult to practice as a non-monk because the interaction with other people will corrupt the practice. I hate to say it, but people can be really foolish…and they never seem to learn. I mean, it is hard for me to imagine and accept that in the past people used to make other people their slaves. Could you imagine being someone's slave? Or that you owned slaves? These are real people, just like everyone else, and yet people believed that it was okay to own them…like a dog or a cat. And even though the world has pretty much gotten rid of slavery, there are still many other things in today's world that show how foolish humans can be: crime, racism, sexism, homophobia, child abuse, gangs, insider trading, elderly neglect, terrorist bombings, prostitution, drug abuse, etc., etc., etc.,…the list goes on and on. It is this kind of foolishness of humans that monks get away from. They do everything right that humans can do (or are supposed to anyway) so that they can be the best humans possible. If they do everything right, follow the eightfold path to perfection, they will become enlightened…which is the highest thing a human can do. It is the pinnacle of human achievement. The point is that we all need to try to be the best people we can be, in everyway that we can be. And being the best you can be doesn't mean being rich or famous, it means being wise and compassionate for all things and all people. Things get very complicated when you try to do that as a regular person in the world, but it isn't impossible. I think it comes down to one thing really: Listen to your heart. Love, James 20064 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 4, 2003 11:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Hi Rob M. I’d like to join in this thread too as it keeps arising and we all keep questioning your comments without specific references;-)I'd like to stress that it's not at all simple for me to understand at any level either: --- "robmoult " wrote: > This is something that I am not clear about. What makes a > kamma, "kamma-patha"? > > I thought that every javana citta created the potential for future > vipaka (when conditions allowed). If I understand Jon correctly, he > disagrees and feels that only certain javana cittas create the > potential for future vipaka. Please help me understand better. ..... Specifically your question also related to whether kamma-patha only (as opposed to any/every javana citta) causes or has the potential for causing moments of ordinary vipaka, such as sense consciousness, I believe. These are not easy questions. Let me start with this quote from Sammohavinodani, comm to Dhammasangani, PTS trnsl, Class. of the Structure of Conditions 681: “Firstly, with the formation of merit of the sense sphere as condition (there arise) the sixteen (kinds of resultant consciousness, namely,)the five profitable resultant beginning with eye-consciousnes, and in respect of mind consciousness, one kind of mind element and two kinds of mind-consciousness element, and the eight kinds of sense-sphere resultant; accordingly as it is said: “Due to profitable kamma of the sense-sphere having been performed, stored up, resultant eye-consciousness arises’ (Dhs 431........” So what is meant by ‘the formation of merit’ here? 645: “Herein, because “it purifies (p.naati) the one who performs it, and it perfects (puureti) his inclination, and it produces an honourable (pujja) state”, it is merit (pu~n~na). Because “it forms result and the kind of materiality due to kamma performed”,(cf Vis 538)it is “formation” (abhisa”nkhara).... ..... In other words, as I understand, when we read in Dependent Origination about “with ignorance as condition, formations ”, it is abhisankhara that are being referred to, i.e. cetana cetaskika acting as kamma condition to bring results. From the Nyantiloka dictionary, under the meaning of sankhara: “1. As the 2nd link of the formula of dependent origination, (paticcasamuppáda), sankhára has the active aspect, 'forming, and signifies karma, i.e. wholesome or unwholesome volitional activity (cetaná) of body (káya-s.), speech (vací-s.) or mind (citta- or mano-s.). This definition occurs, e.g. at S.XII.2, 27. For s. in this sense, the word 'karma-formation' has been coined by the author. In other passages, in the same context, s. is defined by reference to * (a) meritorious karma-formations (puññ'ábhisankhára), * (b) demeritorious k. (apuññ'abhisankhára), * (c) imperturbable k. (áneñj'ábhisankhára), e.g. in S.XII.51; D.33. This threefold division covers karmic activity in all spheres of existence: the meritorious karma-formations extend to the sensuous and the fine-material sphere, the demeritorious ones only to the sensuous sphere, and the 'imperturbable' only to the immaterial sphere.” ***** I’d also like to quote from an old post of Num’s on the meaning of sankhara and abhisankhara: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m2506.html “Abhisankrara is cetana cetasika and here is the explanation. ” ***** The Sammohavinodani continues to give more detail about ‘formations of merit and demerit’ bringing results. As Nina mentioned, in the Atthasalini, ch 1V, ‘Discourse on Kamma, V and V1 Courses of Immoral (&Moral) Action’, we can also read all about what determines kamma patha through body, speech and mind in detail, distinguishing between ‘roots’ and ‘courses of action’ (kamma patha liable to bring results). I’d also like to draw your attention to ch14 in K.Sujin’s ‘Survey of Paramattha Dhammas’ http://www.abhidhamma.org/Preface%20to%20paramattha.htm All these areas are discussed in detail with further references, as well as more detail regarding other favourable (sampatti) and unfavourable (vipatti) factors affecting the result of kamma including place and time of birth and so on. I think this is all very relevant to the earlier discussions with Howard and others on kamma and result and the acts of others. Whilst our understanding is so conceptual, it's not easy to understand the working of kamma and vipaka at this moment. I did find the following quote helpful, however,in showing again how any moment of consciousness is not random or under any control, though many questions still remain for me: Sammohavinodani 679: "Here it may be (asked:)"But how is it to be known that this (eye)consciousness of the kind stated has formations as its condition?" Because there is no kamma-result when there is no stored-up kamma. For this (consciousnes) is a kamma-result and kamma-result does not arise in the absence of stored-up kamma. If it did, then all kinds of kamma-resultant (consciousness) would arise for all (kinds of beings); and they do not (so) arise. Thus should it be known that this consciousnes has formations as its condition." ..... Finally, because it is relevant to other discussions on the authenticity of the Abhidhamma, let me add one more quote from the Samohavinodani 648: (On the kinds of abhisankhara (formations)) “...It is permissible to say that it is taken in accordance with the method of the Sammaditthisutta (M i 54)too. For therein it is said: ‘Three, bhikkhus, are the formations. Which three? The bodily formation, the verbal formation and the mental formation. ‘But why are these taken in accordance with these suttas? This Abhidhamma is not newly made; nor is it spoken by sages outside (the dispensation), nor by disciples, nor by deities. But this is spoken by the Omniscient Conqueror. It is in order to illustrate this meaning that a single textual passage is set forth in like manner in the Abhidhamma and in the suttas.” Please let me know, Rob or anyone if anything isn’t clear or if you’d like any further details. Metta, Sarah p.s I quote a lot form Abhidhamma texts when I write to Rob M as he’s an Abhidhamma teacher and I know he appreciates these sources. I’m not suggesting the Star Kids or those who prefer to stick to the suttas should read them;-) ====== 20065 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] numerical discourses on karma Hi Roy, Welcome to DSG. I am very interested to hear any further comments you may wish to share on these discourses, now you have the link to on line versions to quote;-) Hope you enjoy your stay and if we can encourage you to share any details about yourself or your interest in the Dhamma, that would be great. Sounds like you've studied a while. With metta, Sarah ====== --- "royhgordon " wrote: > In the Numerical Discourses in the section of fours there are three > discourse on karma: > > Four Kinds of Kamma > > Four Upadanas > > Four Constituents of the Body (in particular, Kammaja rupa) 20066 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 1:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Jon, ... > The way you've put this puzzles me though--is > pa~n~naa (or sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? Yes. There are 10 akusala- and 10 kusala-kamma-patha, and 3 of each are mental actions (3 are bodily actions and 4 are verbal actions). The mental actions, for akusala/kusala kamma-patha, are: - Covetousness/Unselfishness - Ill-will/Good-will - Evil views/Right views Thus panna of the level of satipatthana/vipassana is kusala-kamma-patha. I have pasted below a copy of the entry from Nyanatiloka’s ‘Buddhist Dictionary’ Jon Kamma-patha 'course of action', is a name for the group of 10 kinds of either unwholesome or wholesome actions, viz. I. The tenfold unwholesome courses of action (akusala-kamma-patha): 3 bodily actions: killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; 4 verbal actions: lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; 3 mental actions: covetousness, ill-will, evil views. Unwholesome mental courses of action comprise only extreme forms of defiled thought: the greedy wish to appropriate others' property, the hateful thought of harming others, and pernicious views. Milder forms of mental defilement are also unwholesome, but do not constitute 'courses of action'. II. The tenfold wholesome course of action (kusala-kamma-patha): 3 bodily actions: avoidance of killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; 4 verbal actions: avoidance of lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; i.e. true, conciliatory, mild, and wise speech; 3 mental actions: unselfishness, good-will, right views. Both lists occur repeatedly, e.g. in A.X.28, 176; M.9; they are explained in detail in M.114, and in Com. to M.9 (R. Und., p. 14), Atthasálini Tr. I, 126ff. 20067 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 1:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Hi Mike, Greatly appreciating all your contributions...almost like the old days;-) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Just a note: Seems to me that whether we're talking about these odd > descriptions of the Buddha, minced and reconstituted arahats flying > through the air, talking animals or terrorists (American, Arab or > whatever)--whether 'myth' or 'reality', are all papa~nca--but moments of > feeling, thought, various emotions etc. with regard to the papa~nca are > all potentially bases of insight. > > My apologies if I'm just restating the obvious. ..... Before I say anything else, so that it doesn’t sound like some kind of justification (which it might be in part;-)), let me readily admit that much of what I have written on this thread has just been a bit of fun, prompted by lobha and not with any idea of it having any real significance at all. I know for Kom and others, they’ve been trying to help (kusala cittas) answer questions arising, but also don’t take it to be of any ultimate value. Of course it just depends on the cittas at the time, whether the thinking about these stories is kusala or akusala and of course, we all know, there are always more moments of akusala and thereby bound to be papanca (unwise proliferating), always rooted in kilesa as I understand. As you suggest, there is no reason at any of these times why there cannot be awarenes of feeling, thinking or any other reality and therefore, I don’t think we can say there should or shouldn’t be such kind of talk. It reminds me of Nina’s comment she often raises about the dosa she felt when Khun Sujin was talking to our hostess (a long time ago) in Sri Lanka about flowers instead of dhamma. When she appreciated that one can talk about anything with kusala citta and that any topic can be dhamma, she rejoiced instead. (Hope this is accurate, Nina;-)). Sometimes we may have some fun, like in the old funny NY quote Connie fished out of the archives (yes, Connie, keep fishing and sharing - you might find some of Mike’s witty ones too;-)), but unless one really thinks that knowing the height of the Buddha, the details of flying through the air or the other examples you give are of any real value --as some may think, I acknowledge --then I tend to think it’s pretty harmless. How about you? Perhaps this is also back to the question of whether we can say everyday lobha is harmless or not. In truth can we always know the citta and when there are papanca by the topic alone? Also, if a child asks about the height of the Buddha, we can’t very well answer: “that’s just papanca”, can we?? The following extract is from a post I wrote last September on this theme.I hope I’m not misinterpreting your comments and am not intending to make a mountain out of a mole-hill here, though it may sound like it;-) QUOTE earlier post: Sarah: “Antony gave this helpful quote: Ven U Dhamminda said in "Right Speech": "There is another place in the commentaries where it mentions that not all talk about kings and thieves and ministers (and armies, dangers and wars) etc. is idle chatter -it depends on the context in which it is spoken because even the Buddha sometimes he would use them as examples to illustrate a point of Dhamma. So in the context of Dhamma sometimes you have to talk about these things - and talk about food or whatever. So it depends on the context in which it's been spoken - if it is of benefit to somebody in a Dhammic sense in order to teach them some aspect of the Dhamma then you can talk about these things." ***** For most of us, most the time, I think such talk, as Rob M was originally pointing out, is idle chatter or ‘pointless talk’, however much we may try to justify it (as I’m doing now;-)) However, I do think the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2), with the emphasis on ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and wise attention) is helpful in this connection: “What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases, the unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen taint of being increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance increases in him and the arisen taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention that he attends to.” ***** B.Bodhi helpfully refers to some commentary notes here: 1.“MA makes the important point that there is no fixed determination in things themselves as to whether they are fit or unfit for attention. The distinction consists, rather, in the mode of attention. That mode of attention that is a causal basis for unwholesome states of mind should be avoided, while that mode of attention that is a causal basis for wholesome states should be developed.” 2. “MA illustrates the growth of the taints through unwise attention as follows: When he attends to gratification in the five cords of sensual pleasure, the taint of sensual desire arises and increases; when he attends to gratification in the exalted states (the jhanas), the taint of being arises and increases; and when he attends to any mundane things through the four “perversions” (of permanence, pleasure, self and beautiful etc), the taint of ignorance arises and increases.” 3. “MA says that up to the attainment of the path of stream-entry, attention denotes insight (vipassanaa), but at the moment of the path it dentotes path-knowledge. Insight directly apprehends the first two truths, since its objective range is the mental and material phenomena comprised under dukkha and its origin; it can know the latter two truths only inferentially. Path-knowledge makes the truth of cessation its object, apprehending it by penetration as object (aaramma.na)...” “ ***** I’d be glad to hear any further comments of yours, Mike, and apologies if I’ve misunderstood or misconstrued your comments and sentiments. I think it’s an interesting area. Metta Sarah p.s. I’d also sincerely be glad to hear what you made of the details about the Buddha’s height..... ===== 20068 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 3:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Hi Jon & Howard, I think the extract from Larry's post pasted below should help. Sarah ***** H:> > I realize that I didn't directly answer this question in my > > previous > > reply. What I mean by a "causal connection" is a relationship the > > four main > > characteristics of which are (taken from Samyutta Nikaya 2.25, and > > as > > reported by Kalupahana) the following: "... objectivity (tathata), > > necessity > > (avitathata), invariability (ana~n~nathata), and conditionality or > > interdependence (idappaccayata). ... > J:> I would like to follow up on these 4 characteristics of a > realtionship that constititute a causal connection (very > interesting), but I've not had any luck finding the sutta. Is there > any other information you can give about it? Thanks. ***** Larry wrote: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15681.html L:>Here is the sutta Kalupahana referenced: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn12-020.html Below is the relevant section. I inserted the pali. The translation is slightly different: "Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands -- this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality [idappaccayataa]. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. "From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth... "From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming... "From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance... "From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving... "From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling... "From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact... "From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media... "From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form... "From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness... "From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands -- this regularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/that conditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. What's there in this way is a reality [TATHATAA], not an unreality [AVITATHATAA], not other than what it seems [ANA~N~NATHATAA], conditioned by this/that [IDAPPACCAYATAA]. This is called dependent co-arising."< ***** 20069 From: azita gill Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 3:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] kamma, a correction --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M. and all, > A correction to be made: Another matter is: do we > understand Dependent > Origination just now, at this very moment? > Nina. > dear Nina, thanx for this reminder. I know I think about it but I guess I don't truely understand it at this present moment. would like to relate a little story - about ants. The other day I was watching some ants run around on the concrete outside my house. I thought how like them we humans are. These ants would first run one way, and then quickly change direction and run another way, backwards and forwards they went, seemingly with no purpose, that I knew about anyway. They are like us and we are like them, bec it is lobha and dosa that conditions the rupa to go here, and then go there, now like this, now dislike that.. I thought how these cetasikas [and others] but these seemed the glaringly obvious ones, that condition the bulk of 'our'day. When I review my daily activities, and ponder on what keeps me doing things, mostly it's lobha and dosa that conditions the rupa I call 'me' to open the fridge, close the fridge, turn on the radio or go for a swim in one of the many beautiful creeks around Cairns, and on and on and on it goes!!!! And all the time it is 'me' doing this, 'I' go there' aren't I good, aren't I bad. > thank you to all you dsg-ers for the time and effort put into these wonderful and useful posts. Don't forget: conditions rule.OK? May we all have lots of patience, courage and good cheer Azita 20070 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 3:43am Subject: Re: Modesty Hi Victor, I think being modest in the sense of only obtaining sufficient food, money, clothing, and housing (not excessive in amount or cost) could be wholesome in that it doesn't cause greed in oneself or envy in others. If widely practised, this sort of modesty could lead to a wiser use of the world's resources. Modesty in desires might lead one to detachment not attachment - (unless one was attached to the idea of 'being a modest person'). I think being modest in speech could be wholesome in that it doesn't arouse jealousy or anger in others. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I think modesty is a wholesome personal quality, a wholesome way of > being and living and is aligned with the teaching of the Buddha. I > don't think being modest is a form of conceit, and I would think it > is hard for one who is not modest to live in accordance with the > Buddha's teaching. > > I am thinking about the questions: In what ways is modesty > wholesome? And what is the benefit of being modest? What do you > think? > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth > " wrote: > > Hello Victor, > > > > I looked up the Gotami Sutta 'To Gotami' in the Anguttara Nikaya > > VIII.53 > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an08-053.html > > "As for the qualities of which you may know, 'These qualities lead > to > > dispassion, not to passion; to being unfettered, not to being > > fettered; to shedding, not to accumulating; to modesty, not to > self- > > aggrandizement; to contentment, not to discontent; to seclusion, > not > > to entanglement; to aroused persistence, not to laziness; to being > > unburdensome, not to being burdensome': You may definitely > > hold, 'This is the Dhamma, this is the Vinaya, this is the > Teacher's > > instruction.'" > > It appears to me that 'modesty' is not a practice in itself > (which > > could simply be a form of 'mana' conceit), but is part of an end > > result. The result is having the qualities that arise in one who > has > > correct understanding of the Doctrine and the Discipline. What do > > you think? > > > > > > metta, > > Christine 20071 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 7:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Hi Jon, > > The way you've put this puzzles me though--is > > pa~n~naa (or sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? > > Yes. There are 10 akusala- and 10 kusala-kamma-patha, and 3 of each > are mental actions (3 are bodily actions and 4 are verbal actions). > > The mental actions, for akusala/kusala kamma-patha, are: > - Covetousness/Unselfishness > - Ill-will/Good-will > - Evil views/Right views > > Thus panna of the level of satipatthana/vipassana is > kusala-kamma-patha. I'm afraid I'm being dense--I still don't get it. Is it because the cetasikas unselfishness, good-will and right views, always arise with pa~n~naa of the level of satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa? Thanks again for the kammapatha definition. mike 20072 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 7:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Height of the Buddha (was: Janice's letter (long posts with Jataka ... Hi Sarah, > --- "m. nease" wrote: > > Just a note: Seems to me > > that whether we're talking about these odd > > descriptions of the Buddha, minced and reconstituted arahats flying > > through the air, talking animals or terrorists (American, Arab or > > whatever)--whether 'myth' or 'reality', are all papa~nca--but moments of > > feeling, thought, various emotions etc. with regard to the papa~nca are > > all potentially bases of insight. > > > > My apologies if I'm just restating the obvious. > ..... > Before I say anything else, so that it doesn't sound like some kind of > justification (which it might be in part;-)), let me readily admit that > much of what I have written on this thread has just been a bit of fun, > prompted by lobha and not with any idea of it having any real significance > at all. I know for Kom and others, they've been trying to help (kusala > cittas) answer questions arising, but also don't take it to be of any > ultimate value. I didn't mean to criticize any of the posts on this thread at all, or of the topic(s). > Of course it just depends on the cittas at the time, whether the thinking > about these stories is kusala or akusala and of course, we all know, there > are always more moments of akusala and thereby bound to be papanca (unwise > proliferating), always rooted in kilesa as I understand. As you suggest, > there is no reason at any of these times why there cannot be awarenes of > feeling, thinking or any other reality and therefore, I don't think we can > say there should or shouldn't be such kind of talk. Neither do I. > It reminds me of Nina's comment she often raises about the dosa she felt > when Khun Sujin was talking to our hostess (a long time ago) in Sri Lanka > about flowers instead of dhamma. When she appreciated that one can talk > about anything with kusala citta and that any topic can be dhamma, she > rejoiced instead. (Hope this is accurate, Nina;-)). Sure... > Sometimes we may have some fun, like in the old funny NY quote Connie > fished out of the archives (yes, Connie, keep fishing and sharing - you > might find some of Mike's witty ones too;-)), but unless one really thinks > that knowing the height of the Buddha, the details of flying through the > air or the other examples you give are of any real value --as some may > think, I acknowledge --then I tend to think it's pretty harmless. How > about you? Yes, seems pretty harmless to me, too. > Perhaps this is also back to the question of whether we can say > everyday lobha is harmless or not. To my way of thinking the enormity of the problem simply of liking and disliking (always with ignorance) can't be overstated. > In truth can we always know the citta > and when there are papanca by the topic alone? Of course not--I never meant to imply this. > Also, if a child asks about the height of the Buddha, we can't very well > answer: "that's just papanca", can we?? > The following extract is from a post I wrote last September on this > theme.I hope I'm not misinterpreting your comments and am not intending to > make a mountain out of a mole-hill here, though it may sound like it;-) > > QUOTE earlier post: > > Sarah: > "Antony gave this helpful quote: > Ven U Dhamminda said in "Right Speech": > > "There is another place in the commentaries where it mentions that not all > talk about kings and thieves and ministers (and armies, dangers and wars) > etc. is idle chatter -it depends on the context in which it is spoken > because even the Buddha sometimes he would use them as examples to > illustrate a point of Dhamma. So in the context of Dhamma sometimes you > have to talk about these things - and talk about food or whatever. So it > depends on the context in which it's been spoken - if it is of benefit to > somebody in a Dhammic sense in order to teach them some aspect of the > Dhamma then you can talk about these things." Agreed... > For most of us, most the time, I think such talk, as Rob M was originally > pointing out, is idle chatter or 'pointless talk', however much we may try > to justify it (as I'm doing now;-)) > > However, I do think the Sabbasava Sutta (MN 2), with the emphasis on > ayoniso & yoniso manasikara (unwise and wise attention) is helpful in this > connection: > > "What are the things unfit for attention that he attends to? They are > things such that when he attends to them, the unarisen taint of sensual > desire arises in him and the arisen taint of sensual desire increases, the > unarisen taint of being arises in him and the arisen taint of being > increases, the unarisen taint of ignorance increases in him and the arisen > taint of ignorance increases. These are the things unfit for attention > that he attends to." Yes, this is an old favorite of mine. Thanks for the reminder. > I'd be glad to hear any further comments of yours, Mike, and apologies if > I've misunderstood or misconstrued your comments and sentiments. Not sure! > I think > it's an interesting area. > Metta > > Sarah > p.s. I'd also sincerely be glad to hear what you made of the details about the > Buddha's height..... This aspect of Dhamma has never really interested me, to tell you the truth. I tend to kind of skip over puzzles I don't think I can verify. Thanks for your thoughtful response. mike 20073 From: nidive Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 7:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Calm and Insight.special practice? Hi Nina, > These texts pertain to Sariputta and Moggalana, and to the attainments > of the four Paths. I don't think these texts pertain to only these two Chief Disciples. I don't think I am reading some private stuff between them when I read this sutta. > I do not think with regard to myself of painful suppression of defilements > right now. We are slow, slow slow anyway. What do you understand by the second stage of purification (citta visuddhi or Purification of Mind)? My understanding is that hindrances can be suppressed successfully in the practitioner in this stage of purification. > Nina: Since I do not have his book, only the Wheel, a shorter publication, > could you give me this title of M, so that I look up the co? Shall I send the PDF document to you? I think it will be much simpler this way. It's about 1.4 MB. Or shall I post it on the section Files in this group? > It all grows naturally, so long as we do not try, wish, have attachment > to many moments of sati, all that is counteractive. > In the Theritheragatha we find examples of attainment of enlightenment in > daily life, such as a Theri who fell down, and realized the Truth, another > woman in the kitchen who had her curry burnt in the oven, it reminded her of > impermanence, then and there. Khemaka was preaching Dhamma and attained. > They did not go apart to concentrate on the three characteristics. Did not Ananda practise "ferociously" prior to the commencement of the First Council, of which Venerable Maha-Kassapa reserved an arahant seat for him? Wasn't he trying (and probably wishing with lobha) that he would attain arahantship before the commencement of the First Council? Although he achieved arahantship not while practising but while he was lying down (to go to sleep?), can it be rightly said that his prior "ferocious" practice did not condition the Maggas to arise eventually? If a sotapanna such as Ananda is "trying", why shouldn't worldlings? Although one might not attain Magga while "trying", but don't you think that this "trying" could very well be the major condition that leads to Magga when one is "not trying"? Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20074 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg]the noting Dear Sarah, I find this in particular very helpful. Awareness of visible object and still an idea of, I have to note this. Then the reality could be lobha, thinking with lobha, or even aversion, some slight uneasiness that visible object is so difficult. Or "omaana"(minority) conceit: poor me, I am so ignorant, thus, clinging to the importance of self. Or ati-maana(superiority) conceit: hey, I make some progress.No end to all the different kilesas, but good to know. I am grateful for any reminder, with appreciation, Nina. op 04-03-2003 13:29 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > I think the realities to be known are in a > way very obvious and simple - just as they’ve always been, but covered up > by moha(ignorance). > > I tend to think that the reason there is so little awareness relates to > the lack of understanding of anatta. Even though visible object is in > front of our eyes at this moment, whilst there is any idea of doing’ or > practising’ or noting’ now, there won’t be conditions for awareness to > arise. Just an idea. 20075 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 10:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Hi Mike, op 04-03-2003 16:11 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > The way you've put this puzzles me though--is pa~n~naa (or > sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? Nina: It is bhavana kusala kamma. I asked A. Sujin once whether kusala citta is kusala kamma, and here was a detailed answer: we may like to give but kusala citta is so weak, we do not follow up, that is not kusala kamma. But in other cases: kusala citta is often kusala kamma, like: studying and being aware, as Jon said. But she also sometimes said: do not try to pinpoint everything, or try to measure everything. Nina. 20076 From: Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 5:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Hi, Mike (and Jon) - In a message dated 3/5/03 10:18:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, mlnease@z... writes: > Hi Jon, > > >> The way you've put this puzzles me though--is > >>pa~n~naa (or sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? > > > >Yes. There are 10 akusala- and 10 kusala-kamma-patha, and 3 of each > >are mental actions (3 are bodily actions and 4 are verbal actions). > > > >The mental actions, for akusala/kusala kamma-patha, are: > >- Covetousness/Unselfishness > >- Ill-will/Good-will > >- Evil views/Right views > > > >Thus panna of the level of satipatthana/vipassana is > >kusala-kamma-patha. > > I'm afraid I'm being dense--I still don't get it. Is it because the > cetasikas unselfishness, good-will and right views, always arise with > pa~n~naa of the level of satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa? > > Thanks again for the kammapatha definition. > > mike > ============================ Might the idea be that wisdom = right view? (I know that the term 'right view' has a conventional flavor to it, but I suspect that as a path factor it means exactly supramundane wisdom/insight. Likewise, I suppose "evil view" needs to be identified with moha.) BTW, in looking over Nyanatiloka's definition of kammapatha, the *physical* courses of action are all macroscopic, conventional phenomena, but the mental ones appear to all be cetasikas - concomitant functions participating in and supporting the discerning of an object during a mindstate (citta). 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) 20077 From: Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 5:47am Subject: Dreams, Thoughts, and Self Hi, all - While dreaming last night I realized during the dream, and upon awakening, that I had been thinking about things during the dream in exactly the same way thoughts arise and fall while awake, and with exactly the same degree of the sense of "me" initiating (or not initiating) the thoughts. I experienced no difference in the flow of thoughts from that in the waking state. Now, we are used to realizing that the ordinary flow of non-thought experiences (sights, sounds, smells, textures, etc) simply goes by on its own, not directly, intentionally created by the mind, but "given", as it were, "by nature". But we often think of "our thoughts" as being intentionally created by "us". The fact that thinking occurs in just the same way during a dream as while awake suggests to me that our trains of thought are just as much "given by nature" as all the rest of our experience, and that it is *all* just empty, impersonal phenomena rolling on. This is not to say that cetana is not a major factor in all of this. It certainly is - it is a primary motive force, and, at the macroscopic, conventional level of understanding, there is the appearance of that cetana being "the action of an agent", an agent exercising volition. But that action-of-an-agent view is in error. It is well and good to speak in such terms as a matter of convenience and mere convention, but it shouldn't be taken literally. 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) 20078 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 3:58pm Subject: Re: Modesty Hi Christine, I agree with you, and I think the benefit of modesty is an ease of mind for self and others. I think excessiveness and self- aggrandizement always creates tension in one's own mind or others'. I think modesty is a peaceful quality in behavior and expression. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I think being modest in the sense of only obtaining sufficient food, > money, clothing, and housing (not excessive in amount or cost) could > be wholesome in that it doesn't cause greed in oneself or envy in > others. If widely practised, this sort of modesty could lead to a > wiser use of the world's resources. Modesty in desires might lead > one to detachment not attachment - (unless one was attached to the > idea of 'being a modest person'). I think being modest in speech > could be wholesome in that it doesn't arouse jealousy or anger in > others. > > metta, > Christine 20079 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 9:21pm Subject: get-togethers i All, 1. Bangkok Apr 25th-27th In case anyone missed my other note, this is to say we’ll be joining K.Sujin, Rob M (we hope), Sukin and other friends from DSG for discussion. 2. 4th or 5th Sept in San Francisco and cruise to Alaska from Seattle (7th-14th Sept) Friends in SF (inc. Kom) have invited K.Sujin to give talks and go on a 7 day cruise. We’ll (& prob. Christine) be joining them for a couple of days in SF and the cruise. K.Sujin and many of the group will remain for another week in SF. ..... If you have any interest in 1), pls contact Sukin or myself If you have any interest in 2), pls contact Kom or myself for more details. Of course, we’d love to meet anyone we’ve been talking to (or even not talking to;-)) Metta, Sarah (& Jon) p.s I believe that friends in SF are presently negotiating a good group deal for the cruise. They will need deposits for this v.soon, so let someone know asap if you have any interest. For Bkk or SF, last minute is fine. ================================= 20080 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 5, 2003 9:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Modesty Hi Victor & Christine, H --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I agree with you, and I think the benefit of modesty is an ease of > mind for self and others. I think excessiveness and self- > aggrandizement always creates tension in one's own mind or others'. > I think modesty is a peaceful quality in behavior and expression. ..... This is an interesting thread. Perhaps when I think of modesty as a wholesome quality, I think of the opposite of mana (conceit)and in particular, the opposite of ‘flaunting a flag’ and the expressions in this quote from the Atthasalini (bk 11, Part 11, ch2, 372) on conceit: “ “Conceit”, “overweening” and “conceitedness” signify mode and state. “Loftiness” is in the sense of rising upwards or of springing over others. “haughtiness”, i.e. in whom conceit arises, him it lifts up, keeps upraised. “Flaunting a flag” is in the sense of swelling above others. “Assumption’ means uplifting; conceit favours the mind all round. Of many flags the flag which raises above others is called a banner. So conceit arising repeatedly in the sense of excelling with reference to subsequent conceits is like a banner. That mind which desires the banner is said to be desirous of the banner (i.e. , self-advertisement). Such a state is desire for elf-advertisement......” ..... In other words, perhaps we can say that modesty in this sense is the opposite to clinging to self and finding oneself important. What do you think? ..... I thought the latest installment from Nina’s translation of Rahulavaada Sutta commentary gave a good example of the sense of the meaning I’m trying to convey. Here is the last paragraph again: “However, the following thoughts did not occur to the venerable Rahula: ‘Although the Blessed One knows that I am left behind in the monastery, he has not, after he has personally received alsmfood, taken it and come himself, nor did he send me food (by the hand of) through someone else, nor indeed did my preceptor do anything at all, although he knows that I am left behind. Why should there be conditions for the arising of self-disrespect (omaana.m) or pride (atimaana.m)?’ ” ***** I’ll be glad to hear both your further comments. Metta, Sarah ===== 20081 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 3:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] (4) Pannatta As A Vehicle Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > > When we think of anything (whether a tree or hardness), the > object of > > consciousness at that moment is purely mind-created. It may > refer to > > a dhamma or to another concept, but this does not mean that the > > thought itself shares any of the characteristics of what is being > > conceptualised about. > > > > When hardness is experienced (as it is at the present moment), > the > > object of consciousness is a dhamma. That dhamma must have > arisen in > > order for it to become the object of consciousness at that > moment. > > > ----------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > I basically agree with you, Jon. What you are raising here, > however, > isn't the issue at hand. The issue was that concepts, like all > conditioned > things, arise and pass away. That was all I was discussing. > --------------------------------------------------- Yes, that's what I understood you to be saying. But I was trying to make the point that something that is purely mind-created (and has no sabhava) cannot be said to arise and pass away. At the very least, and not to get hung up on terminology, if it can be said to arise and pass away, it would not do so in the same sense that that can be said of something that exists independently of the mind and arises before the consciousness that experiences it (and has sabhava). The distinction between dhammas (such as hardness, seeing consciousness, feeling) and concepts (mere mind-created images/labels) is crucial to the development of insight, as I understand the texts -- but this is another issue, I know ;-)). Jon 20082 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 3:49am Subject: Pali Dear Christine, Your answers from the last letter was very useful, although I do have some more questions.Is Pali still a living language? What does sunakh, suvaana, saarameya, and kukkura mean? The Kamma teaching sounds like a very good way of teaching people to be good. It must be hard to have nothing in your Kamma suitcase. Thanks again for your answers. Metta, Hilary 20083 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 5:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Modesty Thanks, Sarah, This (especially the material from Atthasaalinii) is good and useful I think. Personally, though, I don't believe in elves (stodgy me as usual). If they do exist, I don't think they should advertise--just my opinion. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2003 9:46 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Modesty > Such a > state is desire for elf-advertisement......" 20084 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 5:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] (2)Anattta and Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment (Again found this in my 'outbox' apparently unsent (an 'Outlook' problem I think) --my apologies if it's been posted before). Dear Rob & Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- > > p.s. I'm not familiar with Sammohavinodani--part of the > > Abhidhammapitaka? ________________________ > DEAR Mike, > It is the commentary to the Vibhanga of the Abhidhamma and is translated in 2 > volumes as Dispeller of Delusion- a very apt name. > Worth buying from Pali Text Society. > Robert ________________________ Yes, I'm familiar with it by the English title and have considered buying it before. Will do when I can manage it (and also Atthasaalinii). ________________________ I agree with Rob's comments about the value of this Abhidhamma commentary. ________________________ So do I. By the way, I don't doubt the validity of 'no-control' or 'powerlessness' (obviously implicit in anatta)--just think they need to be very well- (and repeatedly) documented because of the relative scarcity of their specific mention in the Suttapitaka & Vinayapitaka. ________________________ > I overlooked the last part of your post: -In Pali, I've found > for 'powerless': abala; dubbala; asamattha; Metta, Sarah p.s Good to see your keen interest again. ________________________ Thanks Sarah--never lost it. ________________________ mike 20085 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 6:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] (4) Pannatta As A Vehicle Dear Howard and Jon, > > ----------------------------------------------------- > > Howard: > > I basically agree with you, Jon. What you are raising here, > > however, isn't the issue at hand. The issue was that concepts, like all > > conditioned things, arise and pass away. That was all I was discussing. > > --------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, that's what I understood you to be saying. But I was trying to make the point > that something that is purely mind-created (and has no sabhava) cannot be said to > arise and pass away. This has come up before and I basically agree with you both. I agree with Howard that, in a sense, concepts arise and fall away (this is easily experienced in retrospect at least). It seems to me that the difference between concepts (pa.n.natti, without sabhaava), and paramattha dhammas (with sabhaava), is, most importantly, that the latter can be the bases of insight of the degree of satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa and the former can't. On the other hand, it also seems to me that only pa.n.natti, maybe, can be the the basis of conventional (conceptual) insight? (Potentially confusing to use the word 'insight' in this context--maybe something like 'theoretical understanding' would be better). If so, this seems to me to suggest a useful distinction between conventional (or theoretical) view (right or wrong) and view as a path-factor (right or wrong). Aren't both theoretical right view and right view as a path factor necessary to bhaavanaa? I'm sure we've been over all this ground before--just thinking out loud. mike 20086 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 6:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Dear Nina, > > The way you've put this puzzles me though--is pa~n~naa (or > > sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? > Nina: It is bhavana kusala kamma. Thanks, that clarifies it, I THINK. It strikes me that (the concept of) bhaavanaa is peculiarly susceptible to attadi.t.thi. Since this is so often translated as 'cultivation' (I like 'development' better--less personal) it seems hard to separate it from someone doing the cultivating. In other words, easy to theoretically recognize anatta in dhammas except when it comes to cultivation--then it's something for 'me' to do. mike 20087 From: robmoult Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 6:29am Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Hi Nina, Sorry for the delay in responding. I was very busy in Bangkok, but I did have time for an excellent dinner with Betty and Num. Nice people, I hope to meet up with them again in a couple of weeks and then again on April 25th. I hope that you come back to visit Thailand again soon. I don't know what happened to me; why I would ask a question like, "what makes a kamma, 'kamma-patha'?" I know the answer and have even discussed it on DSG in the past. Kamma-patha is "completed" kamma; whereby a certain set of conditons are met. Kamma-patha has sufficient kammic potential to act as a rebirth linking kamma, but can certainly arise under other conditions. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > op 02-03-2003 06:49 schreef robmoult op > rob.moult@j...: > > > This is something that I am not clear about. What makes a > > kamma, "kamma-patha"? > > > > I thought that every javana citta created the potential for future > > vipaka (when conditions allowed). If I understand Jon correctly, he > > disagrees and feels that only certain javana cittas create the > > potential for future vipaka. Please help me understand better. > Nina: I think you know the texts of the Atth, where it is explained that > certain factors make kamma a kamma patha. Like in the case of killing, etc. > We had many posts on this subject, also long ago. Num warned: kamma is the > field of the Buddhas. We have a few explanations from Tipita and Co, but it > does not help to go on reasoning. A. Sujin will say: through satipatthana > you will understand. What about this moment: is it kusala, akusala, vipaka, > kiriya? > You need not worry when you think, in a minute I shall have a delicious > dessert, or, what a long flight, I feel so tired (dosa). You know that this > is not akusala kamma patha. > But we know so little about this moment, the characteristic of kusala or > akusala is not clearly understood. We are not sure about the characteristic > of seeing, and thus, how can we clearly understand vipaka? > If you get this post in time, you could bring it up, also the free will and > control, in case you have still doubts. I hope you meet A. Sujin. Tell us > all, > I wish you a very fruitful time, > Nina. 20088 From: Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 2:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] (4) Pannatta As A Vehicle Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/6/03 6:14:28 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > >Howard: > > I basically agree with you, Jon. What you are raising here, > >however, > >isn't the issue at hand. The issue was that concepts, like all > >conditioned > >things, arise and pass away. That was all I was discussing. > >--------------------------------------------------- > > Yes, that's what I understood you to be saying. But I was trying to > make the point that something that is purely mind-created (and has no > sabhava) cannot be said to arise and pass away. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I cannot for the life of me understand why that would be the case UNLESS we are not talking about the same thing. (Actually, I think we are NOT speaking about the same thing.) When I speak of a concept, I mean a thought/idea arising via the mind door as the result of mental fabrication; I do NOT refer to its intended referent which, indeed, is not present and thus neither arose nor will cease. When I "see a tree", as I do right now looking out the window, the concept (i.e. thought/idea) of 'tree' is repeatedly arising, ceasing, rearising, ceasing again ..., and is being "superimposed" by the mind (by complex sankharic functions) on the sequence of actual visual images experienced. The alleged tree, itself, is, upon careful examination, nowhere to be found. We can *say*, as the vinjaptimatrins do, that it is concept-only in the sense that the concept (thought/idea) is present, and the mental construct that is a hybrid construct mentally built from that concept and a series of visual rupas is present, but no physical object called "tree" is present at all. Does this clarify matters, Jon? --------------------------------------------------- > > > At the very least, and not to get hung up on terminology, if it can > be said to arise and pass away, it would not do so in the same sense > that that can be said of something that exists independently of the > mind and arises before the consciousness that experiences it (and has > sabhava). > > The distinction between dhammas (such as hardness, seeing > consciousness, feeling) and concepts (mere mind-created > images/labels) is crucial to the development of insight, as I > understand the texts -- but this is another issue, I know ;-)). > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand the distinction quite well, really. ------------------------------------------------ > > 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) 20089 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) op 05-03-2003 16:13 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > Thus panna of the level of satipatthana/vipassana is >> kusala-kamma-patha. > > I'm afraid I'm being dense--I still don't get it. Is it because the > cetasikas unselfishness, good-will and right views, always arise with > pa~n~naa of the level of satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa? > Dear Mike, The teaching of this Path is very rare, only Buddhas teach it. It is the most precious teaching. The development of pa~n~naa of the level of satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa, is kusala kamma. You develop the Path the Buddha taught, leading to understanding the true nature of paramattha dhammas and to the eradication of defilements. Even though we just begin, it is kusala kamma. Nina 20090 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] the central problem, dependent origination. Hi iIke, op 04-03-2003 19:54 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: > That's the conclusion I've come to too, but-- > >N: each moment is succeeded by a following moment, I do >> not see accumulation to occur by volitional action. > M: --maybe I've been confusing kamma paccaya with kamma as cetanaa cetasika > (sorry, I'm very rusty on all this). I may have been confusing the > accumulation of kamma with the accumulation of defilements. Two completely > separate kinds of accumulation? N:Kamma is one condition: it conditions vipaka, when the time is ripe, kilesa is another type of condition: it conditions the arising of akusala citta by way of upanissaya paccaya, dependence condition, and at that natural strong dependence condition. Accumulation from moment to moment occurs because each citta that falls away is succeeded by a next one. I just wrote something about this subject for Pali yahoo: N:>> Thus, so much akusala just now. The only thing that can be done is: > knowing >> it, realizing it as a conditioned reality. Not suppressing it, or having >> anxiety about it, then we accumulate even more dosa. > >M:Agreed--though of course we can't decide whether we want to suppress or be > anxious about (especially) dislike-rooted citta, accompanied by unpleasant > feeling (dosa-múla-citta domanassa-sahagataÿ paìigha-sampayuttaÿ) with anger > because of the resultant desire to get rid of the unpleasant feeling (and > anger?). Anxiety or the desire to suppress arises according to conditions, > in other words. N: Yes this is also conditioned. M p.s. Off-list, can you read the Pali diacriticals in this post? N: no, only a few. Not paìigha-sampayuttaÿ. I have outlook, but tools options, I give up, thanks anyway. Nina 20091 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 10:03am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 1 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 1 by Acharn Sujin The Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² defines the perfection of truthfulness, as follows: Truthfulness has the characteristic of non-deceptiveness in speech; its function is to verify in accordance with fact; its manifestation is excellence; honesty is its proximate cause. The perfection of truthfulness, sacca påramí, is sincerity and truthfulness with regard to realities. It means truthfulness through body, speech and mind. In order to realize the four noble Truths, one should be truthful, sincere, with regard to oneself, and this means, truthful with regard to the realities which appear just as they are. Kusala is kusala and akusala is akusala; they cannot be otherwise, no matter whether they arise in oneself or in someone else. If we see the disadvantage of untruth and falsity, we shall further develop the perfection of truthfulness. In the Tipiìaka deceitful speech is compared to beansoup 1 , because when one cooks beansoup, some beans are cooked while others are not cooked. When eating, one comes sometimes across hard beans which are not cooked. It is the same with speech: when a person speaks a great deal, some deceptive words may permeate his speech. Or it may also happen that everything he says is true, from the first word until the last. We can only know with regard to ourselves when we are insincere and when truthful. It is paññå that knows akusala as akusala. We may begin to see that akusala is ugly, that it is wrong. Paññå that is of a higher degree can abandon akusala so that it decreases. However, if one does not see the disadvantage and the danger of akusala dhammas, akusala will only increase. The realization of the four noble Truths leads to the eradication of defilements, but in order to realize the four noble Truths we should be truthful in action, speech and mind. Akusala dhammas arise because of their appropriate conditions. If sati arises, it can at such moments be aware of the characteristic of akusala dhamma and in this way akusala can be given up. We should not delay being aware of the characteristic of the dhamma that naturally appears so that it can be known as it is. When akusala appears and there is awareness of it, we can immediately let go of it. We have a great deal of defilements and without the support of the perfections it is impossible to penetrate the four noble Truths, to become a ³streamwinner², sotåpanna, who will not be reborn more than seven times before the attainment of arahatship. Even Såriputta, who had paññå of the degree of a chief disciple, developed the perfections during one incalculable period and a hundred thousand aeons so that he could become a sotåpanna. He could, because he had accumulated the perfections for such a long time, become an arahat fifteen days after he had attained the stage of sotåpanna. 20092 From: Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 3:32pm Subject: Way 59, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 1. Clear comprehension in going forwards and backwards, p. 75 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html [Tika] Low [omatta] = Negligible [avamatta], poor in regard to standard [lamakappamana]. [T] Since the process of caloricity with (its cognate process) oscillation coming (as a servant or follower) behind it [vayo dhatuya anugata tejo dhatu] is the condition for upraising [uddharanassa paccayo], caloricity and oscillation are in preponderance, by reason of capability, in the action of upraising. Caloricity is specially conducive to the action of upraising and so in upraising oscillation is subordinate to caloricity. The processes of extension and cohesion are low in the action of upraising owing to their incapacity to raise up. [T] Since the process of oscillation with (its cognate process) caloricity coming (as a servant or follower) behind it [tejo dhatuya anugata vayo dhatu] is the condition for stretching out and shifting away [atiharana vitiharananam paccayo], oscillation and caloricity are in preponderance by reason of capability, in stretching out and shifting away. Oscillation is naturally active and because in the actions of stretching out and shifting away its movement is excessive, caloricity is subordinate to oscillation in these actions. The other two processes are low in stretching out and shifting away because of the incapacity of these processes to stretch out and to shift away. [T] Raising up is the lifting of a foot from a place already stepped on to. [T] Stretching out is the carrying of a foot to the front from the place on which one is standing. [T] Shifting away is the carrying of a foot sidewards (by moving it laterally) for the purpose of avoiding stake and the like or for avoiding contact with the other foot already set on the ground. [T] Or stretching out is the carrying of a foot (near) to the place where the other foot is set and shifting away is the carrying of a foot further to a point beyond the place on which the other foot is. [T] Since the process of cohesion with (its cognate process) extension coming (as a servant or follower) behind it [pathavi dhatuya anugata apodhatu] is the condition for dropping down [vossajjane paccayo], cohesion and extension are in preponderance by reason of capability in the action of dropping down. The nature of cohesion is most gravid and so in the laying down of an upraised foot extension is subordinate to cohesion. Because of their incapacity to drop down what is upraised the processes of caloricity and oscillation are called low in this connection. [T] Since the process of extension with (its cognate process) cohesion coming (as a servant or follower) behind it [apodhatuya anugata pathavidhatu] is the condition for the keeping (of a foot) on the ground, extension and cohesion are in preponderance by reason of capability, in the keeping (of a foot) on the ground. In keeping the foot on the ground too, as in the state of something fixed, cohesion is subordinate to extension owing to the excessive functioning of the latter process. [T] Cohesion is subordinate to extension also by way of the contactual action of the process of extension in pressing the foot against the ground. [T] And here dropping down is lowering by way of relinguishment or laying down. The setting down, thence, of the foot on the ground and so forth is keeping the foot on the ground. After keeping the foot on the ground, the coming to a complete standstill of the action of going, by way of contacting is pressing the foot against the ground. [T] There = In this going forward or among the six aforesaid divisions known as raising up, stretching out, shifting away, dropping down, keeping down, and pressing against. [T] In raising up = In the moment of upraising. Material and mental phenomena = The material phenomena proceeding in the form of upraising (or through the mode of upraising), and the mental phenomena originating that materiality do not occur in stretching out by reason of their existing only for a moment. Throughout, this is the method of exegesis in this passage. [T] Just in these places = Wherever, in the divisions beginning with upraising, phenomena come to be, just in those very places, they perish. To be sure, owing to swift change there is no going over of phenomena to another place. [T] Sections = Division. Links = Joints. Parts = Portions. And all here is stated concerning the abovementioned divisions of the action of going which take place in the form of a differentiated serial process. 20093 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 5:30pm Subject: Re: Dreams, Thoughts, and Self -- - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Now, we are used to realizing that the ordinary flow of non-thought > experiences (sights, sounds, smells, textures, etc) simply goes by on its > own, not directly, intentionally created by the mind, but "given", as it > were, "by nature". But we often think of "our thoughts" as being > intentionally created by "us". The fact that thinking occurs in just the same > way during a dream as while awake suggests to me that our trains of thought > are just as much "given by nature" as all the rest of our experience, and > that it is *all* just empty, impersonal phenomena rolling on. ___________ Dear Howard, I consider this an important aspect of the Dhamma. All of these moments - whether vipaka (seeing, hearing, tasting, touching..) or kusala or akusala -are conditioned. A good point to bring up. RobertK This is not to > say that cetana is not a major factor in all of this. It certainly is - it is > a primary motive force, and, at the macroscopic, conventional level of > understanding, there is the appearance of that cetana being "the action of an > agent", an agent exercising volition. But that action-of-an-agent view is in > error. It is well and good to speak in such terms as a matter of convenience > and mere convention, but it shouldn't be taken literally. > > With metta, > Howard 20094 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dreams, Thoughts, and Self Thanks for this, Howard. I particularly liked the way you put it when you said: > But that [cetana as] action-of-an-agent view is in > error. It is well and good to speak in such terms as a matter of > convenience and mere convention, but it shouldn't be taken > literally. As we know, the Buddha made use of these conventional expressions when addressing those whom he knew would not take his message literally; but in this day and age it seems that much more explanation is needed before the underlying meaning can be appreciated (in my own case, anyway). Reminders of these points are always appreciated. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > While dreaming last night I realized during the dream, and > upon > awakening, that I had been thinking about things during the dream > in exactly > the same way thoughts arise and fall while awake, and with exactly > the same > degree of the sense of "me" initiating (or not initiating) the > thoughts. I > experienced no difference in the flow of thoughts from that in the > waking > state. > Now, we are used to realizing that the ordinary flow of > non-thought > experiences (sights, sounds, smells, textures, etc) simply goes by > on its > own, not directly, intentionally created by the mind, but "given", > as it > were, "by nature". But we often think of "our thoughts" as being > intentionally created by "us". The fact that thinking occurs in > just the same > way during a dream as while awake suggests to me that our trains of > thought > are just as much "given by nature" as all the rest of our > experience, and > that it is *all* just empty, impersonal phenomena rolling on. This > is not to > say that cetana is not a major factor in all of this. It certainly > is - it is > a primary motive force, and, at the macroscopic, conventional level > of > understanding, there is the appearance of that cetana being "the > action of an > agent", an agent exercising volition. But that action-of-an-agent > view is in > error. It is well and good to speak in such terms as a matter of > convenience > and mere convention, but it shouldn't be taken literally. > > With metta, > Howard 20095 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 6, 2003 11:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Hi Mike (Jon, Nina & All), Just to add a little to your discussions with Jon & Nina: M:> The way you've put this puzzles me though--is > pa~n~naa (or sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? Jon:>>Yes. There are 10 akusala- and 10 kusala-kamma-patha, and 3 of each are mental actions (3 are bodily actions and 4 are verbal actions). The mental actions, for akusala/kusala kamma-patha, are: - Covetousness/Unselfishness - Ill-will/Good-will - Evil views/Right views Thus panna of the level of satipatthana/vipassana is kusala-kamma-patha.<< ***** S: As noted, wrong views and right views are included under kamma-patha. Indeed, right view and the development of wisdom of this kind is the ‘highest’ good. We read the same lists of akusala and kusala kamma-patha in suttas. For example, in MN41, Saalayyaka Sutta,<286> ~Nanamoli/Bodhi transl, we read about these views under these categories of conduct: “Householders, there are three kinds of bodily conduct not in accordance with the dhamma, unrighteous conduct. There are four kinds of verbal conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct. There are three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct..... “.....And how, householders, are there three kinds of mental conduct not in accordance with the Dhamma, unrighteous conduct? Here someone is covetous.....Or he has a mind of ill will and intentions....may these beings be slain and slaughtered.....Or he has wrong view, distorted vision, thus: ‘there is nothing given, nothing offered, nothing sacrificed; no fruit or result of good and bad actions; no this world, no other world; no mother, no father; no beings who are reborn spontaneously; no good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.....” “.....And how, householders, are there three kinds of mental conduct in accordance with the dhamma, righteous conduct? Here someone is not covetous...His mind is without ill will and he has intentions free from hate.....He has RIGHT VIEW, undistorted vision, thus: “There is what is given and what is offered and what is sacrificed; there is fruit and result of good and bad actions; there is this world and the other world; there is mother and father; there are beings who are reborn spontaneously; there are good and virtuous recluses and brahmins in the world who have themselves realised by direct knowledge and declare this world and the other world.” ***** I actually find the following definition of wrong view in the Atthasalini transl, Courses of Immoral Action p134, under akusala kamma patha to be more straight forward: “Wrong view is that which sees wrongly by not taking the right view. It has the characteristic of perverted views, such as ‘There is no (use in a ) gift.’ And the offence is small or great as in the case of frivolous talk, or according as the wrong view is of a temporary or permanent character. Its two constituent factors are: perversion of the manner in which an object should be taken, and its manifestation according to the contrary view held of it. Here the distinctive stage of the course of action is reached by the views: 1) there is no result (in a moral act); 2) there are no causes (in happening); 3) there is no such thing as (moral) action, and not by other views.” ***** It continues to mention the various factors including the roots you mentioned which determine the course of action. Right view is the opposite. If we consider the stages of insight, then obviously the higher the stage or the more developed the panna, then the greater the kusala kamma patha I would think. As Nina mentioned, we don’t need to be overly concerned with which kinds of kusala or moments of kusala are kamma patha and indeed any concern with result is likely to indicate more clinging to self again. On the otherhand, I think it’s important that we don’t underestimate the importance and value of right understanding of phenomena appearing at this moment and the danger of wrong views in terms of both accumulation and result. Sometimes we may forget about akusala and kusala mental actions as kamma-patha as they are not necessarily observable like speech and bodily actions. Hope to hear any further comments from any of you. In this regard, let me again repeat the Nyantiloka dictionary entry for kamma-patha which Jon just posted. Metta (and hoping to catch any of those pesky self-advertising elves;-)) Sarah ===== From Nyantiloka dictionary: Kamma-patha 'course of action', is a name for the group of 10 kinds of either unwholesome or wholesome actions, viz. I. The tenfold unwholesome courses of action (akusala-kamma-patha): 3 bodily actions: killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; 4 verbal actions: lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; 3 mental actions: covetousness, ill-will, evil views. Unwholesome mental courses of action comprise only extreme forms of defiled thought: the greedy wish to appropriate others' property, the hateful thought of harming others, and pernicious views. Milder forms of mental defilement are also unwholesome, but do not constitute 'courses of action'. II. The tenfold wholesome course of action (kusala-kamma-patha): 3 bodily actions: avoidance of killing, stealing, unlawful sexual intercourse; 4 verbal actions: avoidance of lying, slandering, rude speech, foolish babble; i.e. true, conciliatory, mild, and wise speech; 3 mental actions: unselfishness, good-will, right views. Both lists occur repeatedly, e.g. in A.X.28, 176; M.9; they are explained in detail in M.114, and in Com. to M.9 (R. Und., p. 14), Atthasálini Tr. I, 126ff. ========================= 20096 From: m. nease Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 7:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Hi Sarah, Interesting that I've missed this all these years. Still getting used to the idea of thinking of di.t.thi as kamma. The volition in it doesn't seem obvious to me (it seems passive). I certainly take the word of the tipitaka for it though. Not the first counter-intuitive bit of Dhamma I've run across. mike 20097 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 10:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Dear Mike, op 06-03-2003 15:27 schreef m. nease op mlnease@z...: >>> The way you've put this puzzles me though--is pa~n~naa (or >>> sa.t.tipathaana vipassanaa) kammapatha? > >> Nina: It is bhavana kusala kamma. > > Thanks, that clarifies it, I THINK. It strikes me that (the concept of) > bhaavanaa is peculiarly susceptible to attadi.t.thi. Since this is so often > translated as 'cultivation' (I like 'development' better--less personal) it > seems hard to separate it from someone doing the cultivating. In other > words, easy to theoretically recognize anatta in dhammas except when it > comes to cultivation--then it's something for 'me' to do. N: Then it is not under bhavana kusala kamma, this includes: study of dhamma and explaining it, samatha (the real one, not the one with miccha samadhi) and vipassana. I bet that we should not think of doing vipassana, then we are already on the wrong track. As A. Sujin aks: who is doing it? But sure, it creeps in before we realize it. The Pitfall I was discussing with smalchap. Nina 20098 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 10:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a good dinner and spiritual food. Dear Rob M, It does not matter about asking again a question discussed before, I have the same. I have no doubt about your good dinner, certainly with Num around (he has Saveur cookbooks!), but, what about the spiritual food? What did you discuss? op 06-03-2003 15:29 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: I > did have time for an excellent dinner with Betty and Num. 20099 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 10:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dreams, Thoughts, natural flow. Dear Howard, op 05-03-2003 19:47 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > While dreaming last night I realized during the dream, and upon > awakening, that I had been thinking about things during the dream in exactly > the same way thoughts arise and fall while awake, and with exactly the same > degree of the sense of "me" initiating (or not initiating) the thoughts. I > experienced no difference in the flow of thoughts from that in the waking > state. N: This is interesting, I tell Lodewijk, but he cannot realize this, he said. H:Now, we are used to realizing that the ordinary flow of non-thought > experiences (sights, sounds, smells, textures, etc) simply goes by on its > own, not directly, intentionally created by the mind, but "given", as it > were, "by nature". But we often think of "our thoughts" as being > intentionally created by "us". The fact that thinking occurs in just the same > way during a dream as while awake suggests to me that our trains of thought > are just as much "given by nature" as all the rest of our experience, and > that it is *all* just empty, impersonal phenomena rolling on N: Given by nature, you express this very well, just natural, because it is by conditions. Even in dreams cittas are mostly akusala, just naturally flowing, but no akusala kamma during dreams. When we wake up: the same: just naturally flowing, just empty, impersonal phenomena rolling on, as you say. Always the question comes up: can we not have efforts for kusala? Yes. When you know the right conditions. At the same time you know that effort is not you, it is just arising because of the right conditions. Effort and control, I do not fall over such words, they should not be any problem. So long as we have right understanding of them. Even suppressing akusala, we have to know that also this is conditioned, non-self. When you know the right conditions for eliminating akusala it can be eliminated. At the same time I appreciate reminders, when A. Sujin says to me: "are you trying to have awareness, do you want more?" No matter what we do, no matter what kind of experience we have, we should know whether that moment is kusala or akusala. There can be the idea of self who is trying, or attachment to our experiences which creeps in all the time. We have to check: when we feel happy, is this happy feeling accompanying lobha, attachment? Or is it happy feeling accompanying kusala citta? We have to know, otherwise we go the wrong way. We need very much the perfection of truthfulness, we cannot do without it. But it is not always pleasant to be truthful, sincere, we may dislike it. It may be a rude awakening. We are thinking the whole day. I just heard on tape: Nina. Nina. 20100 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 10:26am Subject: M 1: 120, 18-19, about different ways of eliminating unwholesome thoughts Dear Sarah, On your request I am sending you what I studied, only part of this interesting but long Co. on M, I, sutta 20, Discourse on the Forms of Thought, vitakkasanthanasutta. The part I referred to is the fourth way of eliminating bad thoughts: vitakka sa.nkhaara sa.n.thaana, attend to the thought function and form of those thoughts.(I added Thai for the benefit of Piya Tan. Jon will like this also. Hoping for your B.B. notes! I should do more, when time allows: Pali Yahoo: op 01-03-2003 03:25 schreef Piya Tan op libris@s...: > > Has anyone any insight or thought on the best translation of > vitakka,sa.nkhaara,sa.n.thaana in the Vitakka,san.t.haana Sutta here? > > [My provisional translation:] > If, monks, while a monk is not minding and is disregarding those thoughts, > there still arises in him evil unskillful thoughts connected with desire, > hate and delusion arise in him, then should turn his mind to the stilling > of the thought-formation (vitakka,sa.nkhaara,santhaana) [by examining the > causal sequence] of those evil unskillful thoughts. (M 1:120,18-19) Nina: santhaana, or sa.n.thaana: P.E.D.p. 671, this sutta is mentioned: configuration, position, composition, nature, shape, form. Now to the Co (in Thai): Sa.nkhaara has different meanings in different contexts, and here we have to think of sa.nkhaarakkhandha, the cetasikas (mental factors) which are called formations, activities etc. They form up conditions, they are accumulated and accumulate. Vitakka is one of them. The translation: P.T.S. has: the monk should attend to the thought function and form of those thoughts. The Co explains further on the attitude of the wise (pa.n.dito) as to walking quickly, slowly, etc: when a thought arises, it is compared to walking quickly, when the bhikkhu attends to the "traveling" (thiaw paj) of that thought it is like walking slowly. When he has attended to the traveling of that thought he fixes his thought on the meditation subject. When he has developed vipassana and he attains arahatship, this is compared to the sitting down of a person. The fruition attainment of the bhikkhu, with nibbana as object during a whole day is compared to the person who lies down. Also in another sutta it is said that thinking travels. The Commentary begins with adhicitta, explaining this word of the sutta: the citta of the eight attainments (of jhaana), that has as foundation vipassana. Vipassana is implied all along, as in all suttas. The monk does not have to reason about it that his traveling thoughts have conditions, he can just realize them there and then as vitakka sa'nkhaara, realities conditioned by former accumulations, non-self. As I see it, even when, as we read further on, he suppresses them with teeth clenched, he can realize that this is also conditioned, such are his accumulations, sa.nkhaara.(This is my opinion) The Commentary is long but very interesting, many similes. What is also stressed, the monk should be with his teacher, study the Dhamma, ask questions, listen to Dhamma on due occasions, and analyse which dhamma is .thaana (the right cause) and which dhamma is a.thaana. In this way moha can be abandoned, the Commentary states. As I see it, these are the right conditions for vipassana. I cannot advise on the best translations, but I hope the Commentary has helped you to clarify the meaning of terms, Nina. 20101 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 0:01pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Modesty Hi Sarah, Thanks for your response. Modesty is a quality that I see in many people, people who are decent and moderate, not ostentatious. They exercise self-restraint and are not extreme in behavior and in speech. Even if they are powerful and wealthy, they are not concerned about impressing other with power and wealth. People with modesty are less likely to arouse jealousy in others. They are less likely to make enemy. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor & Christine, > > > H --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Christine, > > > > I agree with you, and I think the benefit of modesty is an ease of > > mind for self and others. I think excessiveness and self- > > aggrandizement always creates tension in one's own mind or others'. > > I think modesty is a peaceful quality in behavior and expression. > ..... > This is an interesting thread. Perhaps when I think of modesty as a > wholesome quality, I think of the opposite of mana (conceit)and in > particular, the opposite of `flaunting a flag' and the expressions in this > quote from the Atthasalini (bk 11, Part 11, ch2, 372) on conceit: > > " "Conceit", "overweening" and "conceitedness" signify mode and state. > "Loftiness" is in the sense of rising upwards or of springing over others. > "haughtiness", i.e. in whom conceit arises, him it lifts up, keeps > upraised. "Flaunting a flag" is in the sense of swelling above others. > "Assumption' means uplifting; conceit favours the mind all round. Of > many flags the flag which raises above others is called a banner. So > conceit arising repeatedly in the sense of excelling with reference to > subsequent conceits is like a banner. That mind which desires the banner > is said to be desirous of the banner (i.e. , self-advertisement). Such a > state is desire for elf-advertisement......" > ..... > In other words, perhaps we can say that modesty in this sense is the > opposite to clinging to self and finding oneself important. What do you > think? > ..... > I thought the latest installment from Nina's translation of Rahulavaada > Sutta commentary gave a good example of the sense of the meaning I'm > trying to convey. Here is the last paragraph again: > > "However, the following thoughts did not occur to the venerable Rahula: > `Although the Blessed One knows that I am left behind in the monastery, he > has not, after he has personally received alsmfood, taken it and come > himself, nor did he send me food (by the hand of) through someone else, > nor indeed did my preceptor do anything at all, although he knows that I > am left behind. Why should there be conditions for the arising of > self-disrespect (omaana.m) or pride (atimaana.m)?' " > ***** > I'll be glad to hear both your further comments. > > Metta, > > Sarah 20102 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 4:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Howard (and Mike) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Mike (and Jon) - ... > ============================ > Might the idea be that wisdom = right view? (I know that the > term > 'right view' has a conventional flavor to it, but I suspect that as > a path factor it means exactly supramundane wisdom/insight. This would be how I see it, too. Right view is the mental factor that is panna (wisdom). > Likewise, I suppose > "evil view" needs to be identified with moha.) It's true that moha (ignorance) is the opposite of panna (wisdom), but it is wrong view, rather than ignorance, that is given as akusala kamma. The difference is that whereas ignorance is wholly ignorant of the presently arising dhamma, wrong view takes the dhamma for being something that it is not (and is therefore more 'dangerous'). Consciousness that is accompanied by wrong view is said to be rooted in attachment (lobha). > BTW, in looking over Nyanatiloka's definition of kammapatha, > the *physical* courses of action are all macroscopic, conventional > phenomena, but > the mental ones appear to all be cetasikas - concomitant functions > participating in and supporting the discerning of an object during > a mindstate (citta). A good observation, Howard. All instances of kamma patha are, in the ultimate analysis, the mental factor of cetana, but in the case of the 'physical' courses of action the cetana alone, without the accompanying body/speech door action, is not of sufficient strength to constitute the completed action. In the case of the mental actions, the kamma is still the cetana cetasika that accompanies the moment of Covetousness/Unselfishness, Ill-will/Good-will or Evil views/Right views, so these too are conventional descriptions to a degree. Jon 20103 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 4:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] (4) Pannatta As A Vehicle Mike (and Howard) --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Howard and Jon, > ... > This has come up before and I basically agree with you both. I > agree with > Howard that, in a sense, concepts arise and fall away (this is > easily > experienced in retrospect at least). It seems to me that the > difference > between concepts (pa.n.natti, without sabhaava), and paramattha > dhammas > (with sabhaava), is, most importantly, that the latter can be the > bases of > insight of the degree of satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa and the former > can't. Of course it seems that concepts arise and fall away, and this is the experience of us all. However, there is no statement to this effect in the teachings, as far as I am aware, so I think it's a proposition that needs careful considering. > On the other hand, it also seems to me that only pa.n.natti, maybe, > can be > the the basis of conventional (conceptual) insight? (Potentially > confusing > to use the word 'insight' in this context--maybe something like > 'theoretical > understanding' would be better). If so, this seems to me to > suggest a > useful distinction between conventional (or theoretical) view > (right or > wrong) and view as a path-factor (right or wrong). Aren't both > theoretical > right view and right view as a path factor necessary to bhaavanaa? Yes, I believe it's correct to say that at moments of understanding at an intellectual level the object will be concepts and not absolute dhammas. This intellectual understanding is a necessary prelude to direct experiencing (mundane path moments). Right view as a path factor is the panna that arises with the mundane path moments (satipatthana/vipassana). > I'm sure we've been over all this ground before--just thinking out > loud. It's always good to go over it again. Our grasp of these things is essentially weak and needs constant reinforcement. Jon 20104 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 4:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Rob M I don’t now remember exactly what I said in my original post to you on this thread, but I know I was mistaken about some aspects of kamma. My apologies for that. Specifically, it is clear to me now that it is not only kamma-patha that brings results in the form of sense-door experiences during our lifetime; other kamma that is not 'completed' may also do so. However, I am still uncertain as to what extent our ordinary, everyday akusala (for example, the continual subtle attachment to people and objects around us) constitutes kamma that is capable of bringing a sense-door experience in the course of a lifetime. I haven't found anything specifically on this. I have pasted below some passages from CMA on this general area. Jon From CMA Four Types of Kamma(kammacatukka.m) #18 By way of Function With respect to function there are four kinds of kamma, namely: (i) productive kamma; (ii) supportive kamma; (iii) obstructive kamma; and (iv) destructive kamma. Guide to #18 ... The word kamma means literally action or deed, but in the Buddha's teaching it refers exclusively to the volitional action. From a technical standpoint, karma denotes wholesome or unwholesome volition (cetana), volition being the factor responsible for action. Thus the Buddha declares; "It is volition, monks, that I call karma, for having willed, one performs an action through body, speech or mind" (A.6:63/ iii,415). All volitional action, except that of a Buddha or an Arahant, constitutes karma. ... With respect to function: Kammas perform different functions (kicca), of which four are mentioned here. Any karma, under different circumstances, can perform any or several of these functions. ... Productive (janaka) karma is wholesome or unwholesome volition which produces resultant mental states and karma-born materiality, both at the moment of rebirth-linking and during the course of existence. ... At the moment of conception, productive karma generates the rebirth-linking consciousness and the karma-born types of materiality constituting the physical body of the new being. During the course of existence it produces other resultant cittas and the continuities of karma-born materiality, such as the sense faculties, sexual determination, and the heart-base. Only a karma that has attained the status of a full course of action can perform the function of producing rebirth-linking, but all wholesome and unwholesome karmas without exception can produce results during the course of existence. ... Supportive (upatthambaka) karma is karma which does not gain an opportunity to produce its own result, but which, when some other karma is exercising a productive function, supports it either by enabling it to produce its pleasant or painful results over an extended time without obstruction or by reinforcing the continuum of aggregates produced by another karma. ... --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Nina, > > Sorry for the delay in responding. I was very busy in Bangkok, but > I did have time for an excellent dinner with Betty and Num. Nice > people, I hope to meet up with them again in a couple of weeks and > then again on April 25th. I hope that you come back to visit > Thailand again soon. 20105 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 5:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Hi Jon, I was worried that we disagreed. Thanks for easing my mind. Metta, Rob M :-) 20106 From: Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 0:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dreams, Thoughts, natural flow. Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/7/03 1:27:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > > Dear Howard, > op 05-03-2003 19:47 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >While dreaming last night I realized during the dream, and upon > >awakening, that I had been thinking about things during the dream in > exactly > >the same way thoughts arise and fall while awake, and with exactly the > same > >degree of the sense of "me" initiating (or not initiating) the thoughts. I > >experienced no difference in the flow of thoughts from that in the waking > >state. > N: This is interesting, I tell Lodewijk, but he cannot realize this, he > said. > > H:Now, we are used to realizing that the ordinary flow of non-thought > >experiences (sights, sounds, smells, textures, etc) simply goes by on its > >own, not directly, intentionally created by the mind, but "given", as it > >were, "by nature". But we often think of "our thoughts" as being > >intentionally created by "us". The fact that thinking occurs in just the > same > >way during a dream as while awake suggests to me that our trains of > thought > >are just as much "given by nature" as all the rest of our experience, and > >that it is *all* just empty, impersonal phenomena rolling on > N: Given by nature, you express this very well, just natural, because it is > by conditions. > > We are thinking the whole day. I just heard on tape: thinking without understanding one takes it for "me" all the time: "I who > thinks." One should know the characteristic of right awareness, > sati-sampaja~n~na, this is the development of right understanding. > Sati-sampaja~n~na is different from other kinds of sati, such as sati with > dana.> > Nina. > > ========================== Thank you, Nina. Very, very good! 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) 20107 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 5:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a good dinner and spiritual food. Hi Nina, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > I have no doubt about your good dinner, certainly with Num around (he has > Saveur cookbooks!), but, what about the spiritual food? What did you > discuss? It was our first meeting, so it was a "get to know you" session. Num was tired and had a hard time gettng a word in edgewise as Betty and I were chatting furiously. I passed to Betty a few copies of your "Buddhism in Daily Life" that I had printed here in KL. She was excited because, starting next month, she will be teaching an English class to Thai monks so that they can explain the Dhamma to foreigners who visit the temple. She plans to use your book as the "textbook" for this course but only had one copy. I am planning to return to Bangkok in a couple of weeks and bring her another 30 copies, so she can give one to each monk (this is better than working from photocopies). In 2003, my class has expanded so I am teaching using PowerPoint slides to present information (my handwriting is unreadable because I type so much that the "handwriting muscles" in my fingers have atrophied). I try to make the slides as visually interesting as possible. With each slide, I prepare a script of "speaker's notes". I passed to Betty what I have done so far this year (about 80 slides). Betty said that she wanted to show it to the Board of the Foundation to see if they would accept it on their website. I would appreciate this because, before being posted on a website, somebody who knows Abhidhamma much better than I would have to review it to ensure that there was no "micha ditthi". I have long felt that Abhidhamma has an unwarranted reputation among many Buddhists. I am convinced that what the Abhidhamma needs is "better marketing". Readable texts such as yours go a long way; visuals can help as well. There was a lot of other topics discussed as well (appreciation for DSG, how I came to teach Abhidhamma, Betty's son [the monk], science and Buddhism, etc.). A thoroughly enjoyable dinner... I am looking forward to more of them! Metta, Rob M :-) 20108 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 6:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: a quantum view of free will Hi Mike, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Though I do think it can be a very interesting question whether ruupa exists > without naama, I also think it's beside the point of Buddhadhamma. Why did > the Buddha discuss ruupa in relation to naama? Not for cosmological, > phenomenological or philosophical reasons, I think, but because both are > pertinent to pa.ticcasamuppaada and the four noble truths. > I agree 100%. My point is that the Buddha ONLY talked about rupa as it related to the mind and ethics (pa.ticcasamuppaada and the four noble truths). I contend that the Buddha NEVER talked about rupa in isolation. This is the foundation of my argument of ethical (phenomenological) view vs. scientific (model of reality) view. I am hoping that somebody can challenge me (with references) so that I can learn if I am correct or not. A local monk recommended a book at the local Buddhist library, "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" by Y. Karunadasa. The book looks a litte dry, but at some point, I figure I am going to have to read it. Metta, Rob M :-) 20109 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 6:28pm Subject: Hello everyone!!!!!!!! Hello everyone! I read all the mail that you all wrote to each other and while reading the letters I got more interested in Buddhism and monks. Before going on, I should first introduce myself. My name is Anne-Catherine and I'm 13 years old. I'm Swiss-Canadian (from Quebec and Zurich). I have some questions to ask. What do you understand under Buddhism and Gods? And would you like to join the Buddhism religion? Why? Last year I went to Myanmar and I saw young monks, really children, who were each carrying a big bowl. Do you know what they do with it, do they collect money or food? Is it for them or for other people? Sorry for asking a lot of questions but I am really interested. Well that was it,can't wait for one of your replies. Have a nice day! Anne-Catherine :) 20110 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 6:30pm Subject: Questions..... Dear Kom, Thank you for answering my questions! Well now I have a few more to ask: Is there a handbook to teach you how to speak Maghadha? Does every Buddhist have to attend classes to understand the Buddha's teachings? What is a deva? Thats all for this letter! Metta, Janice 20111 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 6:40pm Subject: The Buddha Dear James, Thanks for the poems! In fact, I feel quite sorry about your grandmother. Here are some of the questions: Do you use it when you pray? (the 8 foot path) Do you bring the ashes to the temple for them to be blessed? Could the real Buddha walk? (I am asking because he is always sitting with his legs crossed) Please send me another poem! Metta, Janice 20112 From: Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 1:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a quantum view of free will Hi Rob M. I missed the earlier posts on this topic. Are you asking whether or not suttas contain any discussion of rupa as separate from nama? TG > I am hoping that somebody can challenge me (with references) so that > I can learn if I am correct or not. A local monk recommended a book > at the local Buddhist library, "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" by Y. > Karunadasa. The book looks a litte dry, but at some point, I figure > I am going to have to read it. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 20113 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 6:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Rob M (and Mike) An interesting thread, guys, and I hope to add to it myself (with some of the challenges that Rob is so looking forward to;-)). But can I first ask Rob to give and example of what he has in mind by 'talking about rupa in isolation', as I'm having difficulty getting the point here. Thanks. Jon --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Mike, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > wrote: > > Though I do think it can be a very interesting question whether > ruupa exists > > without naama, I also think it's beside the point of > Buddhadhamma. Why did > > the Buddha discuss ruupa in relation to naama? Not for > cosmological, > > phenomenological or philosophical reasons, I think, but because > both are > > pertinent to pa.ticcasamuppaada and the four noble truths. > > > > I agree 100%. My point is that the Buddha ONLY talked about rupa as > it related to the mind and ethics (pa.ticcasamuppaada and the four > noble truths). I contend that the Buddha NEVER talked about rupa in > isolation. This is the foundation of my argument of ethical > (phenomenological) view vs. scientific (model of reality) view. > > I am hoping that somebody can challenge me (with references) so that > I can learn if I am correct or not. A local monk recommended a book > at the local Buddhist library, "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" by Y. > Karunadasa. The book looks a litte dry, but at some point, I figure > I am going to have to read it. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Weight Age Gender Female Male 20114 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 7:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Jon and TG (and others), When a "scientist" talks about rupa, they will discuss it without reference to an observer (at least up until the early part of this century when Einstein, Heisenberg and others showed that that the frame of reference of the observer must be considered). To the "scientist", the observer and consciousness is not important and is not "part of the equation". This is what I have called the "scientific view". The focus of the "ethical view" is the individual and consciousness; one cannot have ethics without an individual. From the individual's perspective, rupa only has relevance on ethical issues (conditioning mental states, etc.) when the rupa interacts with the senses. When I limit my focus to only rupa that interacts with the senses (i.e. consciousness), then I am taking a phenomenological approach. What I am contending is that the Suttas (and perhaps even the original Abhidhamma, but perhaps not including the commentaries) only talk about rupa as it impacts the senses (i.e. in a purely phenomenlogical perspective). My contention (and I may be wrong) is that the Buddha never talked about rupa without also talking about sense perception or somehow linking the discussion to ethics (four noble truths, dependent origination). My contention is that the Buddha never discussed rupa in isolation from ethics. I noted that the Abhidhammatthasangahadipanipali listed the proximate cause of rupa as "vinnana" (consciousness) to support this position. The impact of this position is that if I am asked, "If a tree falls in the woods with none to hear, is there a sound?", then my answer is "There is no 'sound'; 'sound' is a rupa that must have consciousness". I am not denying that there may be something else arising when the tree falls (dnuos, a form of apur; backwards sound, backwards rupa), but my position is that apur in general and dnuos in particular is outside the scope of the Buddhadhamma. Jon, I am interested in the results of your searches! Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob M (and Mike) > > An interesting thread, guys, and I hope to add to it myself (with > some of the challenges that Rob is so looking forward to;-)). But > can I first ask Rob to give and example of what he has in mind by > 'talking about rupa in isolation', as I'm having difficulty getting > the point here. Thanks. > > Jon > > --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Mike, > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > > wrote: > > > Though I do think it can be a very interesting question whether > > ruupa exists > > > without naama, I also think it's beside the point of > > Buddhadhamma. Why did > > > the Buddha discuss ruupa in relation to naama? Not for > > cosmological, > > > phenomenological or philosophical reasons, I think, but because > > both are > > > pertinent to pa.ticcasamuppaada and the four noble truths. > > > > > > > I agree 100%. My point is that the Buddha ONLY talked about rupa as > > it related to the mind and ethics (pa.ticcasamuppaada and the four > > noble truths). I contend that the Buddha NEVER talked about rupa in > > isolation. This is the foundation of my argument of ethical > > (phenomenological) view vs. scientific (model of reality) view. > > > > I am hoping that somebody can challenge me (with references) so > that > > I can learn if I am correct or not. A local monk recommended a book > > at the local Buddhist library, "Buddhist Analysis of Matter" by Y. > > Karunadasa. The book looks a litte dry, but at some point, I figure > > I am going to have to read it. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) 20115 From: Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 3:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Rob M. > When a "scientist" talks about rupa, they will discuss it without > reference to an observer (at least up until the early part of this > century when Einstein, Heisenberg and others showed that that the > frame of reference of the observer must be considered). To > the "scientist", the observer and consciousness is not important and > is not "part of the equation". This is what I have called > the "scientific view". > Wait a minute. These statements are contradictory. If the most famous scientist(s) of this century are saying that the observer must be considered, then it appears science considers it important. The Buddha defined rupa in terms of the bodily parts....head hairs, body hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, etc. The Four Great Elements are analyzed...paraphrasing... the Four Great Elements, born of mother and father, supported by rice and gruel, of a nature to be worn away, pounded away, broken and scattered. I think there is analysis in the suttas that deals strictly with materiality. Primarily to show either impermanence or foulness in materiality. That can be a lesson to inculcate repulsion. Specifically, I there's a sutta, I think in Samyutta, that talks about the things the Buddha had in a past life and that they are all gone now. It ends with ... paraphrasing...see how impermanent are the things of this world, how unsubstantial and unsatisfactory. This is reason enough to be repelled by the things of this world, enough to lose passion for them, enough to be liberated therefrom. I think there are quite a few suttas along this line that don't deal specifically with mentality but are of course making a point to try to develop wisdom. So they are still "aimed" toward mentality even though they may not be talking specifically about it. But then, any knowledge must be ment for mentality no matter what. So I think there are suttas that meet the criteria of of dealing with materiality while not analysing mentality. When I come across them I'll try to remember to post them if you'd like Rob. TG 20116 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 9:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi TG, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Rob M. > > > When a "scientist" talks about rupa, they will discuss it without > > reference to an observer (at least up until the early part of this > > century when Einstein, Heisenberg and others showed that that the > > frame of reference of the observer must be considered). To > > the "scientist", the observer and consciousness is not important and > > is not "part of the equation". This is what I have called > > the "scientific view". > > > > Wait a minute. These statements are contradictory. If the most famous > scientist(s) of this century are saying that the observer must be considered, > then it appears science considers it important. ====== True, but modern scientists view the observer as important as a frame of reference, not from a moral, ethical, phenomenological or consciousness perspective. ===== > > The Buddha defined rupa in terms of the bodily parts....head hairs, body > hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, etc. > > The Four Great Elements are analyzed...paraphrasing... the Four Great > Elements, born of mother and father, supported by rice and gruel, of a nature > to be worn away, pounded away, broken and scattered. > > I think there is analysis in the suttas that deals strictly with materiality. > Primarily to show either impermanence or foulness in materiality. That can > be a lesson to inculcate repulsion. Specifically, I there's a sutta, I think > in Samyutta, that talks about the things the Buddha had in a past life and > that they are all gone now. It ends with ... paraphrasing...see how > impermanent are the things of this world, how unsubstantial and > unsatisfactory. This is reason enough to be repelled by the things of this > world, enough to lose passion for them, enough to be liberated therefrom. > > I think there are quite a few suttas along this line that don't deal > specifically with mentality but are of course making a point to try to > develop wisdom. So they are still "aimed" toward mentality even though they > may not be talking specifically about it. But then, any knowledge must be > ment for mentality no matter what. So I think there are suttas that meet the > criteria of of dealing with materiality while not analysing mentality. When > I come across them I'll try to remember to post them if you'd like Rob. Thanks TG, the "ideal" Sutta that would blow my theory to bits would be one where the Buddha says, "O monks, such is the nature of rupa.... (and then went on to explain without any reference to consciousness, ethics, dependent origination, etc.)." Please let me know if you can find something that fits this description. Metta, Rob M :-) 20117 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 9:30pm Subject: Re: Buddhism --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hey Everybody: > > Sorry for not writing for so long. I have been quite > busy lately, so I didn't have time to write letters. > There are also a few questions I would like to ask > you: Hi Star Kid Philip! I hope you are doing well. It was nice to see another letter from you. I hope you and your sister aren't fighting anymore. Okay, let me take a whack at all of these questions of yours! ;-) 1. When did the Buddha die? Answer: He died in 480 B.C. in Kusinagar, India at the age of 80- years-old. 2. When was the Buddha born? Answer: He was born in 560 B.C. in Nepal, India. 3. What is the Buddha's name? Answer: Siddhartha Gotama, prince of the Sakya clan. 4. Is Buddhism a philosophy, or is it a religion? Answer: It is a religion. 5. Do you go to the temple to praise the Buddha, just like we do in Christianity? Answer: Some people go to the temple to simply praise the Buddha, but not everyone. The Buddha wanted people to praise and practice his teachings and in that way praise him. 6. Is there anything you feel is unique or special about Buddhism? Answer: Buddhism is unique to all previous religions and all subsequent religions because of its teaching of non-self (anatta). The Lord Buddha was the only one to discover this reality of existence. However, only a truly enlightened person can fully understand it and its ramifications. I don't write much about non- self because I would be a `fake/hypocrite' to discuss something I cannot possibly know first-hand. 7. Some people who believe in Buddhism don't eat meat. Do you eat meat? Answer: Yes, I do eat meat. Some Buddhists chose not to eat meat but that is because of personal and/or social beliefs; vegetarianism isn't a requirement of Buddhism. 8. Why don't some people who believe in Buddhism eat meat? Answer: They would each have their own reason for choosing not to eat meat. To generalize, they probably feel that taking the life of a plant is better than taking the life of an animal; predominately because animals remind them of people while plants don't. To the Lord Buddha, such decisions are arbitrary and based on clinging/desire. One's mental state is more important than what one eats and all decisions of what to eat and when to eat should be based on mental health. 9. Are there special festivals of Buddism, such as Christmas of Christianity? Answer: Yes, quite a few of them. I couldn't really tell you all of them here. 10. How many Buddhas are there? Answer: I don't know. 11. Is (Are) Buddha(s) God(s)? Answer: No, they are first human beings and then they are Buddhas. Technically, they are human beings and yet they are set above the rest of humanity. The Lord Buddha was an `extraordinary man' (Acchariya Manussa) The Buddha explained it well when someone asked him, "Are you a God?" He replied, "No." Then this person asked, "Are you an ordinary human being?" He replied, "No." The third question was then, "What are you then?" The Buddha replied, "I am awake." 12. Why do you believe in Buddhism? Answer: Because I have tested it for myself and found it to be true. I believe in the Four Noble Truths and the Triple Gem. 13. Do you have any opinions or comments related to Buddhism? Answer: The Buddha summarized Buddhism in very simple terms: Don't Do Evil; Do Only Good; Purify the mind. Okay, Philip, it was nice writing to you again. Take care and study hard in school. Love, James 20118 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 10:31pm Subject: Re: Rasicm and an accident in Korea... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > Hello, it's me Ki Yong. I read your long letter. Thank > you for telling me about the American Monks. It was > quite interesting, but this one thing bothers me a > lot. It's the last paragraph about you becoming a > monk, and some racist people said monks are > unintelligent and they are ugly. I don't know why some > people say those stuff. I HATE racists, but I am quite > of a racist too... hehe.... That's how > anti-americanism started in Korea. At first they were > angry about an America ice-skater who lied and a > Korean skater who was in the first place lost his gold > medal. On American TV Show, they called the American > skater, and the TV show host said, "I bet that > Korean kid is eating his own dog for his dinner! > HAHA!" Another things Koreans hate about America, is > the accident in Korea. An American tank killled two > girls on the bridge, but American soldiers didn't show > up for judjement. Nowadays, Koreans hate George Bush > for making problems worse. Oh well, I hope I didn't > make you angry. What do you think about racists? > > I think you heard about the accident in Korea on Feb > 18th in the subway station. More than 140 people died > and more than 140 people were injured. Why did they > have to die? In Buddishm I heard that monks believe in > rebirth. Would those people who were killed have > rebirth in the future? I mean like would only some > people would rebirth or everyone will have a rebirth? > > The next day after this accident, I went to school. I > told my friends about the fire. My friends just nodded > and started to talk and laugh again. I told my Korean > friends, they just made sad faces and went away. On > September 11th, I was sad for one day, but I don't > know why I am more sad about this accident. More > people were killed on September 11th, but I am more > sad about this accident. I think it's because I am > Korean… Would other people feel the same as me? How do > you feel about this accident? > > Here is a poem about this accident wrote by my > favourite game player. He's from our game community. > -------------------------------------------------- > POEM > *If other men or I could have saved them… And there > weren't any tears… > > Could it have been… > An accident… > Or a terror attack… > Or a murder… > They disappeared in a flame… > Just like Jesus did on a cross… > > Death comes suddenly to people… > But… > Was it their fault? > Just because of one man's selfishness > They shouted and yelled > And started falling down in the dark fog > There was a student who just graduated from univeristy > who was celebrating with his mom… > There were young siblings who were looking for their > mom… > Their were old couples enjoying shopping… > But their souls left us forever… > > That time, > When the door didn't open > Worried and Feared > What was I doing? > That morning, > Just like my lifestyle, I was infront of the monitor > Laughing… > I was shouting at my mom that breakfast tasted > disgusting > I was shouting if I could stop studying… > That time, > What if I was there? > What could have I done? > If I could give them my fun time… > > What if… > They had powers to open the door, > The fire would just end up burning one seat… > And just ended as a small accident… > What if the happening could have been forgotten > easily, > What if there wasn't their tease and our tears… > > Yes… > We must remember the time the pain they felt… > We shouldn't forget… > How hot could it have been? > How painful could it have been? > Even one years passes… > Even ten years passes… > Even one hundered years passes… > When we think of this unforgottable accident > We should cry and pray for the souls… > Their pains might have been over and now they could be > laughing in heaven… > But… Our pain is still left… > Their family and our pain is still left… > > If other men or I could have saved them… And there > werent any tears…* > END > ----------------------------------------------------- > > OK… I am done with the poem… There are many grammar > mistakes because I translated into English from > Korean. I think it would be good to read this to your > students so they might think that Koreans are not dumb > and there will be less racism ^^ > > Thank you for reading my letter. Mine was quite long > too. HAHAHA > > Sorry, I gotta go. Bye > > From, Ki Yong Hi Star Kid Ki Yong! Wow! This is one really long letter! It is also very well written, you should be proud of yourself. You must be doing really well in school. Okay, let me go through the different issues you raise. No, I do not like racism. Thank you for being honest about having some racism toward Americans; and no it doesn't make me mad. I could never get mad at you Star Kids! ;-) International dislike for Americans is nothing new. It has been around for decades. But the world is starting to discover something about America that it didn't realize before: America isn't made up of just white people; America is made up of all of the world's nationalities. Since you mentioned 9/11, let me talk a bit about that. Those terrorists wanted to harm America so they hijacked those planes and crashed them into the twin towers. They thought that they were just hurting America, white America, but that wasn't the case at all. People from several other countries were on those planes and in those buildings; and there weren't just white Americans killed, but all kinds of nationalities of Americans who were killed. Maybe they thought the world wouldn't mind this act of terrorism because American's are so disliked around the world, but that wasn't the case at all. When they attacked America, they ended up attacking the whole world. Racism and nationalism is a tough subject with no easy answers. Not even Buddhists are immune to racism and nationalism. For example, in a different Buddhist group from this one, I and another American have received posts from a member from a different country (not America) where we were both accused of being `insensitive' to the international members with the wording of our messages. In other words, this member expressed that we were just being the stereotypical `Ugly Americans'. In my experience, this member only gives this kind of message to the American members…making the groups an `us' vs. `them' sort of approach rather than just a `people' approach. Racism and nationalism can be both subtle and obvious. Yes, I believe that everyone killed in that subway in Korea was reborn; unless there happened to be a Buddha on the subway and then he/she wouldn't be reborn. Ki Yong, I am sorry that you feel sad about those deaths, and that was a senseless thing to have happened, but there is no reason to be sad. Your emotions, and the poem you quote, talk as if those people never lived before and will never live again. I don't see it that way at all. I know that they have lived before and will simply be reborn again. They are not suffering anything now; it is only those who are alive now who cling to their memories who are suffering. We have all been born and die, born and die, born and die, again, and again, and again…what you should focus on is right now. Don't hold a grudge or keep wondering why they died, just look at right now. Look at your life and where it is heading and what you can do for other people to make them happy and enlightened. Ki Yong, it is okay to forgive those who killed the people on the subway and to forgive the people who killed during 9/11 and to not feel sad about those who have died. That doesn't mean you don't have a heart that means you have a VERY BIG HEART! You will have a heart that contains everyone and everything. I will keep this poem and read it to my students. And don't worry, I have always taught my students the evils of racism and nationalism. Take care and I hope you continue to do well in school. Love, James 20119 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 7, 2003 11:42pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Questions..... Hi Janice! > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > > Is there a handbook to teach you how to speak > Maghadha? Maghadha (or Pali) is not a live language. People for the most part don't speak the language: they only study it so that they can learn the teaching of the Buddha without having to have somebody else translate it for them. There are Pali dictionaries, though. You actually know at least 2 words. Buddha means the one who knows, the awakened one. Metta means kindness. > Does every Buddhist have to attend classes > to understand the Buddha's teachings? No, there isn't a requirement to attend classes to become a Buddhist, but many people become a Buddhist because they see the truth in the teachings of the Buddha. When a Buddhist see the value of learning about the Buddha's teachings, they learn however they can (book, from friends, classes, etc.) > What is a deva? A deva is a being born in happier planes of existence than human. They are supposed to radiate lights, and live a very happy life (no school, no work). When they are born, they are born whole. They don't have to be born from the womb as a baby, and grow up to be an adult. But they too must die, and then are reborn according to their kamma. Regardless of how happy they are as a deva, if they have had bad kamma in previous lives (which everybody does!), they can be born in an unhappier plan of existence. Hope this answers your questions! kom 20120 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 6:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abandoning Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - ... > ========================== > Yes, of course. My statement was formulated quite > conventionally. Your > reformulation was less conventional, closer to paramattha sacca. > The ultimate/perfect formulation would be silence. (The Zen folks > emphasize that.) > I suspect that our differences here may be stylistic, with > me seeing > some danger in the attempt to avoid conventional speech (as there > most certainly also is, generally moreso, in being taken in by > conventional speech!). I think the only reservation I had about your formulation was that, to my understanding, it is not within everyone's power to take the necessary steps to accomplish the task of abandoning/developing, although it is something that can indeed be done. I was not just reformulating for the sake of it ;-)). Jon 20121 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Rob M Just taking your textual reference to begin with. You say: <> I am not sure about the inference you draw here. In the CMA in the chapter on conditions it explains that as regards sense-door consciousness and the object experienced by it, the latter conditions the former by prenascence condition (see passage pasted below). Does this not contradict your inference? The reference that you mention to vinnana as proximate cause of rupa given may not be a reference to sense-door consciousness and its object, but instead to some other relationship, such as kamma and the kamma-conditioned rupas (the sense bases), for example. Jon From CMA Ch.VII, #16 Only in one way is matter a condition for mind: the six bases during the course of existence are condition for the seven elements of consciousness, and the five objects for the five processes of sense consciousness, by way of prenascence. Guide to #16 Prenascence condition is a condition where a conditioning state -- a material state which has already arisen and reached the stage of presence (.thiti) -- causes mental states, the conditioned states, to arise after it. This is like the sun, which arises first in the world and gives light to people who appear after it has arisen. There are two main types of prenascence condition, (i) base prenascence (vatthu-purejaata) and (ii) object prenascence (aarama.na-purejaata). ... (ii) Each of the five sense objects is a conditioning state by way of object prenascence for the citta and cetasikas in a sense-door cognitive process that take it as object. In addition all eighteen types of concretely produced matter that have reached the stage of presence can become object prenascence condition for the cittas and cetasikas in a mind-door process. --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Jon and TG (and others), > > When a "scientist" talks about rupa, they will discuss it without > reference to an observer (at least up until the early part of this > century when Einstein, Heisenberg and others showed that that the > frame of reference of the observer must be considered). To > the "scientist", the observer and consciousness is not important > and is not "part of the equation". This is what I have called > the "scientific view". 20122 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] (4) Pannatta As A Vehicle Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon - Howard: I cannot for the life of me understand why that [i.e., that something that is purely mind-created (and has no sabhava) cannot be said to arise and pass away] would be the case UNLESS we are not talking about the same thing. (Actually, I think we are NOT speaking about the same thing.) When I speak of a concept, I mean a thought/idea arising via the mind door as the result of mental fabrication; I do NOT refer to its intended referent which, indeed, is not present and thus neither arose nor will cease. Jon: Actually, I think we're speaking about the same thing. Our difference is in the question of rising and falling away. As I said in a recent post to Mike, I have not seen mention of rising and falling away of concepts in the texts, which makes me wonder whether the expression is appropriate in that context. It could be that, despite how it *seems* to us, concepts are not considered to rise and fall away, in the sense that only the citta of which a concept is the object rises and falls away, while the concept itself is created by the (already) arisen citta. Howard: When I "see a tree", as I do right now looking out the window, the concept (i.e. thought/idea) of 'tree' is repeatedly arising, ceasing, rearising, ceasing again ..., and is being "superimposed" by the mind (by complex sankharic functions) on the sequence of actual visual images experienced. The alleged tree, itself, is, upon careful examination, nowhere to be found. We can *say*, as the vinjaptimatrins do, that it is concept-only in the sense that the concept (thought/idea) is present, and the mental construct that is a hybrid construct mentally built from that concept and a series of visual rupas is present, but no physical object called "tree" is present at all. Does this clarify matters, Jon? Jon: I have no problem with the underlying relationship between fundamental phenomena and concepts in what you say here, Howard. I have reservations about some aspects of the detail (e.g., concepts being superimposed by the mind on the visible object experienced), but that's another issue, I suppose ;-). Jon 20123 From: bodhi342 Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 7:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings "If a tree falls in the woods with none to hear, is there a sound?" Hi Rob M, What is a tree, what is falling, what are woods, what is none? Just more mental proliferation taking concepts to be real? Can we even get to address your philosophical question? uninstructed worldling, dharam 20124 From: Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 2:59am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi, TG & Rob - I have found a piece which originates from the Nanavira Dhamma Page which I find very interesting (and related to this thread): [ The link is http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/sn-rupa.htm ] While to mind my this piece does not attempt to establish rupa as a category of phenomena that can exist independent of discernment especially if one includes subconscious experience, and that it actually fails in establishing the primary claim that it does make, it is, nonetheless, a novel and interesting approach to rupa, I think. The article tries to establish rupa as an important category which is, in a sense, existent independent of which of the 5-sensory doorways it "enters" through. That point, which I think is the thrust of the article, while not directly attempting to establish rupa as existentially independent of vi~n~nana, does attempt to present rupa as characteristic-wise, independent of other aspects of nama, being, in itself, merely of the nature of (abstract) resistence, and it seems to distinguish rupa, itself, from rupa as perceived (phenomenologically) as sight, sound, taste, touch, or warmth/cold (or as solidity, motility, temperature, or liquidity/cohesiveness). My opinion is that the conclusion of the piece is in error. I do agree that all instances of rupa, whether tactile, auditory, etc, have commonalities, particularly "resistance", but as I see it, rupa, per se, as a "principle", is concept-only, abstracted from the manifold specific instances of images, sounds, etc. that are actually experienced. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/8/03 12:02:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi TG, > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > >Hi Rob M. > > > >>When a "scientist" talks about rupa, they will discuss it > without > >>reference to an observer (at least up until the early part of > this > >>century when Einstein, Heisenberg and others showed that that > the > >>frame of reference of the observer must be considered). To > >>the "scientist", the observer and consciousness is not important > and > >>is not "part of the equation". This is what I have called > >>the "scientific view". > >> > > > >Wait a minute. These statements are contradictory. If the most > famous > >scientist(s) of this century are saying that the observer must be > considered, > >then it appears science considers it important. > > ====== > > True, but modern scientists view the observer as important as a > frame of reference, not from a moral, ethical, phenomenological or > consciousness perspective. > > ===== > > > > >The Buddha defined rupa in terms of the bodily parts....head > hairs, body > >hairs, nails, teeth, skin, flesh, sinews, etc. > > Thanks TG, the "ideal" Sutta that would blow my theory to bits would > be one where the Buddha says, "O monks, such is the nature of > rupa.... (and then went on to explain without any reference to > consciousness, ethics, dependent origination, etc.)." > > Please let me know if you can find something that fits this > description. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20125 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 9:01am Subject: Contentment Hi all, Anyone would like to talk about contentment? Regards, Victor 20126 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 10:08am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 2 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 2 The perfection of truthfulness is truthfulness or sincerity in developing kusala, with the aim to eradicate defilements. If there is no truthfulness with regard to the development of kusala, defilements cannot be eradicated. Truthfulness in the development of kusala with the aim to eradicate defilements begins with truthfulness with regard to the Triple Gem. We should be truthful and honest with ourselves while we consider in what way we show our reverence, respect and confidence towards the Triple Gem. Do we sincerely have respect and confidence in the Buddha, the Exalted One, when we see a Buddha statue? We can test our truthfulness with regard to the Triple Gem, if we are aware of our thoughts when we see a Buddha statue. Do we take refuge in the Triple Gem with truthfulness? We may think of the excellent qualities of the Buddha with respect, reverence and esteem. Or, when we see a Buddha statue, do we ask for favours such as protection, possessions, praise or a position of honour? We should know ourselves as we really are. We should be truthful, and we should not ask for gains and favours. We should be intent to apply the Dhamma while we show respect to our Teacher, the Exalted One. We can be truthful in the application of the Dhamma as taught by the Buddha. In this way we truly take our refuge in the Triple Gem. After the Buddha, the Exalted One, finally passed away, the Dhamma is the teacher in his stead. Truthfulness to the Dhamma means studying it with sincerity, with the aim to have correct understanding of it. We should not study the Dhamma with the aim to gain something, to acquire honour or praise, but only to have correct understanding of it. We should develop right understanding of the realities which appear so that defilements can be eradicated and ignorance abandoned. The temple is a dwelling place, a place where we can hear the Dhamma and study it. It does not belong to the monks but it belongs to the Triple Gem. Because of confidence in the excellent qualities of the Triple Gem, temples are built as dwelling places, places where the Dhamma can be studied. Therefore, we should consider whether we are truthful in our paying honour and respect to the Triple Gem. Footnote: belongs to Truthfulness no 1: 1. See also Visuddhimagga I, 75, about bean-soupery. 20127 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: a good dinner and spiritual food. op 08-03-2003 02:56 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: Dear Rob M, Thank you for your description of a useful evening. > R I passed to Betty a few copies of your "Buddhism in Daily Life" that > I had printed here in KL. She was excited because, starting next > month, she will be teaching an English class to Thai monks N: Anumodana, I really appreciate it thta you rpinted the book. R: I have long felt that > Abhidhamma has an unwarranted reputation among many Buddhists. I am > convinced that what the Abhidhamma needs is "better marketing". N: I do agree, I would like people to have more confidence in the abhidhamma, to see that Vinaya, Suttanta and Abhidhamma are in conformity with each other. When we see that they all pertain to our life now and we check this, we gain more confidence. Also, the more I study commentaries the more I see how well they explain what is in the Tipitaka. Points so easily overseen are clearly explained and every time I am so surprised about it. It happens so often now that I think, "but how is this possible!" This bolsters my confidence in the commentaries. Best wishes, Nina. 20128 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Dear TG, very good. The Buddha speaks about mount Vipulla, there were other mountains that were different and there will be other mountains. And yes, such is the nature of rupa: in the Elephant's Footprint, the earth, water, fire, wind, these are impermanent. He talks about the outer rupas. Water dwindles away, nothing left. This is explained in conventional terms. Nina. op 08-03-2003 05:24 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > Specifically, I there's a sutta, I think > in Samyutta, that talks about the things the Buddha had in a past life and > that they are all gone now. It ends with ... paraphrasing...see how > impermanent are the things of this world, how unsubstantial and > unsatisfactory. This is reason enough to be repelled by the things of this > world, enough to lose passion for them, enough to be liberated therefrom. 20129 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 0:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Howard's tree and a little hint op 08-03-2003 15:33 schreef Jonothan Abbott op jonoabb@y...: > Howard: > When I "see a tree", as I do right now looking out the window, > the concept (i.e. thought/idea) of 'tree' is repeatedly arising, > ceasing, rearising, ceasing again Dear Howard, I just have to laugh about your tree you always see, because I can imagine your study with the window. I see the bookshelves, and on it somewhere in a corner there is a dusty book, the Visuddhimagga. Maybe the hint is too blunt :-) This book can help clarify a lot of things, Nina 20130 From: robmoult Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 2:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Dharam, Your comments bring to mind episode #49 of "Dharma the Cat", titled "The Discourse". http://www.dharmathecat.com/ In this cartoon, Bidhi (the monk) is teaching Dharma (the cat) and says, "The first thing we'll discuss is getting beyond words and concepts." Bodhi then thinks, "Gee, where do I go from here?" The cat thinks, "Good! End of Discourse." The comment to this cartoon is, "Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it." When dealing with "uninstructed worldlings" such as you and I, the Buddha was kind enough to use conventional terms (in fact, I can think of a few places where He acutally talked about trees). Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" wrote: > "If a tree falls in the woods with none to hear, is there a sound?" > > Hi Rob M, > > What is a tree, what is falling, what are woods, what is none? Just > more mental proliferation taking concepts to be real? Can we even > get to address your philosophical question? > > uninstructed worldling, > dharam 20131 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 2:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > Anyone would like to talk about contentment? Yes, please. Where would you like to start? I think I noticed one or two references to contentment in the materials Christine cited on modesty. Jon Nyanatiloka's 'Buddhist Dictionary': contentment: appicchatá, is one of the ascetic virtues. Cf. A. X, 181-90. 20132 From: bodhi342 Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 3:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi u.w. Rob M., Looks like the teaching (and learning) of conditions is conditional! Very apt! :-) u.w., dharam (relative of Dharma and Bodhi) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Dharam, > > Your comments bring to mind episode #49 of "Dharma the Cat", > titled "The Discourse". > > http://www.dharmathecat.com/ > > In this cartoon, Bidhi (the monk) is teaching Dharma (the cat) and > says, "The first thing we'll discuss is getting beyond words and > concepts." Bodhi then thinks, "Gee, where do I go from here?" The > cat thinks, "Good! End of Discourse." > > The comment to this cartoon is, "Words are one kind of bridge to one > level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, > you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind > until you are beyond it." > > When dealing with "uninstructed worldlings" such as you and I, the > Buddha was kind enough to use conventional terms (in fact, I can > think of a few places where He acutally talked about trees). > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" > wrote: > > "If a tree falls in the woods with none to hear, is there a sound?" > > > > Hi Rob M, > > > > What is a tree, what is falling, what are woods, what is none? > Just > > more mental proliferation taking concepts to be real? Can we even > > get to address your philosophical question? > > > > uninstructed worldling, > > dharam 20133 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Hi Jon and all, Thank you, Jon, for the response. To start, I have looked into the definition of the word "content" and found that it means desiring no more than what one has, satisfied, feeling or manisfesting satisfaction with one's possession, status, or situation. Contentment is the state of being content. I am thinking what the benefit of being content is, in what way it is wholesome. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Yes, please. Where would you like to start? I think I noticed one > or two references to contentment in the materials Christine cited on > modesty. > > Jon 20134 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 7:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Victor Thanks. I think your definition is a good one. Some qualities are a specific wholesome mental factor (an example of this would be metta which, as you know, is the mental factor of alobha), while other qualities denote an absence of unwholesome mental factors in instances when these might normally arise (an example would be patience, which is not itself a specific mental factor). I would see contentment as falling into the latter category. A person who is content as you have defined it does not covet what another has, is not ambitious for the sake of worldly gain, is not envious, does not regret past opportunities missed, etc., and so does not experience any of these unwholesome mental states (some are lobha, some dosa) which another person might. In terms of the development of the path, contentment means being able to be honest with oneself regarding one's faults and present level of understanding, and accepting the present object as it is without wishing it were something else, with understanding. How do you see it? Jon --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon and all, > > Thank you, Jon, for the response. To start, I have looked into the > definition of the word "content" and found that it means desiring > no more than what one has, satisfied, feeling or manisfesting > satisfaction with one's possession, status, or situation. > Contentment is the state of being content. I am thinking what the > benefit of being content is, in what way it is wholesome. > > Regards, > Victor 20135 From: bodhi342 Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 8:02pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Hi Victor, One way of looking at contentment: Knowing that you have all that is needed, and accepting that it is enough. It is wholesome because at the very least, it reduces craving for yet more. metta, u.w. dharam --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Jon and all, > > Thank you, Jon, for the response. To start, I have looked into the > definition of the word "content" and found that it means desiring no > more than what one has, satisfied, feeling or manisfesting > satisfaction with one's possession, status, or situation. > Contentment is the state of being content. I am thinking what the > benefit of being content is, in what way it is wholesome. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott > wrote: > > Yes, please. Where would you like to start? I think I noticed one > > or two references to contentment in the materials Christine cited > on > > modesty. > > > > Jon 20136 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings TG and Rob M (and Nina) Other useful references are the passages in Visuddhi-Magga (XX, 22-42) and Abhidhammattha-Sangaha (CMA VI, 9-22) that describe how rupas are generated by 1 or other of 4 causes, namely, kamma, consciousness, nutriment and temperature. Only for those rupas whose mode of origin is consciousness can it be said that their arising depends on consciousness. Even then, they are not so conditioned by being the object of discernment, but in other ways. Jon --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear TG, > very good. The Buddha speaks about mount Vipulla, there were other > mountains > that were different and there will be other mountains. > And yes, such is the nature of rupa: in the Elephant's Footprint, > the earth, > water, fire, wind, these are impermanent. He talks about the outer > rupas. > Water dwindles away, nothing left. This is explained in > conventional terms. > Nina. > op 08-03-2003 05:24 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > > > Specifically, I there's a sutta, I think > > in Samyutta, that talks about the things the Buddha had in a past > life and > > that they are all gone now. It ends with ... paraphrasing...see > how > > impermanent are the things of this world, how unsubstantial and > > unsatisfactory. This is reason enough to be repelled by the > things of this > > world, enough to lose passion for them, enough to be liberated > therefrom. 20137 From: Date: Sat Mar 8, 2003 11:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Howard's tree and a little hint Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/8/2003 5:00:29 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, > I just have to laugh about your tree you always see, because I can imagine > your study with the window. I see the bookshelves, and on it somewhere in a > corner there is a dusty book, the Visuddhimagga. > Maybe the hint is too blunt :-) This book can help clarify > a lot of things, > Nina ======================= ;-)) Actually it's sitting on the second shelf of the bookcase near my bedside. I's not really dusty, because it often gets moved a bit as I take out books on either side of it! ;-) A little more seriously - I have read parts of it from time to time, but I do owe it a thorough going through! With metta, Howard 20138 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Calm and Insight.special practice? op 05-03-2003 16:52 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: > >N: These texts pertain to Sariputta and Moggalana, and to the > attainments >> of the four Paths. > S: I don't think these texts pertain to only these two Chief Disciples. > I don't think I am reading some private stuff between them when I > read this sutta. N: All the same, we have to take into account what kind of persons they were and to what stages of enlightenment this passage refers to . Also, when reading suttas: we have to know: to whom was it addressed? > S:> I do not think with regard to myself of painful suppression of > defilements >> right now. We are slow, slow slow anyway. N: very good, I do agree that we are so slow. Good reminder, Swee Boon. S: What do you understand by the second stage of purification (citta > visuddhi or Purification of Mind)? My understanding is that > hindrances can be suppressed successfully in the practitioner in > this stage of purification. N: Citta visuddhi: the eight jhana attainments are included, but: there is no visuddhi at all without satipatthana. We have to remember this, whenever we see the word visuddhi. Also upacaara samaadhi is included, access concentration. During jhana no hindrances, you are right. After jhana: they appear again, and only through magga-citta can they be eradicated. No magga-citta without vipassana. Defilements have to be known as non-self. S: Shall I send the PDF document to you? I think it will be much > simpler this way. It's about 1.4 MB. Or shall I post it on the > section Files in this group? N: thank you for your offer, but this is too much for me. I just wanted to know which sutta of the M.S. he was referring to. N:>> They did not go apart to concentrate on the three characteristics. > S: Did not Ananda practise "ferociously" prior to the commencement of > the First Council, of which Venerable Maha-Kassapa reserved an > arahant seat for him? > > Wasn't he trying (and probably wishing with lobha) that he would > attain arahantship before the commencement of the First Council? N: He was exerting himself too much, that is why he could not attain. S: Although he achieved arahantship not while practising but while he > was lying down (to go to sleep?), can it be rightly said that his > prior "ferocious" practice did not condition the Maggas to arise > eventually? N: He was just laying down naturally, and sure he was aware of nama and rupa, he saw them as they really are, otherwise he could not have attained arahatship. A good example, as I see it, of natural practice. He may not have expected this to happen. I cannot see anything ferocious. S: If a sotapanna such as Ananda is "trying", why shouldn't worldlings? N: trying or effort, it is fine, so long as we realize it as only a kind of nama that is conditioned. > >S:Although one might not attain Magga while "trying", but don't you > think that this "trying" could very well be the major condition > that leads to Magga when one is "not trying"? N: As I see it, panna is the leader, but all the other good qualities are assisting too. Right effort is among these, but also detachment, alobha. No attachment to a result. Nina. 20140 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Rob M, > Thanks TG, the "ideal" Sutta that would blow my theory to bits would > be one where the Buddha says, "O monks, such is the nature of > rupa.... (and then went on to explain without any reference to > consciousness, ethics, dependent origination, etc.)." > > Please let me know if you can find something that fits this > description. ..... Not exactly, but I discussed this topic before with you (esp. the sounds) and before that with Howard. Here are a couple of posts from those discussions which related to references in the texts about external rupas and specifically on sounds not experienced (e.g. the waterfall or tree falling in the forest). you could follow the links to others. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/17105 http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m9946.html Also if you follow posts under ‘Rupas’ in U.P., I think you’ll find more references which others have given. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts We read in the Mulapariyaya Sutta about the uninstructed worldling who ‘perceives earth as earth’ (pathavi”m pathavito sa~njaanaati) and so on, not understanding these as rupas, as elements. In the commentary we read that earth (pathavi) is fourfold in meaning and that all the meanings are relevant in this context. These four meanings are: 1. characteristic earth (lakkha.napathavi) as in “What, friends, is the internal earth element? that which is internal, belonging to oneself, hard, solid” (M28) 2. Composite earth (sasambhaarapathavi) as in “If he should dig the earth, or cause the earth to be dug” (Viniv33). The 20 parts of the body beginning with head-haris etc, and the external elements such as iron and copper are also included in composite earth 3. Objectified earth (aaramma.napathavi) as in “Someone perceives the earth-kasina” (D33), where the arammanapathavi is the earth-kasina or earth sign (nimittapathavi) 4. Earth as conventional designation (sammutipathavi) as in when somebody who obtains jhana with the earth-kasina as basis is reborn in a deva realm and is called an “earth deity”. ..... We also read a little later that the external earth element is “whatever is external, and is hard, solid, hardness, the state of being hard, exterior, not kammically acquired, such as : iron, copper, tin, led, silver, pearl, gem........rock, mountain”. This is the same for the other elements, regardless of whether they are experienced or not. Of course it is the ‘conceiving and delight’ and the wrong view on account of the various elements that is the root of all harm and therefore the emphasis in the Teachings. We read further: “For what reason does the worldling conceive earth? Why does he conceive and delight in earth?” the answer is: “Because it has not been fully understood by him.” Not sure if this helps. I’ll be glad to hear. Sarah ====== 20141 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 1:56am Subject: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) Azita You wrote in a post (some time ago now): > ... which brings me to the question I have on Mana, > to be kindly answered by anyone who can help me out > here. Mana does not arise with Ditthi, right? This is correct, I believe. According to Nina's 'Cetasikas' Ch 16, both ditthi and mana arise with citta rooted in lobha, but mana arises with the lobha-mula citta that is not accompanied by mana. > But in my observation, it would seem that they > somehow are very closely connected. for example, when > we are comparing ourselves to the others, we have this > view of the others as being something to be compared > with. Surely we are having a 'view' at that moment. I have just the same kind of idea, they seem to be closely connected. In fact of course, from all the 'objective' evidence, they are not, so it's interesting to consider why it should appear this way. (By 'objective evidence' here I refer to (a) the descriptions of each given in the texts, and (b) the fact that while ditthi is eradicated upon the attainment of the first stage of the path, mana is not eradicated until the final stage, so there is plenty of opportunity for mana to arise even when there is no longer any trace of ditthi remaining.) For me it is a case of the idea that conceit (mana) more likely than not involves some degree of self-view, which I think of as an aspect of ditthi. It does not seem to be a case of the idea that holding self-view probably involves conceit (for me, at least -- I don’t know if it's the same for others.) I suppose this reflects the fact that there is insufficient direct knowledge of the characteristic of one or other (or both). In fact if we look at the descriptions of each (see extracts from 'Cetasikas' Ch. 16 & 17 pasted below), there is no basis for this sort of idea. Ditthi is described more in terms of wrong practice than simply having an idea of a 'self' that is separate and distinct from other 'selves'. In other words, there can be strong 'me' versus 'them' idea without necessarily having any wrong ideas about the practice, or 'self-view' for that matter. Appendix 7 to 'Cetasikas' gives details of what akusala factors may arise with what other akusala factors. From that it seems that, apart from lobha (in which the citta is rooted) and the 4 cetasikas that arise with every akusala citta (namely, moha/ignorance, ahiri/shamelessness, anotappa/recklessness and uddhacca/restlessness), the only other akusala cetasikas that may arise together with ditthi are thina and middha (sloth and torpor). Thus, other factors that we might be inclined to identify with a strong idea of 'me' vs. 'them', such as envy, stinginess, also do not arise with wrong view. I don't know if this helps. It was useful for me, anyway ;-)) Jon From 'Cetasikas' Chs 16, 17 A. Ditthi The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 248) gives the following definition of wrong view, ditthi: … It has unwise conviction as characteristic; perversion as function; wrong conviction as manifestation; the desire not to see the ariyans as proximate cause. It should be regarded as the highest fault. ... The Dhammasangaùi (§38) calls ditthi a “wrong road” and the Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter II, 253) explains: ... From being not the right path, it is a “wrong path”. For just as one who is gone astray, although he holds that this is the path to such a village, does not arrive at a village, so a man of false opinions, although he holds that this is the path to a happy destiny, cannot get there; hence from being not the right path it is a wrong path. ... Ditthi has unwise conviction as characteristic. When there is ditthi one clings to a false view of reality. Its function is “perversion”: because of ditthi one takes for permanent what is impermanent, one takes for self what is not self. ... The proximate cause of ditthi is “the desire not to see the ariyans”, being without regard for them. If one does not listen to the Dhamma as it is explained by the “good friend in Dhamma” and does not put it into practice, there are no conditions for the development of right understanding. B. Conceit Conceit, måna, is another akusala cetasika. There is conceit or pride when we consider ourselves important. Because of conceit we may compare ourselves with others. There can be conceit when we think ourselves better, equal or less than someone else. We may believe that there can be conceit only when we think ourselves better than someone else, but this is not so. There can be a kind of upholding of ourselves, of making ourselves important, while we compare ourselves with someone else, no matter in what way, and that is conceit. We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): What is the Fetter of conceit? Conceit at the thought “I am the better man”; conceit at the thought “I am as good (as they)”; conceit at the thought “I am lowly”- all such sort of conceit, overweening conceitedness, loftiness, haughtiness, flaunting a flag, assumption, desire of the heart for self-advertisement— this is called conceit. The three ways of comparing oneself with others may occur in someone who is actually superior, in someone who is actually equal and in someone who is actually inferior. Under this aspect there are nine kinds of conceit. ... Even when we do not compare ourselves with someone else we may find ourselves important and then there is conceit. ... The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter III, 256) gives the following definition of conceit: ... Herein conceit is fancying (deeming, vain imagining). It has haughtiness as characteristic, self-praise as function, desire to (advertise self like) a banner as manifestation, greed dissociated from opinionativeness as proximate cause, and should be regarded as (a form of) lunacy. 20142 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Modesty Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your response. Modesty is a quality that I see in many > people, people who are decent and moderate, not ostentatious. They > exercise self-restraint and are not extreme in behavior and in > speech. Even if they are powerful and wealthy, they are not > concerned about impressing other with power and wealth. People with > modesty are less likely to arouse jealousy in others. They are less > likely to make enemy. ..... You've made some good suggestions. I'd be glad to see some of the suttas you always have at hand in support. Maybe Christine will also have some. I understand what you mean and agree, conventionally speaking at least. In 'absolute terms' the wholesome states must relate to the consciousness and mental states rather than the outer appearance which we may get many clues from but which can never be used as a criterion, don't you think? For example, if someone wears an expensive piece of jewellery or a rolex watch, it may be for many different reasons and likewise if someone doesn't wear these. That was why I quoted from the Atthasalini about conceit and the 'waving of the banner' which could apply to either of these people and the helpful reminders about Rahula who wasn't concerned about himself or why he was neglected. Even the Buddha and main disciples aroused great jealousy in others (unintentionally of course) and had many enemies. Look f/w to hearing more. Metta, Sarah ===== 20143 From: robmoult Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 2:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Jon, I acknowledge that the Buddha talked about "external rupas" as having the characterisitic of impermanence. I don't see this as undermining my argument. I know that the Visuddhi-Magga and Abhidhammattha-Sangaha discuss the origin of rupas (4 causes). My view is that this was the result of later commentators who felt the need to "scientific-ize" the Buddha's teachings. Let me give you an example of where the later commentators added a "scientific" aspect to the teachings (and got it wrong). The physical base that supports all cittas other than the two sets of five sense-door consciousness cittas is called in the Abhidhammattha- Sangha and the Visuddhi-Magga is called the heart-base (hadayavatthu). In the CMA (III 20, p 144) Bikhu Bodhi says, "In the canonical Abhidhamma, the heart-base is not expressly mentioned. The Patthana, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, simply speaks of 'that matter in dependence on which the mind element and mind- consciousness element occur'. The Commentaries, however, subsequently specify 'that matter' to be the heart-base, a cavity situated within the physical heart." The ancients needed a theory of how sensation could be carried from the source (eye, ear, nose, tongue, skin) to the destination (the physical base supporting the mind). The only thing the ancients could see moving in the body was blood, so they assumed (incorrectly) that sensation was transmitted through the blood. Since the heart was obviously responsible for moving the blood around, it became the "physical base for the mind". My point here is that the Buddha never named the heart as the physical basis for the mind. The Buddha did not name the heart because it would have been incorrect and giving the correct information (whatever the correct information is) would have been entering into a realm of "science". As a side note, we still don't know what the true physical base for the mind is. We might think that it is the "brain" or the "nervous system", but these do not start to form until the fifth week after conception (I think). So what is the rupa that supports the patisandhi citta? According to the "other" Abhidhamma in Daily Life (by Ashin Janakabhivamsa): "With the occurrence of patisandhi citta and corresponding cetasikas, there comes into being a minute matter called kalala-rupa in the form of a clear fluid. This matter takes the form of a droplet the size of a drop of oil clinging to the trip of a hair of a damsel from the Northern Continent. This kalala droplet (the very first stage of formulation of foetus) is formed by the kammic forces of past deeds. It is neither semen nor ovule of his parents, they are supporting agents of this kalala. A kalala droplet is produced by produced by a child's past kamma but parents' semen and ovule are essential supports for pregnancy to take place. The kalala droplet is like the seed; semen and ovule are like the moist sail or swamp; past kamma is like the farmer. Therefore a clean ovary and healthy semen and ovule are essential. Otherwise the foetus cannot develop into a healthy baby." To me, "kalala-rupa" is another later writer's attempt to "scientific-ize" the Abhidhamma. Jon, I guess my point is that later works such as the Visuddhi Magga and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha may have been distorted (scientific- ized). I think, as a minimum, we can agree that the nature of matter that does not impact the senses was an extremely minor issue to the Buddha (though it may have been important to later writers). Again, a Sutta where the Buddha talked about the nature of matter without reference to ethical issues would blow my theory apart. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > TG and Rob M (and Nina) > > Other useful references are the passages in Visuddhi-Magga (XX, > 22-42) and Abhidhammattha-Sangaha (CMA VI, 9-22) that describe how > rupas are generated by 1 or other of 4 causes, namely, kamma, > consciousness, nutriment and temperature. > > Only for those rupas whose mode of origin is consciousness can it be > said that their arising depends on consciousness. Even then, they > are not so conditioned by being the object of discernment, but in > other ways. > > Jon > > --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear TG, > > very good. The Buddha speaks about mount Vipulla, there were other > > mountains > > that were different and there will be other mountains. > > And yes, such is the nature of rupa: in the Elephant's Footprint, > > the earth, > > water, fire, wind, these are impermanent. He talks about the outer > > rupas. > > Water dwindles away, nothing left. This is explained in > > conventional terms. > > Nina. > > op 08-03-2003 05:24 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: > > > > > Specifically, I there's a sutta, I think > > > in Samyutta, that talks about the things the Buddha had in a past > > life and > > > that they are all gone now. It ends with ... paraphrasing...see > > how > > > impermanent are the things of this world, how unsubstantial and > > > unsatisfactory. This is reason enough to be repelled by the > > things of this > > > world, enough to lose passion for them, enough to be liberated > > therefrom. > > > 20144 From: robmoult Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Sarah, I am about to get on a long flight and was wondering what "airplane reading" to take along. I have now decided to take, "The Discourse on the Root of Existence", Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentaries. Thanks for the prompting. Metta, Rob M :-) 20145 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 3:16am Subject: Re: [dsg]the noting Dear Nina, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I find this in particular very helpful. Awareness of visible object and > still an idea of, I have to note this. Then the reality could be lobha, > thinking with lobha, or even aversion, some slight uneasiness that > visible > object is so difficult. Or "omaana"(minority) conceit: poor me, I am so > ignorant, thus, clinging to the importance of self. Or > ati-maana(superiority) conceit: hey, I make some progress.No end to all > the > different kilesas, but good to know. I am grateful for any reminder, ..... Yes, we may have an idea that knowing what visible object is may just be a technical matter of no great importance. On the contrary, I think that if there is no understanding or awareness of its characteristic when it appears as distinct from seeing and distinct from other rupas -- just a dhatu (element) with no self -- then I think there is also likely to be misunderstanding and lack of awareness about all other realities.I read recently in the Sammohavinodani about why the eyedoor is always given first and it is on account of common occurrence. There is seeing of visible objects now and attachment or aversion on account of these all the time. Just as we read in the Mulapariyayasutta, there is conceiving, proliferating and clinging to self, ideas of self and so on. I like your reminders about ‘omaana’ (‘poor me’) and ‘ati-maana’(hey, I make some progress). Reminds me of Dominique and the other girl James created in a post to Kimmy, one of the Star Kids. It impressed her so much. RobertK gave so many useful references from Vism about namas and rupas and the puppet similes. In ch X1X “Pufification by Overcoming Doubt’ we read more about how by understanding the nature of namas and rupas and about conditions, it becomes more apparent that other realities not being directly exerienced at this moment have the same characteristics and this is the way that doubt about realities is overcome: 6 “When he has thus seen that the occurrence of mentality-materiality is due to conditions, then he sees that, as now, so in the past too its occurrence was due to conditions, and in the future too its occurrence will be due to conditions.” This is not merely by thinking but by the deep understanding of present realities and their conditioned nature, so that there are no longer conditions to speculate or wonder with any doubt about rupas not yet experienced or those that have been experienced. In the same way, as I understand the texts, after understanding the conditioned nature of phenomena, by understanding the impermanence of what appears, ‘by inference from that, all formations are clearly seen as impermanent. Herein doubt is abandoned. When he brings to mind as painful, he correctly knows and sees occurrence. Hence...when he brings to mind as not-self, he correctly knows and sees the sign and occurrence. Hence “right seeing” is said.” I’m looking at these sections in Vism partly because you and Jon were discussing khandhas I believe. Under ‘comprehension by groups’in chXX we read about all the realities to be known and then : “So when a man comprehends the five aggregates by means of this comprehending as impermanent, etc, in its two hundred aspects, his comprehending as impermanent, painful and not-self, which is called ‘inductive insight’, is strengthened. Like you said in your other post (which I’ll come back to), when there is more understanding of paramattha sacca (absolute truth) and sammuti sacca (conventional truth), even when we read about ‘clenching the teeth’ or other actions that may appear to suggest a self making a big effort, we know there are just the various elements working in combinations and according to conditions. This has also been stressed recently in the ‘Way’ extracts, I think. Hence just as a piano-player can bring to mind any music learnt and all previous skills and knowledge in that regard, so any understanding developed can be applied with “right seeing” - not theoretically at all. I’m not sure that this touches on your discussion with Jon or the question raised that he’s meant to be re-raising in Bkk, because I don’t have any of the posts to hand. I’ll be glad to be corrected if I’ve barked up the wrong tree in any regard. These are difficult points because they relate to developed stages of insight. Metta, Sarah ===== 20146 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I am about to get on a long flight and was wondering what "airplane > reading" to take along. I have now decided to take, "The Discourse > on the Root of Existence", Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentaries. Thanks for the prompting. ..... Perfect! Such a small booklet containing so much wealth...you can read the quotes in context. Each time I open it a different passage attracts my attention like today it was the 4 kinds of pathavi(earth element)in context that I quoted. Look f/w to hearing more after your flight and thx for telling us about your Bkk stopover. Metta, Sarah ======== 20147 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 3:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I am about to get on a long flight and was wondering what "airplane > reading" to take along. I have now decided to take, "The Discourse > on the Root of Existence", Bhikkhu Bodhi's translation of the > Mulapariyaya Sutta and its commentaries. Thanks for the prompting. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob M, After completion of this work, for something a little different, may I recommend this site: http://www.buddhadust.org/TheMulaPariyaya/examiningthemulapariyaya.htm It views and explains the Mulapariyaya Sutta as a type of 'spell' that when one comprehends distinctly and systematically, will lead to full insight, liberation. Interesting. Metta, James 20148 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 5:15am Subject: kom's letter Dear Kom, Thanks for answering my questions! Now I have another few! In Kiana's letter(#20041)-What is a laughing Buddha? How does it look like? Is mindfulness important to you? Well that is it! Metta, Janice 20149 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 5:19am Subject: y letter to Kiana Dear Kiana, I'm Janice! I hope you still remember me from one of your Saturday class! (The class right after the Christmas holiday!) Well, Happy belated Birthday! In fact my one was on March 5th (I'm 12 now). Here are a few questions about the book "Buddha": Is that book very interesting to you? According to your book how many Buddhas are there in the world? Metta, Janice 20150 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 6:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Rob M Actually, my interest in this thread is pretty much limited to the textual references and in particular to a passage you quoted from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha-dipanipali. I quoted back from the CMA translation to show that your passage may have carried a different meaning than the one you were giving it. I was under the impression that you relied on the passage from the Abhidhammattha-Sangaha-dipanipali as support for your position on rupas. In view of your comments below I'm not clear if this is still the case (and if it isn't, whether you have any other textual support for your theory). However, if you don't mind, I'd rather not get into a debate on the issue you raise below, which I see as being something else altogether ;-)) (I'm afraid I wouldn't really know where to start!). Jon PS Reading your message over again just now, it strikes me that you may have missed the reply I refer to above. It is at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20121 --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I acknowledge that the Buddha talked about "external rupas" as > having the characterisitic of impermanence. I don't see this as > undermining my argument. > > I know that the Visuddhi-Magga and Abhidhammattha-Sangaha discuss > the origin of rupas (4 causes). My view is that this was the result > of later commentators who felt the need to "scientific-ize" the > Buddha's teachings. > > Let me give you an example of where the later commentators added > a "scientific" aspect to the teachings (and got it wrong). ... 20151 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 6:36am Subject: [dsg] Re: Modesty Hi Sarah, I think being modest, being moderate in behavior and expression, being not self-aggrandizing and ostentacious, not waving the banner is peaceful. It is agitating to "wave the banner" and to be self- aggrandizing, and I think that being modest, one is less agitated, less stressful. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > You've made some good suggestions. I'd be glad to see some of the suttas > you always have at hand in support. Maybe Christine will also have some. > I understand what you mean and agree, conventionally speaking at least. > > In 'absolute terms' the wholesome states must relate to the consciousness > and mental states rather than the outer appearance which we may get many > clues from but which can never be used as a criterion, don't you think? > For example, if someone wears an expensive piece of jewellery or a rolex > watch, it may be for many different reasons and likewise if someone > doesn't wear these. That was why I quoted from the Atthasalini about > conceit and the 'waving of the banner' which could apply to either of > these people and the helpful reminders about Rahula who wasn't concerned > about himself or why he was neglected. > > Even the Buddha and main disciples aroused great jealousy in others > (unintentionally of course) and had many enemies. > > Look f/w to hearing more. > > Metta, > > Sarah 20152 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 7:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Howard's tree and a little hint Dear Howard, I am glad you did not find me too blunt. I am like Ken, when I have sent something I think, was this not too much? Nina op 09-03-2003 08:58 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > A little more seriously - I have read parts of it from time to time, but I do > owe it a thorough going through! 20153 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 7:29am Subject: the Way Hi Larry, I am missing your challenging and stimulating remarks. Is it your computer, or lack of time? I understand. Reading about the elements involved when lifting feet, etc. we do not have to think or pinpoint, but it can remind us now, while walking: elements impinging on elements. A wonderful reminder. I thought of it when walking. The text on the bhikkhu who kept on sitting down or standing when unaware: I had difficulties with that and asked A. Sujin. She said:< those were his accumulations.> He was very special, about to reach arahatship, we do not have to imitate him. If he had not realized that whatever he did it was conditioned, just nama, he could not have realized arahatship. Nina. 20154 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 7:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Dear Jon, Victor, Dharam et al., 'Modesty' and 'contentment' are the first two of the 'eight thoughts of a great person' (sorry if this has been pointed out earlier): The Blessed One said, "Now, what are the eight thoughts of a great person? This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent. This Dhamma is for one who is reclusive, not for one who is entangled. This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy. This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused. This Dhamma is for one whose mind is centered, not for one whose mind is uncentered. This Dhamma is for one endowed with discernment, not for one whose discernment is weak. This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-complication, who delights in non-complication, not for one who enjoys & delights in complication." Anguttara Nikaya VIII.30 Anuruddha Sutta To Anuruddha It occurs to me that (1) these 'thoughts' are in the conventional terms of the suttas and as such maybe refer to ideas and concepts rather than to paramattha dhammas (?) and (2) the Buddha spoke this discourse to Anuruddha shortly before his total enlightenment so may refer to very rarified states. Still an old favorite, though. mike 20155 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 7:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Hi Jon, Thanks. This is how I see it: I think that being content is being satisfied with what one has got: food, clothes, lodgings, etc. It is being not acquisitive and covetous, but being happy with his or her possession. I would think it is hard to be happy if one is not content with what he or she has got. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > > Thanks. I think your definition is a good one. > > Some qualities are a specific wholesome mental factor (an example of > this would be metta which, as you know, is the mental factor of > alobha), while other qualities denote an absence of unwholesome > mental factors in instances when these might normally arise (an > example would be patience, which is not itself a specific mental > factor). > > I would see contentment as falling into the latter category. A > person who is content as you have defined it does not covet what > another has, is not ambitious for the sake of worldly gain, is not > envious, does not regret past opportunities missed, etc., and so does > not experience any of these unwholesome mental states (some are > lobha, some dosa) which another person might. > > In terms of the development of the path, contentment means being able > to be honest with oneself regarding one's faults and present level of > understanding, and accepting the present object as it is without > wishing it were something else, with understanding. > > How do you see it? > > Jon 20156 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 8:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Hi Dharam, Yes, I agree. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > One way of looking at contentment: > > Knowing that you have all that is needed, and accepting that it is > enough. > > It is wholesome because at the very least, it reduces craving for yet > more. > > metta, > u.w. dharam 20157 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 8:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] (4) Pannatta As A Vehicle Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Friday, March 07, 2003 4:23 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] (4) Pannatta As A Vehicle > Of course it seems that concepts arise and fall away, and this is the > experience of us all. However, there is no statement to this effect > in the teachings, as far as I am aware, so I think it's a proposition > that needs careful considering. Agreed--I think care needs to be taken with the terminology ('arising and falling away')to avoid confusion/equivocation. mike 20158 From: Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 9:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Howard's tree and a little hint Hi Nina, you wrote: "Dear Howard, I just have to laugh about your tree you always see, because I can imagine your study with the window. I see the bookshelves, and on it somewhere in a corner there is a dusty book, the Visuddhimagga." Is the mental image of Howard's tree a nimita (sign)? Is a mental image considered to be a concept? The mental image for me is generic and somewhat ideal, for Howard it may be specific and "flawed". Would the generic and ideal image be a counterpart sign and the specific and flawed image be a learning sign? Larry 20159 From: Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 5:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi Rob M. In my view, the Buddha taught the greatest or perfect science. The fact that the commentaries screwed up with their analysis (and I agree with your heart base reference) isn't because they added science, its because they added speculation! If it weren't for science, we might be agreeing with their speculation at this moment! In fact, some do even today because they "hold to a doctrine." The "scientific" brilliance about the Buddha's teaching is that there is almost nothing in it that's arguable because the Dependent Origination formula is so perfect in its principled "scientific" accuracy... This being, that is, With the arising of this, that arises. This not being, that is not, With the ceasing of this, that ceases. Abhidhamma: IMO, the whole thing is an attempt to "scientific-ize" the Buddha's teaching. They did a good job from from what I can understand especially when they stick to what is in the suttas. But there are flaws. IMO, they flawed on several technical points that modern science has been able to knock holes in. The heart base is one, the object of sight, sound not "meeting" the eye, ear is another. (We can only experience contacts. Light does indeed meet the eye, sound does indeed meet the ear. Abhidhammist's did not seem to be aware of those physical movements.) Abhidhamma's general gist of speaking in terms of " ultimate realities" makes me uncomfortable as well. However, In terms of elements, mental factors and types of consciousness, and how they interact; Abhidhamma is a brilliant analysis. I don't know how accurate it is, but I consider it a useful model in contemplating conditionality. The Buddha said ...paraphrasing... -- when something is spoken well and true, regard it as the Buddha's teaching, as something that accords with dhamma. -- With this in mind, what modern science might provide that is true, and beneficial should be happily accepted. What is harmful, inaccurate/speculative, should not be accepted. Abhidhamma should be approached in the same way, and even the suttas for that matter. TG > I acknowledge that the Buddha talked about "external rupas" as > having the characterisitic of impermanence. I don't see this as > undermining my argument. > > I know that the Visuddhi-Magga and Abhidhammattha-Sangaha discuss > the origin of rupas (4 causes). My view is that this was the result > of later commentators who felt the need to "scientific-ize" the > Buddha's teachings. > > Let me give you an example of where the later commentators added > a "scientific" aspect to the teachings (and got it wrong). The > physical base that supports all cittas other than the two sets of > five sense-door consciousness cittas is called in the Abhidhammattha- > Sangha and the Visuddhi-Magga is called the heart-base > (hadayavatthu). In the CMA (III 20, p 144) Bikhu Bodhi says, "In the > canonical Abhidhamma, the heart-base is not expressly mentioned. The > Patthana, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, simply speaks > of 'that matter in dependence on which the mind element and mind- > consciousness element occur'. The Commentaries, however, > subsequently specify 'that matter' to be the heart-base, a cavity > situated within the physical heart." The ancients needed a theory of > how sensation could be carried from the source (eye, ear, nose, > tongue, skin) to the destination (the physical base supporting the > mind). The only thing the ancients could see moving in the body was > blood, so they assumed (incorrectly) that sensation was transmitted > through the blood. Since the heart was obviously responsible for > moving the blood around, it became the "physical base for the mind". > My point here is that the Buddha never named the heart as the > physical basis for the mind. The Buddha did not name the heart > because it would have been incorrect and giving the correct > information (whatever the correct information is) would have been > entering into a realm of "science". > > As a side note, we still don't know what the true physical base for > the mind is. We might think that it is the "brain" or the "nervous > system", but these do not start to form until the fifth week after > conception (I think). So what is the rupa that supports the > patisandhi citta? According to the "other" Abhidhamma in Daily Life > (by Ashin Janakabhivamsa): > > "With the occurrence of patisandhi citta and corresponding > cetasikas, there comes into being a minute matter called kalala-rupa > in the form of a clear fluid. This matter takes the form of a > droplet the size of a drop of oil clinging to the trip of a hair of > a damsel from the Northern Continent. This kalala droplet (the very > first stage of formulation of foetus) is formed by the kammic forces > of past deeds. It is neither semen nor ovule of his parents, they > are supporting agents of this kalala. > > A kalala droplet is produced by produced by a child's past kamma but > parents' semen and ovule are essential supports for pregnancy to > take place. The kalala droplet is like the seed; semen and ovule are > like the moist sail or swamp; past kamma is like the farmer. > Therefore a clean ovary and healthy semen and ovule are essential. > Otherwise the foetus cannot develop into a healthy baby." > > To me, "kalala-rupa" is another later writer's attempt > to "scientific-ize" the Abhidhamma. > > Jon, I guess my point is that later works such as the Visuddhi Magga > and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha may have been distorted (scientific- > ized). > > I think, as a minimum, we can agree that the nature of matter that > does not impact the senses was an extremely minor issue to the > Buddha (though it may have been important to later writers). > > Again, a Sutta where the Buddha talked about the nature of matter > without reference to ethical issues would blow my theory apart. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) > 20160 From: Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 10:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Way Hi Nina, Sorry for being so silent on the "Way" thread. It's just that the section on clear comprehension hasn't stimulated my brain to say anything; and there's 40 pages of it; the longest section in the commentary! I've been slowly reading the concentration section in Visuddhimagga and it's clarifying little by little but I think I need to bring in Vimuttimagga and Patisambhidamagga. I haven't been able to find anyone who is willing to describe their own experience (except Howard). Where's all the arahants??? Larry 20161 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 11:04am Subject: RE: [dsg] kom's letter Hi Janice! > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > > In Kiana's letter(#20041)-What is a laughing Buddha? > How does it look like? A laughing Buddha is an Eastern-Asian rendition of what they believe the Buddha represents (laughing, with pot belly): some believe he would bring good luck and prosperity. You may have seen the image in temples / other places in Hong Kong. The Buddhist texts don't describe the Buddha in that way. The Buddha is described to be very good-looking (and definitely without pot belly), and because of his facial feature, he may look like he was always smiling. Once he became a Buddha, he didn't laugh, but once in a while, gave slight smiles. > Is mindfulness important to you? I wouldn't be following the Buddha's path without mindfulness. For those who follow the Buddha's path, mindfulness is very important. kom 20162 From: Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 11:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Hi Victor, Here is the sutta on the ariya vamsa: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-028.html Notice there is contentment with the requisites of life and also delight in bhavana (mental development). The commentary to Kassapasamyutta in SN 16.1, p. 662 Wisdom edition says the following: Spk [SN Commentary] discusses a threefold typology of contentment: (i) contentment that accords with one's gains, i.e., remaining content with any gains, whether fine or course; (ii) content that accords with one's ability, i.e., remaining content with whatever one needs to sustain one's health; and (iii) contentment that accords with suitability, i.e., disposing with any luxury items received and retaining only the most basic requisites. L: This sutta also discusses wrong speech that may arise due to discontent with requisites. Larry 20163 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 1:17pm Subject: Re: I understand --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > It would be amazing to know > that you are going to teach in Cairo, Eygpt. I went > to Cairo a few years ago and it was very hot there. I > am also quite sad about your brother's death. Are you > the only one left in your family? Now I understand > more about the temple! > > What can you do there besides > from mediating? Do you stay for a couple of weeks? > Was it peaceful there? What else do you do to > become a Buddhist besides from what you have > explained to everyone? > > As always please send a poem!( > You do not need to send me so much or else you will > run out of them soon! > > > Metta, > > > Janice Hi Star Kid Janice! Yes, many people are amazed when they learn that I am going to teach in Cairo, Egypt. To them, it sounds so exotic…like maybe my last name is `Bond' as in `James Bond'! ;-) But it is not a big deal really. I am glad that it will be hot there because I like the heat. That is one reason I live in a desert now. Yes, I am the only sibling left and the only child alive from my parents. And now all of my grandparents have died. Next, my parents will die and then I will die. That's just the way it goes. No reason to be sad about any of it. I am glad that you understand more about the temple. There are many other things to do at the temple besides meditate: there are classes in Thai language and culture, classes in Buddhism, a library to enjoy with books on Buddhism and Thai culture, a garden and a fountain to enjoy, a banquet hall with a stage where they perform cultural shows, chickens and roosters on the grounds to feed, dogs to play with, places to light incense outside, and a great big bell that you can gong (but I wouldn't recommend doing that! ;-). I have stayed at the temple for 10-day-meditation retreats when I didn't leave the temple at all; but other than that I just visit for a few hours and then go back home. I think that I and the others who have written to you Star Kids have explained pretty much everything that goes into being a Buddhist. Being a Buddhist means taking refuge in the Triple Gem: The Buddha, The Dharma, and The Sangha. It doesn't mean being a `perfect person'; it just means looking toward those things for guidance and direction in your life. Okay Janice, I will end with another poem. Don't worry about me running out of them, there is a lot of poetry in the world to go around…I just can't guarantee that you will like all of them! ;-) Metta, James Big Lunch by Kenn Nesbitt I started arranging my alphabet soup, concocting big words to devour. I swallowed a B U I L D I N G. I gobbled a S T R E E T, and then I ingested a T O W E R. I snacked on a S U B W A Y. I bolted a B U S. I wolfed down a P A S S E N E R T R A I N. I chewed up M O N T A N A. I gulped I N D I A N A, then tossed down the whole S T A T E O F M A I N E. I ate the G R A N D C A N Y O N. I lunched on the R O C K I E S, and A S I A, I slurped from my cup. I would have been fine, but I started to dine on M Y H O M E W O R K, and then I threw up. 20164 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Re: Contentment Hi Larry, Thanks for the sutta reference. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Here is the sutta on the ariya vamsa: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-028.html > > Notice there is contentment with the requisites of life and also delight > in bhavana (mental development). The commentary to Kassapasamyutta in SN > 16.1, p. 662 Wisdom edition says the following: > > Spk [SN Commentary] discusses a threefold typology of contentment: (i) > contentment that accords with one's gains, i.e., remaining content with > any gains, whether fine or course; (ii) content that accords with one's > ability, i.e., remaining content with whatever one needs to sustain > one's health; and (iii) contentment that accords with suitability, i.e., > disposing with any luxury items received and retaining only the most > basic requisites. > > L: This sutta also discusses wrong speech that may arise due to > discontent with requisites. > > Larry 20165 From: Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 4:55pm Subject: Way 60, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 1. Clear comprehension in going forwards and backwards, p. 77 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html [Tika] More fleet than the group of devas running before the Sun's chariot -- the group of devas in the shape of horses with keen-edged razors attached to their heads and hoofs, engaged in and taken to going, plunging forwards, some above and some below, but never knocking against each other, though moving close together -- is the moment of existence of material phenomena. [T] As the break-up of sesamum seeds that are roasted takes place almost at once with the sound of crackling, the destruction of conditioned phenomena takes place almost at once with phenomena's arising. For, similar to the crackling sound, the sign of the breaking up of the sesamum seeds, is arising the sign (indicatory) of the (eventual) breaking up of conditioned phenomena, owing to the destruction (inevitably and) assuredly of phenomena that have arisen. [T] Who is the one that goes forward? Just no one. [ko eko abhikkamati nabhikkamati yeva]. [T] Could it be said: Whose going forward is there? No. Why? In the highest sense, what takes place is the going, the standing, the sitting down, and the lying down of the processes. [T] The passage just mentioned is for dispelling the false idea of a self that goes forward which a confused blinded worldling is apt to possess or the passage is stated by way of objection and refutation. [T] With material form in the several divisions [tasmim tasmim kotthase rupena saddhim] means: with material form in the aforesaid sixfold division. [T] The conscious state of the thought-unit that comes into existence when any material form comes into existence, runs a course of its own and does not get into close contact with the material form in question, nor does it get into repeated contact or relation with that material form. Therefore it is said: one conscious state arises with material form and quite another ceases when that material form ceases. By reason of the absence of close or repeated contact [apaccamatthatta] of mind with matter this happens. Tension, oscillation or vibration of mind is quicker than that of matter, seventeen times. [T] The words: with material form in relation to the first sentence of the stanza mean: with whatsoever material form arising simultaneously with a conscious state [yena kenaci sahuppajjanakena rupena]. And the same words in relation to the second sentence of the stanza refer to the material form already arisen and existing at the starting point of the seventeenth thought-unit that occurs after the ceasing-phase of the thought-unit with which the aforesaid material form arose and which material form arisen already has a total duration from its arising to ceasing of seventeen consecutive thought-units and is possessed of the nature of ceasing together with the cessation of the seventeenth thought-unit mentioned above, namely, of the seventeenth thought-unit in its phase of dissolution or ceasing [dutiya pada sambandhe pana rupenati idam yam tato nirujjhamana cittato upari sattarasama cittassa uppadakkhane uppannam tadeva tassa nirujjhamana cittassa niroddhena saddhim nirujjhanakam sattarasa cittakkhanayukam rupam sandhaya vuttam]. [T] Material and mental phenomena would perhaps be taken as things of equal duration, if the matter were put in a different way to this. Should these two kinds of phenomena be wrongly considered as things of equal duration then there would be contradiction with such commentarial sayings as: "Material form is slow-changing, is tardy as regards ceasing," and with such textual sayings as: "I do not see a single thing so swiftly changing, o bhikkhus, as this mind" [aññatha ruparupadhamma samanayuka siyum yadi ca siyum atha rupam garu parinamam dandha nirodhanti adi atthakatha vacanehi naham bhikkhave eka dhammampi samanupassami evam lahu parivattam yathayidam bhikkave cittanti evamadi pali vacanehi ca virodho siya]. 20166 From: robmoult Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 4:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Hi TG, You have changed my mind. If we define the scope of the Buddha's teachings as ethics, four noble truths, soteriology and nama (nama in a general sense, including Nibbana), then the Buddha was the "ultimate scientist". Within this scope, the Buddha modeled, analyzed and classified to an incredible degree (as yet unmatched by "modern scientists"). This can be found in the Suttas, but particularly in the Abhidhamma. On the other hand, I feel that "modern scientists" may have a better handle on rupa "in general" than can be found in the scriptures or commentaries. I don't have an issue with this because rupa "in general" was not a big focus (maybe not a focus at all) of the Buddha, the Buddha concentrated (exclusively?) on rupa when it impacted ethics, four noble truths, soteriology and nama. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, TGrand458@a... wrote: > Hi Rob M. > > In my view, the Buddha taught the greatest or perfect science. The fact that > the commentaries screwed up with their analysis (and I agree with your heart > base reference) isn't because they added science, its because they added > speculation! > > If it weren't for science, we might be agreeing with their speculation at > this moment! > In fact, some do even today because they "hold to a doctrine." > > The "scientific" brilliance about the Buddha's teaching is that there is > almost nothing in it that's arguable because the Dependent Origination > formula is so perfect in its principled "scientific" accuracy... > > This being, that is, > With the arising of this, that arises. > This not being, that is not, > With the ceasing of this, that ceases. > > Abhidhamma: IMO, the whole thing is an attempt to "scientific-ize" the > Buddha's teaching. They did a good job from from what I can understand > especially when they stick to what is in the suttas. But there are flaws. > IMO, they flawed on several technical points that modern science has been > able to knock holes in. The heart base is one, the object of sight, sound > not "meeting" the eye, ear is another. (We can only experience contacts. > Light does indeed meet the eye, sound does indeed meet the ear. > Abhidhammist's did not seem to be aware of those physical movements.) > Abhidhamma's general gist of speaking in terms of " ultimate realities" makes > me uncomfortable as well. However, In terms of elements, mental factors and > types of consciousness, and how they interact; Abhidhamma is a brilliant > analysis. I don't know how accurate it is, but I consider it a useful model > in contemplating conditionality. > > The Buddha said ...paraphrasing... -- when something is spoken well and true, > regard it as the Buddha's teaching, as something that accords with dhamma. -- > > With this in mind, what modern science might provide that is true, and > beneficial should be happily accepted. What is harmful, > inaccurate/speculative, should not be accepted. Abhidhamma should be > approached in the same way, and even the suttas for that matter. > > TG > > > > I acknowledge that the Buddha talked about "external rupas" as > > having the characterisitic of impermanence. I don't see this as > > undermining my argument. > > > > I know that the Visuddhi-Magga and Abhidhammattha-Sangaha discuss > > the origin of rupas (4 causes). My view is that this was the result > > of later commentators who felt the need to "scientific-ize" the > > Buddha's teachings. > > > > Let me give you an example of where the later commentators added > > a "scientific" aspect to the teachings (and got it wrong). The > > physical base that supports all cittas other than the two sets of > > five sense-door consciousness cittas is called in the Abhidhammattha- > > Sangha and the Visuddhi-Magga is called the heart-base > > (hadayavatthu). In the CMA (III 20, p 144) Bikhu Bodhi says, "In the > > canonical Abhidhamma, the heart-base is not expressly mentioned. The > > Patthana, the last book of the Abhidhamma Pitaka, simply speaks > > of 'that matter in dependence on which the mind element and mind- > > consciousness element occur'. The Commentaries, however, > > subsequently specify 'that matter' to be the heart-base, a cavity > > situated within the physical heart." The ancients needed a theory of > > how sensation could be carried from the source (eye, ear, nose, > > tongue, skin) to the destination (the physical base supporting the > > mind). The only thing the ancients could see moving in the body was > > blood, so they assumed (incorrectly) that sensation was transmitted > > through the blood. Since the heart was obviously responsible for > > moving the blood around, it became the "physical base for the mind". > > My point here is that the Buddha never named the heart as the > > physical basis for the mind. The Buddha did not name the heart > > because it would have been incorrect and giving the correct > > information (whatever the correct information is) would have been > > entering into a realm of "science". > > > > As a side note, we still don't know what the true physical base for > > the mind is. We might think that it is the "brain" or the "nervous > > system", but these do not start to form until the fifth week after > > conception (I think). So what is the rupa that supports the > > patisandhi citta? According to the "other" Abhidhamma in Daily Life > > (by Ashin Janakabhivamsa): > > > > "With the occurrence of patisandhi citta and corresponding > > cetasikas, there comes into being a minute matter called kalala- rupa > > in the form of a clear fluid. This matter takes the form of a > > droplet the size of a drop of oil clinging to the trip of a hair of > > a damsel from the Northern Continent. This kalala droplet (the very > > first stage of formulation of foetus) is formed by the kammic forces > > of past deeds. It is neither semen nor ovule of his parents, they > > are supporting agents of this kalala. > > > > A kalala droplet is produced by produced by a child's past kamma but > > parents' semen and ovule are essential supports for pregnancy to > > take place. The kalala droplet is like the seed; semen and ovule are > > like the moist sail or swamp; past kamma is like the farmer. > > Therefore a clean ovary and healthy semen and ovule are essential. > > Otherwise the foetus cannot develop into a healthy baby." > > > > To me, "kalala-rupa" is another later writer's attempt > > to "scientific-ize" the Abhidhamma. > > > > Jon, I guess my point is that later works such as the Visuddhi Magga > > and the Abhidhammattha Sangaha may have been distorted (scientific- > > ized). > > > > I think, as a minimum, we can agree that the nature of matter that > > does not impact the senses was an extremely minor issue to the > > Buddha (though it may have been important to later writers). > > > > Again, a Sutta where the Buddha talked about the nature of matter > > without reference to ethical issues would blow my theory apart. > > > > Metta, > > Rob M :-) > > > > > > > 20167 From: Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 60, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Hi all, This section, "Clear comprehension in going forwards and backwards", might be a good one to contemplate on a long journey. It says in part (I think) what we perceive as movement is really the successive arising and ceasing of different dhammas, and also of course, there is no person who goes. Larry 20168 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 7:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Dharam --- bodhi342 wrote: > "If a tree falls in the woods with none to hear, is there a sound?" > > Hi Rob M, > > What is a tree, what is falling, what are woods, what is none? > Just > more mental proliferation taking concepts to be real? Can we even > get to address your philosophical question? > > uninstructed worldling, > dharam I agree with the thrust of your post here, that such questions per se have little or no relevance to the development of an understanding of the presently arising dhammas. On the other hand, I would not see the question as being necessarily a purely philosophical one, in that sound like every other dhamma is said to arise because of conditions and those conditions can be found enumerated and explained in different parts of the teachings. It doesn't hurt to look into some of these lesser studied areas, since they are all there for a reason. Also, from another angle, while knowing the answer no doubt won't get one any closer to enlightenment, it's conceivable that holding a positive view that is contrary to the 'correct answer' could be an obstacle to the development of understanding (not that I'm suggesting that is likely to be the case among any memebers here ;-)). Thanks for your observations. (Fellow u.w.) Jon 20169 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 11:05pm Subject: Re: [dsg] M 1: 120, 18-19, about different ways of eliminating unwholesome thoughts Dear Nina, nina van gorkom wrote: > On your request I am sending you what I studied, only part of this > interesting but long Co. on M, I, sutta 20, Discourse on the Forms of > Thought, vitakkasanthanasutta. The part I referred to is the fourth way > of > eliminating bad thoughts: vitakka sa.nkhaara sa.n.thaana, attend to the > thought function and form of those thoughts. ..... In the Nanamoli/Bodhi translation this is MN20. I’ve snipped much of your post with the many helpful comments for now. The last part you refer to was also discussed by Jon and Mike some time back (Oct01 to be exact). I’ll quote from it at the end of the post as you may not have seen it and I know you’re not keen on links;-) : Let me start by adding some of B.Bodhi’s notes to MA (the comy) : 1.At the start of the text, we read the reference to the bhikkhu ‘pusuing the higher mind’ and giving attention to ‘five signs’. MA: “The higher mind (adhicitta) is the mind of the eight meditative attainments used as a basis for insight; it is called “higher mind” because it is higher than the ordinary (wholesome) mind of the ten wholesome courses of action. The five “signs” (nimitta) may be understood as practical methods of removing the distracting thoughts. They should be resorted to only when the distractions become persistent or obtrusive; at other times the meditator should remain with his primary subject of meditation.” 2.The text continues with the passage about unwholesome thoughts and giving attention to “some other sign connected with what is wholesome”. MA: “When thoughts of sensual desire arise directed towards living beings, the “other sign” is the meditation on foulness (see MN 10.10); when the thoughts are directed to inanimate things, the “other sign” is attention to impermanence. When thoughts of hate rise directed towards living beings, the “other sign” is the meditation on loving-kindness; when they are directed to inanimate things, the “other sign” is atention to the elements (see MN 10.12). The rememdy for thoughts connected with delusion is living under a teacher, studying the Dhamma, inquiring into its meaning, listening to the Dhamma, and inquiring into causes.” ..... N: > Sa.nkhaara has different meanings in different contexts, and here we > have to > think of sa.nkhaarakkhandha, the cetasikas (mental factors) which are > called formations, activities etc. They form up conditions, they are > accumulated and accumulate. Vitakka is one of them. > The translation: P.T.S. has: the monk should attend to the thought > function > and form of those thoughts. ..... MA: “vitakka-sankhaara-sa.n.thaana”m. MA understands sankhaara here as condition, cause, or root, and takes the compound to mean “stopping the cause of the thought.” This is accomplished by inquiring, when an unwholesome thought has arisen: “What is it cause? What is the cause of its cause?” etc. Such an inquiry, according to the MA, brings about a slackening, and eventually the cessation, of the flow of unwholesome thought.” ..... N; > The Co explains further on the attitude of the wise (pa.n.dito) as to > walking quickly, slowly, etc: when a thought arises, it is compared to > walking quickly, when the bhikkhu attends to the "traveling" (thiaw paj) > of > that thought it is like walking slowly. When he has attended to the > traveling of that thought he fixes his thought on the meditation > subject. > When he has developed vipassana and he attains arahatship, this is > compared > to the sitting down of a person. The fruition attainment of the bhikkhu, > with nibbana as object during a whole day is compared to the person who > lies > down. > Also in another sutta it is said that thinking travels. ..... This is very interesting, Nina. I haven’t heard it before. Of course, it would be quite wrong in this context to walk slowly to attend to the ‘travelling thought’, as it would be to sit down to gain arahatship or to lie down for fruition attainment! ..... > The Commentary begins with adhicitta, explaining this word of the sutta: > the > citta of the eight attainments (of jhaana), that has as foundation > vipassana. Vipassana is implied all along, as in all suttas. The monk > does > not have to reason about it that his traveling thoughts have conditions, > he > can just realize them there and then as vitakka sa'nkhaara, realities > conditioned by former accumulations, non-self. As I see it, even when, > as we > read further on, he suppresses them with teeth clenched, he can realize > that > this is also conditioned, such are his accumulations, sa.nkhaara.(This > is my > opinion) ..... With regard to the passage about if unwholesome thoughts persist “connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he beats down, constrains, and crushes his mind with mind, then any evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate, and with delusion are abandoned in him and subside.” MA: “He should crush the unwholesome state of mind with a wholesome state of mind.” > The Commentary is long but very interesting, many similes. What is also > stressed, the monk should be with his teacher, study the Dhamma, ask > questions, listen to Dhamma on due occasions, and analyse which dhamma > is > .thaana (the right cause) and which dhamma is a.thaana. In this way moha > can > be abandoned, the Commentary states. As I see it, these are the right > conditions for vipassana. ..... I like the teeth clenching example because again it's according to accumulations and daily life. We can do anything with right or wrong view of realities, I think. No rules! I was listening to a tape of K.Sujin’s recently on which she was stressing the considering. Even if we are with a teacher or listening or reading, it depends on the careful considering over and over again. Sukin also referred to this recently -- how it’s not just a matter of studying details or being with the good friends, but really considering and applying what is said. Metta, Sarah ====== From Jon’s earlier post to Mike: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m4613.html J:>>What the Buddha encourages throughout the Tipitaka, consistently and constantly, is the development of kusala of all kinds, but particularly of the level that leads out of samsara (ie, satipatthana/vipassana). So any reference to, say, effort should be read in the light of these ever present themes. We tend to overlook the fact that moments of so-called 'effort to have kusala' must be either kusala or akusala -- they cannot be of some indeterminate and harmless quality. The Buddha must of course be taken as referring to the wholesome one (I'm sure no-one would seriously suggest otherwise). But then, if the moment of 'effort to have kusala' is itself kusala, it's not really effort *to have* kusala because it already *is* kusala. The passage you quote below is an interesting one. As you say, it refers to the development of samatha at very high levels, and so has no immediate application to our present situation. Insofar as it is prescriptive, it seems to me to be cautionary more than anything else. M:> "There is the case where evil, unskillful thoughts -> connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise > in a monk while he is referring to and attending to a > particular theme. He should attend to another theme, > apart from that one, connected with what is skillful. > When he is attending to this other theme, apart from > that one, connected with what is skillful, then those > evil, unskillful thoughts -- connected with desire, > aversion, or delusion -- are abandoned and subside. > With their abandoning, he steadies his mind right > within, settles it, unifies it, and concentrates it. J:What the Buddha is saying here, I think, is that even though a monk may be developing samatha ("while he is referring to and attending to a particular theme") it is still possible for akusala to arise ("unskilful thoughts -- connected with desire, aversion, or delusion -- arise") and, if it does, he should drop the particular object ("attend to another theme") rather than continue with the one to which he usually attends. The object that replaces it should be one that does not similarly condition akusala to arise (it should be an object that is "connected with what is skilful"), otherwise the mind is not concentrated in a kusala manner. Here, the attention/effort referred to is plainly meant to be kusala effort/intention only. Actually, there is an even more graphic example in the same sutta. Further on it says (trans. MLDB, p. 213) "If, while he is giving attention to stilling the thought-formation of those thoughts, there still arise in him evil unwholesome thoughts connected with desire, with hate and with delusion, then, with his teeth clenched and with his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind." It would be easy to think that there is no plainer reference to deliberate effort/intention than this one ("with his teeth clenched and with his tongue pressed against the roof of his mouth, he should beat down, constrain, and crush mind with mind"). However, when we read the commentary to this passage (MLDB p. 1206, n.243), it becomes clear that again it is a reference to the effort/intention that arises with kusala citta: "He should crush the unwholesome state of mind with a wholesome state of mind." So even the teeth-clenching must be kusala teeth-clenching! Finally, to return to the original passage you quoted, it mentions that akusala thoughts are of 3 kinds, ie connected with desire, with aversion or with delusion. Delusion is, of course, ignorance, the opposite of wisdom. The commentary says that for one in whom thoughts are connected with delusion (and guess who that means, folks), the remedy is "living under a teacher, studying the Dhamma, inquiring into its meaning, listening to the Dhamma, and inquiring into causes". I was struck how similar that 'remedy' is to the factors for the growth of wisdom that I quoted in a post to Howard recently (which, just to recap, were " association with superior persons, hearing the good Dhamma, proper attention and practice in accordance with the Dhamma"). So even in the context of samatha, the Buddha stressed the importance of satipatthana/vipassana>> ============ 20170 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 9, 2003 11:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Kamma (was, F/W message from Mike Nease) Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Interesting that I've missed this all these years. Still getting used > to > the idea of thinking of di.t.thi as kamma. The volition in it doesn't > seem > obvious to me (it seems passive). I certainly take the word of the > tipitaka > for it though. Not the first counter-intuitive bit of Dhamma I've run > across. ..... Sometimes I think we also just hear what we are ready to hear at the time. I watch this process with the Star Kids too -- I don’t say anything at all, but see them just picking up those points they can handle and just leaving the rest aside without any anxiety or care. I’ve just picked out a few posts from U.P. under kamma and vipaka which I found it helpful to review and which I think are relevant to this discussion. I think you may find Num’s of particular interest. Looking at the dates, you may not have seen them before as I think they may have all been posted during your DSG break: Num’s http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10640 ..... Kom’s http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/10655 ..... Nina’s http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12100 ..... Jon’s http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12064 ..... Larry’s (ADL): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12873 ..... Of course, you can follow the threads to other posts on the topic as well;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20171 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 0:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Modesty Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I think being modest, being moderate in behavior and expression, > being not self-aggrandizing and ostentacious, not waving the banner > is peaceful. ..... Mike quoted from the Anuruddha Sutta and pointed out that: “Modesty' and 'contentment' are the first two of the 'eight thoughts of a great person'”: >The Blessed One said, "Now, what are the eight thoughts of a great person? This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing. Anguttara Nikaya VIII.30 Anuruddha Sutta< ..... In B.Bodhi’s “Numerical Discourses’, he gives the translation “of few wishes’ instead of ‘who is modest’. I’m not sure if the Pali here is ‘appicchaata’ (of few wishes) which I understand to be the opposite of attachment and grasping in all their forms. From Sammohavinodani, Comy to Dhs, 846: “But some have said: “craving is the aspiring to an object that one has not yet reached, like the thief’s stretching out his hand in the dark: clinging is the grasping of an object that one has reached, like the thief’s grasping the goods. These states are opposed to FEWNESS OF WISHES (appicchaata) AND CONTENTMENT. Hence they are the roots of the suffering due to seeking and guarding (of property)”(see D ii58f)” Metta, Sarah ====== 20172 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 54, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Dear Jim, Nina & Larry, I responded before to this section: --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the > Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 1. Clear comprehension in going > forwards and backwards, p. 69 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > > Men of good family, desirous of self-improvement, having become homeless > ones in the Dispensation of the Buddha, ..... The Comy notes that Soma gives are v.difficult to follow as I indicated before. Jim gave me the following comments: Jim:>>The Pali comes from Ps-p.t (tika) for MN10 on the CSCD disk. A similar passage is also found in the tika for the Samannaphala Sutta (DN 2). So, if you have B. Bodhi's translation with the cty and subcty, you might find another translation there. Jim:>> attakaamaati attano hitasukha.m icchantaa, dhammacchandavantoti attho. Soma p.95: > [Tika] "Desirous of self-improvement" (atta kamati) -- (Those bhikkhus) > wishing for personal good and well-being (attano hita sukhamicchanta) -- > those wishing for (delighting in, intent on) the Dhamma is the true > meaning [dhammacchandavantoti attho] Jim: For 'attakaama' [adj.] Cone in her dictionary has: "wishing one's own (spiritual) benefit". It is sometimes confused with 'atthakaama". dhammoti hi hita.m, tannimittaka~nca sukhanti. [note that many texts read just "dhammo" without the 'ti" and also note "sukha~nca tannimittaka.m" in some readings] Soma: -- by reason of the fact that the Dhamma is truly good and well-being [dhammo hi hitam sukhañca tannimittakam]. Jim: For "dhamma" [refers to] the good and the happiness resulting from this [the good??]. atha vaa vi~n~nuuna.m nibbisesattaa attabhaavapariyaapannattaa ca attaa naama dhammo, ta.m kaamenti icchantiiti attakaamaa. [in some readings there is an "atta" before "nibbisesattaa" ie. "attanibbisesattaa" or "attato nibbisesattaa" as below] Soma: Or to the wise the Dhamma is the self owing to the > absence of difference (of the Dhamma) from the self, and (because the > Dhamma is contained in the self) owing to the (Dhamma's) state of being > included in the living being [atha va viññanam attato nibbisesatta > attabhava pariyapannatta ca dhammo atta nama]. They (the bhikkhus who > have genuinely renounced, in the Dispensation of the Buddha) desire, > wish for, that (tam kamenti icchanti].[21] Jim: Note "viññanam" should read "viññunam" (to the wise). I think this passage is a difficult one to unravel and therefore to translate. It is an explanation of how dhamma can be called a self (two reasons are given). Here's my own tentative translation (if it makes any sense!): "a dhamma is called a self owing to the fact of it being included in self-existence(s?) and owing to being without differentiation from the selves of the knowing ones." ???>> ..... I spent more time on it but had to give up - this last part doesn’t quite make sense to me. Perhaps others may have ideas. Many thanks for your help, Jim Metta, Sarah ===== 20173 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:12am Subject: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Dear Group, I'm back from a weekend at Cooran, I've got the dog out of 'hock', and I'm sitting at the computer thinking over the Dhamma discussions of those two days and nights. It was a satisfyingly fulfilling time of learning, camaraderie, laughter and the strengthening of friendships. There were seven, occasionally eight, of us sharing our understandings, and we all agreed that new insights had been gained and some old difficulties ironed out. On Saturday, the conversation went non-stop from 7.00 a.m. until 9.00 p.m. before we reluctantly called it a day. And the formal meditators had been up an hour earlier. On this weekend some of the group offered their own ideas in informal papers, and some offered extracts or articles for discussion. Andrew presented his understanding of "Nama-Rupa - a presentation of the basic theory", Bruce (very briefly :-)) gave "Abhidhamma Studies", Andy offered an excerpt from "Be Here Now" ('Is it possible to have directed awareness?'), KenH spoke on "I can remember things, so how can there be Anatta?" and I led a reading of Bhikkhu Bodhi's article "Questions on Kamma". Though conversations were wide ranging and occasionally grew a little warm, it was stimulating and we are all looking forward to the next gathering. I think some of those blokes could talk under water. I'm getting used to them now - I don't naively believe everything they tell me with a straight face. :-) (Andrew, I wonder if, before next time, you could do something about those screeching sulphur crested cockatoos [maybe gags?] and that 'yearning' cow? [valium?] :-) As far as I could decipher my notes, here are what I made of some of the questions that arose. I'm sure there were other topics, and I'm sure some of the questions below could have been expanded or re- phrased to hone in on what others present were really considering. (I discovered KenH doesn't think some questions should be asked unless we've first done enough appropriate study and reflecting ourselves (the hard work). I need to give a talk next time about "'Spoon-feeding' and it's place in the Suttas." :-)) As the Cooranites haven't caught up with the last four or five days worth of postings yet, if the questions below have already been touched on, please just tell us the Post numbers. ****Some of us were not sure if vipaka is experienced only through the five sense doors. What about the arising of an unpleasant thought - it feels like it should be vipaka ... but people were sure it wasn't. ****Is sammuti-sacca (conventional truth as opposed to paramattha- sacca) a synonym for Pannatti. Some of us think 'yes'. (I'm still figuring out what pannatti is :-)) ****Regarding cetana - when does cetana 'co-ordinate' and when does it 'will'? Some of us thought it co-ordinates vipaka-citta, and both co-ordinates and wills 'something else'. (Can't read my writing ... What is the term for 'something else'?) Do kusala and akusala cittas have a collective name? Is it simply javanna citta? When cetana wills, what does it will? ****I know this is an oldie but a goodie - Can an object be inherently pleasant or inherently unpleasant - isn't it the experience/perception that arises that makes it so? Two people seeing/hearing/tasting the same object, may have different pleasant or unpleasant perceptions of it ... (A paramatta dhamma is experienced by only one person (one vithi-citta?). ) Is the 'inherent nature'question generally agreed upon among Abhidhamma scholars or is there room for differences of opinion? ****In Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on Kamma, he says '... it can be said of kamma that kamma pushes for an opportunity to mature" - what does this mean, it seems to almost personify kamma? (- this question is by one of the non-dsg members of the weekend group. We're working on him.) *****Metta - is it a cetasika or citta? Is it a type of adosa? I'm sure there were lots of questions on metta that I've missed - apart from the usual 'does one radiate metta towards self, or only towards others, or not at all as it is only an uncontrollable mind moment'. Hopefully if others feel there were other questions that I've missed (particularly that bit about the jivitindriya lifeforce(?) rupa kalapa thingy etc. etc.) maybe they will put forward their own "Evam me sutam ..." metta, Christine 20174 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:33am Subject: ~ KoM~ !!! Dear Kom, I am really glad that you like my suggestion and thankyou for sending me the letter. From"The Dhammapada" I found that there were some more sentences that impressed me much. Nowadays the people think that they were really unlucky of being jobless and they tried to kill themselves, but yesterday I saw a T.V programme that was about the girl that was burn without arms, she did everything by her foot. She never gives up, and now she even knew how to drive! So I think we should learn from their patience and the power not to give up!!!! We should not kill ourselves over such little things! Do you agree, Kom?I hope I can get your reply soon^.^! Love, Kiana. Weight Age Gender Female Male 20175 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:35am Subject: I don't underdstand Dear James, Thank you for your reply. I'm so sorry that you were sick. Okay let's go onto something else.Now what do you mean about compete against others to move to 'advanced' or more 'wise' than them or if you brag about how special you are because of your wisdom that will actually make you fail a grade? Please write back to me. I'm 9 now, but still don't understand some of these words. Please explain. Hope you get well soon! Janet 20176 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] ~ KoM~ !!! Hi Kom, --- Star Kid wrote: > From"The Dhammapada" I found that there were some > more sentences that impressed me much. > > always.> Hint: These quotes Kiana is giving are from the 'imaginative' translation of Dhp by Thomas Byrom widely available....hmmm... I've just tracked this one down and it's no 157. Next time, I'll try to show her how to find another translation and a number as well. Metta, Sarah ====== 20177 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:16am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Christine, Here are my two cents worth... --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > ****Some of us were not sure if vipaka is experienced only through > the five sense doors. What about the arising of an unpleasant > thought - it feels like it should be vipaka ... but people were sure > it wasn't. ===== The mind-door citta process has some bhavanga cittas (vipaka from last thought of last existence), followed by a mind-door adverting citta (functional) followed by seven javana cittas (to create kamma) and sometimes capped off with two registration cittas. It is the mind-door adverting citta that conditions the arising of the javana cittas, but it is purely functional, not a vipaka citta. The most important question is, "what conditions the arising of the functional mind-door adverting citta?" I believe that the answer is "previous concepts plus accumulations". Previous concepts can be triggered by almost anything, but what creates "accumulations"? Accumulations are habits created by javana cittas (yes, the same guys responsible for kammic seeds that can mature into vipaka). I like the rose in front of me. This liking of the rose created a kammic seed that may eventually (when conditions are right) develop into a vipaka citta. In addition, the liking of the rose creates an impression, a habit, an accumulation, towards the liking of roses. This impression / habit / accumulation can condition the arising of attachment to roses as a mind-door citta process. In summary, it is not vipaka that triggers mind-door citta processes, but rather accumulations (accumulations and vipaka have the same heritage; javana cittas). ===== > ****Regarding cetana - when does cetana 'co-ordinate' and when does > it 'will'? Some of us thought it co-ordinates vipaka-citta, and both > co-ordinates and wills 'something else'. (Can't read my writing ... > What is the term for 'something else'?) ===== Cetana coordinates in all cittas. Cetana "wills" only in javana cittas where "Like a boss who directs workers and also does his share of the work as well; it is 'exceedingly energetic'". ===== > ****I know this is an oldie but a goodie - Can an object be > inherently pleasant or inherently unpleasant - isn't it the > experience/perception that arises that makes it so? Two people > seeing/hearing/tasting the same object, may have different pleasant > or unpleasant perceptions of it ... (A paramatta dhamma is > experienced by only one person (one vithi-citta?). ) Is the 'inherent > nature'question generally agreed upon among Abhidhamma scholars or is > there room for differences of opinion? ===== You might be interested in my long post on Sanna. http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15923.html Visible object is ALWAYS accompanied by neutral feeling. When sanna links the current visible object with a long-term memory of the same object (i.e. when I name it as "flower"), then in the next set of mind-door citta processes, sanna grabs the "feeling" (pleasant / unpleasant / neutral) associated with the long-term memory. This feeling conditions the arising of craving, the next link in dependent origination. ===== > > ****In Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on Kamma, he says '... it can be said > of kamma that kamma pushes for an opportunity to mature" - what does > this mean, it seems to almost personify kamma? (- this question is by > one of the non-dsg members of the weekend group. We're working on > him.) ===== As I mentioned above, javana cittas create kammic seeds and accumulations (habits). The accumulation (habit) can also be one of the conditions for a kammic seed to mature into vipaka. ===== Christine, I have skipped some of the questions that were too tough for me. The ones that I skipped are: Is sammuti-sacca (conventional truth as opposed to paramattha- sacca) a synonym for Pannatti? Do kusala and akusala cittas have a collective name? Is it simply javanna citta? When cetana wills, what does it will? Metta - is it a cetasika or citta? Is it a type of adosa? Hope this helps, let me know if I created additional confusion. Metta, Rob M :-) 20178 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:39am Subject: Re: I read this really good book! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > Today I saw a picture of you! > You were with this really young asian girl while you > were praying...I think...well you were wearing white > clothes. I wanted to ask you what grade do you teach? > If I ever become a teacher, I would teach > kindergardens. > > I read a book called "The Visons of The Buddha" which > is about Buddhism in different parts of the world such > as China, Thailand, Japan and so on, I thought that it > was a truly great book. > > I also read another book called "The Giver" and that > was also a very good book. > > A quote from "The Visons Of The Buddha" In the chapter > about Westeners becoming interested in Buddhism: > "The leaf of this tree, entrusted to my garden > from the east, offers the experience of secret > meaning."- Goethe > > I don't really understand what that meant and I was > wondering if could you explain it to me. > > Bye! > Jan Chearavanont > > P.S: Plz write me some more funny poems or quotes! > > P.P.S: This is a funny quote that I got > "I am NOBODY and NOBODY is perfect...that > makes me perfect!" Hi Star Kid Jan! Yes, that is a picture of me taken last year at my Buddhist temple. I was wearing only white clothes because it was taken on day 9 of a 10 day meditation retreat and the Thai tradition is to wear all white while staying in a Buddhist temple. It is to symbolize purity. There is a funny story behind that picture I can tell you. On some of the days during the retreat the little girl that you see in the picture would come with her mother who cooked for the monks. While her mother was working in the kitchen, this little girl would like to follow me around and do everything I would do. When I took away empty dishes from the monks, she would take away dishes also (being big enough to carry only a spoon or a fork). The monks thought it was the cutest thing and were amazed because this little girl doesn't normally do that and is pretty shy. Well, at the end of the meal, the monks give a blessing and it is customary for everyone to kneel and put their hands together in a wai…like you see in the picture. Since that is what I did, that is what this little girl did. On this next to last day of the retreat, the abbot of the temple motioned to one of the women in the kitchen to take a picture of the two of us kneeling. The monks did their traditional chant about THREE TIMES in a row while the woman looked for the camera! I am kind of smiling in the picture because it took so long to find the camera, some of the monks are smiling while chanting (because they are doing the chant for so long), and yet this little girl didn't get up until the chanting was over! ;-) The little girl is three-years-old and is Thai. About your other question, I teach high school…but I could probably teach younger grades also. I like to teach high school because it keeps me mindful of life's suffering…hehehe..just kidding. Okay, about that quote you don't quite understand about Westerners becoming interested in Buddhism: "The leaf of this tree, entrusted to my garden from the east, offers the experience of secret meaning."- Goethe. This quote is using a metaphor, which is when you compare two things that are not the same. In this quote, Buddhism is being compared to a tree; like the symbolic `Tree of Knowledge' that comes from Judaic/Christian mythology. Goethe is saying that this tree of Buddhism has been 'entrusted' to his garden (like it is something valuable and rare that he has to protect), which is from the east (meaning India, where Buddhism originated). I am not sure if he means the tree is from the east or if his whole garden is from the east, but I am going to assume he means the tree is from the east. Goethe then explains that the leaf from this tree offers secret meaning, which means the teaching of Buddhism. Jan, it is no wonder that you don't understand this quote because it is very old- fashioned. Before Buddhism became widely known and dispersed in the west, it was considered a type of `rarity' and `secret'; but it really isn't either of those things. Buddhism is about as `plain as the nose on your face' and it isn't found in just the east, it is in everything all around the world. There is nothing secretive about Buddhism that only a few people can keep in their `secret gardens'. So, appreciate this quote for its historical significance, but I wouldn't recommend that you view Buddhism like Goethe describes it. Westerners, for the most part, don't view Buddhism like this anymore. Thank you for the book recommendations, Jan, and I will try to seek them out. The one about the Buddha in different countries sounds very interesting. Take care and keep reading! ;-) Metta, James PS. For some variety, I will give you some funny quotes: When everything's coming your way, you're in the wrong lane. I used to have an open mind but my brains kept falling out. Do you have trouble making up your mind? Well, yes or no? If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something. Many people quit looking for work when they find a job. When I'm not in my right mind, my left mind gets pretty crowded. Everyone has a photographic memory. Some just don't have film. 20179 From: Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi, Rob (and Christine) - I just wrote a long response to this post, using AOL remotely (I'm not home), and my post was lost! I'll try again, more briefly. In a message dated 3/10/2003 5:16:12 AM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Hi Christine, > > Here are my two cents worth... > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > ****Some of us were not sure if vipaka is experienced only through > > the five sense doors. What about the arising of an unpleasant > > thought - it feels like it should be vipaka ... but people were > sure > > it wasn't. > > ===== > > The mind-door citta process has some bhavanga cittas (vipaka from > last thought of last existence), followed by a mind-door adverting > citta (functional) followed by seven javana cittas (to create kamma) > and sometimes capped off with two registration cittas. > > It is the mind-door adverting citta that conditions the arising of > the javana cittas, but it is purely functional, not a vipaka citta. > The most important question is, "what conditions the arising of the > functional mind-door adverting citta?" I believe that the answer > is "previous concepts plus accumulations". Previous concepts can be > triggered by almost anything, but what creates "accumulations"? > Accumulations are habits created by javana cittas (yes, the same > guys responsible for kammic seeds that can mature into vipaka). > > I like the rose in front of me. This liking of the rose created a > kammic seed that may eventually (when conditions are right) develop > into a vipaka citta. In addition, the liking of the rose creates an > impression, a habit, an accumulation, towards the liking of roses. > This impression / habit / accumulation can condition the arising of > attachment to roses as a mind-door citta process. > > In summary, it is not vipaka that triggers mind-door citta > processes, but rather accumulations (accumulations and vipaka have > the same heritage; javana cittas). ------------------------------- Howard: I'm not clear on this. When we think about a rose, think about watering it, or plan the growing of roses, these complex trains of mind-door processes involve many, many elementary mind objects and their cognition. What is the category of these? Why are they any the less kamma vipaka than the experience of hardness arising as I am curently typing the keyboard keys? --------------------------- > > ===== > > > ****Regarding cetana - when does cetana 'co-ordinate' and when > does > > it 'will'? Some of us thought it co-ordinates vipaka-citta, and > both > > co-ordinates and wills 'something else'. (Can't read my > writing ... > > What is the term for 'something else'?) > > ===== > > Cetana coordinates in all cittas. Cetana "wills" only in javana > cittas where "Like a boss who directs workers and also does his > share of the work as well; it is 'exceedingly energetic'". > > ===== > > > ****I know this is an oldie but a goodie - Can an object be > > inherently pleasant or inherently unpleasant - isn't it the > > experience/perception that arises that makes it so? Two people > > seeing/hearing/tasting the same object, may have different > pleasant > > or unpleasant perceptions of it ... (A paramatta dhamma is > > experienced by only one person (one vithi-citta?). ) Is > the 'inherent > > nature'question generally agreed upon among Abhidhamma scholars or > is > > there room for differences of opinion? > > ===== > > You might be interested in my long post on Sanna. > > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15923.html > > Visible object is ALWAYS accompanied by neutral feeling. When sanna > links the current visible object with a long-term memory of the same > object (i.e. when I name it as "flower"), then in the next set of > mind-door citta processes, sanna grabs the "feeling" (pleasant / > unpleasant / neutral) associated with the long-term memory. This > feeling conditions the arising of craving, the next link in > dependent origination. ------------------------------ Howard: I think that what you write here is quite correct but it could be misinterpreted. There is a sutta which says something to the effect "... what one feels, one perceives ..." and then thinks about, mentally proliferates and concocts etc. One might think that parts of what you say here imply the opposite (that what one perceives, one feels). I understand you to be saying something along the following lines: An image is condition for neutral feeling; that feeling conditions the carving out of a part of the image and identifying of it (as a 'flower'), from this there arises contact through the mind-door with the thought of 'flower', and that leads (typically, according to inclination) to pleasant feeling. So, throughout, phassa conditions vedana, and vedana, in turn, conditions sa~n~na. Am I correct? ------------------------------- > > ===== > > > > > ****In Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on Kamma, he says '... it can be > said > > of kamma that kamma pushes for an opportunity to mature" - what > does > > this mean, it seems to almost personify kamma? (- this question is > by > > one of the non-dsg members of the weekend group. We're working on > > him.) > > ===== > > As I mentioned above, javana cittas create kammic seeds and > accumulations (habits). The accumulation (habit) can also be one of > the conditions for a kammic seed to mature into vipaka. > > ===== > > Christine, I have skipped some of the questions that were too tough > for me. The ones that I skipped are: > > Is sammuti-sacca (conventional truth as opposed to paramattha- > sacca) a synonym for Pannatti? > > Do kusala and akusala cittas have a collective name? Is it simply > javanna citta? > > When cetana wills, what does it will? > > Metta - is it a cetasika or citta? Is it a type of adosa? > > > > Hope this helps, let me know if I created additional > confusion. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) ========================= With metta, Howard 20180 From: bodhi342 Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 8:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Jon, I appreciate your thoughtful response, which actually addresses parts of the paradox I was trying to get at, by using the issue of concepts. We probably can manage various learning methods simultaneously, [alright, sequentially ;-) ]. IMO the main thing is avoiding premature closure on 'other' methods and constructs, e.g. concepts, until understanding the present dhammas becomes natural and continous. Again IMO there is no need to reject concepts while trying to make some point, and then blithely utilizing them, sometimes in the next sentence! This apparently schizophrenic approach can be unsettling to u.w. such as me. There have been some interesting observations on science and Buddha's teachings. The only way to explore this exciting area (either of convergence or divergence) is to use concepts. Sound, its effect on the ear and mind-doors etc. can be fruitfully explored using both constructs. I believe it cannot be done by being fanatically averse to 'lowly' concepts. I hope this is not just my clinging to concepts, but rather an appreciation for their limited value. I (being an u.w. interested in the rising and falling of theories in the span of recent history) cannot intelligently comment on 'correct answers', and suspect that in many cases, correctness is just another delusion. Thanks for your interest and insights. dharam --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Dharam > > --- bodhi342 wrote: > "If a tree falls in the > woods with none to hear, is there a sound?" > > > > Hi Rob M, > > > > What is a tree, what is falling, what are woods, what is none? > > Just > > more mental proliferation taking concepts to be real? Can we even > > get to address your philosophical question? > > > > uninstructed worldling, > > dharam > > I agree with the thrust of your post here, that such questions per se > have little or no relevance to the development of an understanding of > the presently arising dhammas. > > On the other hand, I would not see the question as being necessarily > a purely philosophical one, in that sound like every other dhamma is > said to arise because of conditions and those conditions can be found > enumerated and explained in different parts of the teachings. It > doesn't hurt to look into some of these lesser studied areas, since > they are all there for a reason. > > Also, from another angle, while knowing the answer no doubt won't get > one any closer to enlightenment, it's conceivable that holding a > positive view that is contrary to the 'correct answer' could be an > obstacle to the development of understanding (not that I'm suggesting > that is likely to be the case among any memebers here ;-)). > > Thanks for your observations. > > (Fellow u.w.) Jon 20181 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 9:59am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 3. Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 3. We read in the ³Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning² (Paramatthajotikå), Commentary to the Minor Collection (Khuddakapåìha), of the Khuddakanikåya, in the Commentary to the ³Good Omen Discourse²(Mangala Sutta) about the first Council. We read that the venerable Mahå-Kassapa, the venerable Upåli, the venerable Ånanda and the other arahats, fivehundred bhikkhus in all, met for the first rehearsal of the Dhamma Vinaya, near the door of the Sattapaùùi Cave, on the slopes of the Vebhåra Rock, in Råjagaha. We read that when certain deities saw the venerable Ånanda sitting in the seat for (anouncing) the True Dhamma, surrounded by the group of those who had attained mastery (in it), they had the following thought: ³This venerable one, the Videhan Seer, is the Blessed One¹s natural heir as a shoot of the Sakyan clan, and he was five times signalized in the Foremost-in-this (Discourse) and possesses the Four Wonderful and Marvellous Ideas that make him dear and precious to the four kinds of assembly 2 ; so surely, after inheriting the kingdom of the Blessed One¹s True Dhamma, he has become an Enlightened One.² Knowing with his mind the thoughts in those deities¹ minds, he did not connive at such misattribution to him of non-existent special qualities. Consequently, in order to show his own discipleship, he said: ŒEvaÿ me suttaÿ. Ekaÿ samayaÿ bhagavå Såvatthiyaÿ viharati Jetavane Anåthapindikassa åråme...¹ which means: Thus have I heard. On one occasion the Blessed One was living at Såvatthí in Jeta¹s Wood, Anåthapindika¹s Park... These words were spoken by the venerable Ånanda, more than twothousand and fivehundred years ago. If we today just hear the words, ³Thus have I heard², we are impressed by the thoughts of the venerable Ånanda who on the occasion of the first rehearsal made it clear that he was only a disciple. That is why he said, ³Thus have I heard². He did not speak his own words, because he was not the Exalted One. He was only a disciple and had heard these words from the Exalted One. When Buddhists hear the words, ³Thus have I heard², even after more than twothousand and fivehundred years have passed, enthusiasm and joy can arise because they have an opportunity to hear these words again. Thus, they can consider the Buddha¹s teachings when he was dwelling in the Jeta Grove or at other places. We read further on: Meanwhile the five hundred Arahants and many thousand deities applauded the venerable Ånanda, saying ³Good (sådhu), good², while there was a great earth-tremor with a rain of various kinds of flowers falling from the sky and many other manifested marvels, and in many deities a sense of urgency arose (with the thought) ³What we heard in the Blessed One¹s presence is now reproduced in his absence too!² Footnote: 2. The four kinds of assembly are monks, nuns, men and women layfollowers. They rejoice when seeing Ånanda, rejoice when hearing him preach, and they are ill at ease when he is silent (Dialogues of the Buddha, no. XVI, 145. 20182 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:53am Subject: Seclusion Hi all, I would be interested to have a conversation on seclusion with anyone who is interested. To start the conversation, I will put forth the questions: What does it mean by seclusion? What are the benefits of seclusion? Regards, Victor 20183 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 2:16pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Howard, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > ------------------------------- > Howard: > I'm not clear on this. When we think about a rose, think about watering it, or plan the growing of roses, these complex trains of mind-door processes involve many, many elementary mind objects and their cognition. What is the category of these? Why are they any the less kamma vipaka than the experience of hardness arising as I am curently typing the keyboard keys? > --------------------------- As part of a sense-door citta process we have: - Sense-door adverting: functional - Sense-door consciousness: vipaka - Receiving consciousness: vipaka - Investigating consciousness: vipaka - Determining consciousness: functional - Javana cittas: akusala or kusala The vipaka cittas (sense-door consciousness + receiving + investigating) are "what happens to us", they are the accepting of sensory input. It is important to note that it is not the vipaka cittas which condition the javana cittas. The javana cittas are conditioned by the determining citta (a functional citta) which it tied to our accumulations (our habits). The mind-door citta process is simpler; in part: - Mind-door adverting: functional (same as determining citta) - Javana cittas: akusala or kusala In both cases (sense-door and mind-door), we can say that our javana cittas arise because of our habits. In the case of the sense-door citta process, our habits are triggered by an external object. In the case of the mind-door citta process, our habits are triggered by an internal object (a concept). Though sense-door citta process involves vipaka citta (to "accept sensory input"), while the mind- door citta process does not, they are fundamentally similar; habits conditon the arising of javana cittas. These habits are the results of javana cittas. Here is a paragraph summarized from Bikhu Bodhi's "Questions on Kamma": http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It has a tendency to repeat itself and reproduce itself. As these actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is a sum of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated kamma. By yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses of the mind, we slowly build up a greedy character, an aggressive character or a deluded character. By resisting these unwholesome desires, we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome qualities. We develop a generous character, a loving and a compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, and as we change our character we change our total being. That is why the Buddha emphasizes the need to be mindful of every action, of every choice. Every choice has a tremendous potential for the future. > ------------------------------ > Howard: > I think that what you write here is quite correct but it could be misinterpreted. There is a sutta which says something to the effect "... what one feels, one perceives ..." and then thinks about, mentally proliferates and concocts etc. One might think that parts of what you say here imply the opposite (that what one perceives, one feels). I understand you to be saying something along the following lines: An image is condition for neutral feeling; that feeling conditions the carving out of a part of the image and identifying of it (as a 'flower'), from this there arises contact through the mind-door with the thought of 'flower', and that leads (typically, according to inclination) to pleasant feeling. So, throughout, phassa conditions vedana, and vedana, in turn, conditions sa~n~na. Am I correct? ===== I love it when you quote Suttas! You are referring to the Honeyball Sutta (Mn18). Our views on this subject are almost the same. My understanding is included in my message 15923, in which I talk about sanna and analyze that part of the the Honeyball Sutta which you quoted. There seem to be two camps: - Eye-door consciousness accepts a dot of colour which is later constructed into a mental object - Eye-door conscuousness accepts a "snapshot" image which is later carved out into a mental object I happen to be a "dot" person, while you are a "snapshot" person; it is not a big deal because we end up at the same place. What you have called "contact through the mind-door with the thought of 'flower'", I have described as "naming". Th key issue of "inheriting" the feeling courtesy of our memory and associating it with the current concept is the same; and this is what drives us to craving, the next link of the chain of dependent origination. Metta, Rob M :-) 20184 From: azita gill Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Azita > > You wrote in a post (some time ago now): [SNIP] > This is correct, I believe. According to Nina's > 'Cetasikas' Ch 16, > both ditthi and mana arise with citta rooted in > lobha, but mana > arises with the lobha-mula citta that is not > accompanied by mana. > > > But in my observation, it would seem that they > > somehow are very closely connected. for example, > when > > we are comparing ourselves to the others, we have > this > > view of the others as being something to be > compared > > with. Surely we are having a 'view' at that > moment. > > I have just the same kind of idea, they seem to be > closely connected. > In fact of course, from all the 'objective' > evidence, they are not, > so it's interesting to consider why it should appear > this way. (By > 'objective evidence' here I refer to (a) the > descriptions of each > given in the texts, and (b) the fact that while > ditthi is eradicated > upon the attainment of the first stage of the path, > mana is not > eradicated until the final stage, so there is plenty > of opportunity > for mana to arise even when there is no longer any > trace of ditthi > remaining.) > > I don't know if this helps. It was useful for me, > anyway ;-)) > > Jon > Dear Jon, thanx, I see again how necessary it is to know the Abhidhamma, to know that these 2 cannot arise together. I have actually found it very helpful to know that at the stage of sotapanna, ditthi is eradicated and mana can still arise when conditions are right. > From 'Cetasikas' Chs 16, 17 > > A. Ditthi > The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter I, 248) gives > the following > definition of wrong view, ditthi: > … It has unwise conviction as characteristic; > perversion as function; > wrong conviction as manifestation; the desire not to > see the ariyans > as proximate cause. It should be regarded as the > highest fault. ... > > The Dhammasangaùi (§38) calls ditthi a “wrong road” > and the > Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter II, 253) explains: > ... From being not the right path, it is a “wrong > path”...........snip.... > > B. Conceit > Conceit, måna, is another akusala cetasika. There is > conceit or pride > when we consider ourselves important. Because of > conceit we may > compare ourselves with others. There can be conceit > when we think > ourselves better, equal or less than someone else. > We may believe > that there can be conceit only when we think > ourselves better than > someone else, but this is not so. There can be a > kind of upholding of > ourselves, of making ourselves important, while we > compare ourselves > with someone else, no matter in what way, and that > is conceit. > > We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): > What is the Fetter of conceit? > Conceit at the thought “I am the better man”; > conceit at the thought > “I am as good (as they)”; conceit at the thought “I > am lowly”- all > such sort of conceit, overweening conceitedness, > loftiness, > haughtiness, flaunting a flag, assumption, desire of > the heart for > self-advertisement— this is called conceit. > > The three ways of comparing oneself with others may > occur in someone > who is actually superior, in someone who is actually > equal and in > someone who is actually inferior. Under this aspect > there are nine > kinds of conceit. ... > Azita: I have a Q. how do you get nine out of this? Is it something like accompanied by good feeling/bad feeling/prompted/unpromted type of citta?? BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A Manual of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them to two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' and it says that conceit is found in the four types of citta dissociated with wrong view. So nine?? I'm a little confused. > The Atthasåliní (II, Part IX, Chapter III, 256) > gives the following > definition of conceit: > ... Herein conceit is fancying (deeming, vain > imagining). It has > haughtiness as characteristic, self-praise as > function, desire to > (advertise self like) a banner as manifestation, > greed dissociated > from opinionativeness as proximate cause, and should > be regarded as > (a form of) lunacy. > > hope you are well, Jon, and are you still in Oz? Azita > > _______________________________________________________________________ > === message truncated === 20185 From: Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 54, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Hi Sarah, I couldn't follow the tika either, so I ignored it. The commentary makes sense without it anyway. The gist of it seems to be a bunch of guys who want release (self improvement) band together and vow to not take a step if a defilement arises in their mind and they fail to restrain it. So these guys are walking down the road single file and one of them has a bad thought he can't restrain. So he stops and everyone behind him stops also. If he is lucky, this guy is so ashamed because his friends see he has an unrestrained bad thought, that he has a path moment and becomes a sotapanna on the spot. If not, he somehow restrains the thought and takes up the subject of meditation and everyone starts walking again. I think an unrestrained bad thought (defilement) is, in this case, any wandering of attention from the meditation subject. So the idea is to correct that immediately as they are walking down the road, but if they space out for several minutes they have to stop. That was the discipline they made up for themselves. Larry 20186 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 10, 2003 10:24pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Christine, Sounds like you all had a very enjoyable and dhamma-packed weekend. the presentations sound interesting and I greatly look forward to hearing more from the others as well. i note that Smokey Joe doesn’t even get a mention this time and silver-crested cockatoos are our companions here as well, as you know;-) Fortunately, no yearning cows in the centre of Hong Kong to distract me from giving brief comment to your qus. As I’m a bit rushed, I won’t add any references , but you’re most welcome to come back and question/challenge anything further. I’ll be glad of any corrections. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > ****Some of us were not sure if vipaka is experienced only through > the five sense doors. What about the arising of an unpleasant > thought - it feels like it should be vipaka ... but people were sure > it wasn't. ======= Tadarammana (registering consciousness) is vipaka and arises in sense door or mind door processes. No tot he second qu - unpleasant thought (i.e thinking accompanied by unpleasant feeling of concepts) is never vipaka. “Counter-intuitive” is common to paraphrase Mike;-) ======== > ****Is sammuti-sacca (conventional truth as opposed to paramattha- > sacca) a synonym for Pannatti. Some of us think 'yes'. (I'm still > figuring out what pannatti is :-)) ======== No, but sammuti-sacca consists of pannatti. Many pannatti (e.g RobK’s purple flying elephants), are not any kind of sacca, conventional or ultimate. ======== > ****Regarding cetana - when does cetana 'co-ordinate' and when does > it 'will'? Some of us thought it co-ordinates vipaka-citta, and both > co-ordinates and wills 'something else'. (Can't read my writing ... > What is the term for 'something else'?) Do kusala and akusala cittas > have a collective name? Is it simply javanna citta? When cetana > wills, what does it will? ======== Cetana always has the function of co-ordinating by way of accompanying all types of citta (kusala, akusala, vipaka, kiriya) as conascent kamma condition (sahajata kamma-paccaya). It has the function of ‘willing’ or producing results (i.e vipaka cittas or particular rupas in the body, e.g sense bases, sex, heart-base and other kamaaja rupas) only in the javana process, accumulating and supporting, preventing or directly producing results. This is as asynchronous kamma paccaya (naa.nakkhani.ka kamma-paccaya) ========= > ****I know this is an oldie but a goodie - Can an object be > inherently pleasant or inherently unpleasant - isn't it the > experience/perception that arises that makes it so? Two people > seeing/hearing/tasting the same object, may have different pleasant > or unpleasant perceptions of it ... (A paramatta dhamma is > experienced by only one person (one vithi-citta?). ) Is the 'inherent > nature'question generally agreed upon among Abhidhamma scholars or is > there room for differences of opinion? ========= The objects experienced through the 5 senses are inherently pleasant or unpleasant. The experiencing, eg, the seeing or hearing just experiences. Succeeding cittas in the sense door javana process or the mind door process are kusala or akusala (except arahants) and depend on many factors including the object experienced and accumulations. There may be attachment to an unpleasant object or aversion to a pleasant one....just depends. Happy to be prompted to write more with refs.....As I've read (and understood) in the Abh text and commentaries, this is agreed. Amongst contemporary scholars, there's plenty of room for 'differences of opinion';-) A paramattha dhamma or a pannatti (concept) are experienced by one citta at a time - one vithi citta (one citta in a process) as you say. ============ > ****In Bhikkhu Bodhi's article on Kamma, he says '... it can be said > of kamma that kamma pushes for an opportunity to mature" - what does > this mean, it seems to almost personify kamma? (- this question is by > one of the non-dsg members of the weekend group. We're working on > him.) ============= pass...just a turn of phrase..... like a seed ready to bring a result??? I expect Rob M has given an answer for this. =============== > *****Metta - is it a cetasika or citta? Is it a type of adosa? I'm > sure there were lots of questions on metta that I've missed - apart > from the usual 'does one radiate metta towards self, or only > towards others, or not at all as it is only an uncontrollable mind > moment'. ============= Metta is included under the cetasika adosa(non-hatred), just as the brahma vihara, upekkha (equanimity) is included under tatramajjhataa (impartiality). The brahma viharas (illimitables or heavenly abodes) have another being(s) as object. Adosa and upekkha, non-hatred and equanimity are present in all sobhana (beautiful) cittas, regardless of the object. Remember, no self to radiate anything;-) Also, all cittas and accompanying cetasikas are conditioned (uncontrollable). This doesn’t mean wholesome states cannot be developed or cannot have people as object. =============== > Hopefully if others feel there were other questions that I've missed > (particularly that bit about the jivitindriya lifeforce(?) rupa > kalapa > thingy etc. etc.) maybe they will put forward their own "Evam me > sutam ..." =============== Very good questions. I’ll look f/w to hearing any conclusions that were reached that were different. Also looking f/w to hearing more on these other points from Ken H, Andrew and Steve. I’ve deliberately ignored Rob M’s and Howard’s posts to keep this quick and simple. I look f/w to reading them after class today;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20187 From: rahula_80 Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:17am Subject: Advise Needed Hi, It's about a friend of mine. She is not a Buddhist. (I mean she is not religious.) She had a boyfriend but he died. Now she have another boyfriend, but she still can't let go of her previous boyfriend. Is there anything that can be done to help her? Thanks, Rahula 20188 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:49am Subject: Questions for YOU! Hi James, Sorry that I didn't send you a letter for a long time, it's because I had a holiday to malaysia to visit my family and relatives. I kind of got confused, while reading the letter half way, but I think I kind of understand the letter ( no. 18856). I like the part when you said 'It was at this time that I felt that true wisdom wasn't cold and logical, but optimistic and loving.' I think I'm half Christian because I don't go to church. Do Buddhists goes to any places during the week like the Christian does? Do Buddhists have any prayers like the Christian does? Do Buddhists have to pray before eating? Take care and Happy New Year! Love Sandy 20189 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:51am Subject: Re: Kom Dear Kom, I have read through your long letter. Your answers are meaningful and help me a lot. Today (Saturday), I went to school to do my artwork. Luckily, yesterday when I told my mother about this, we didn't have any quarrel. I think it is because she knows I really need to do the work in school. Sometimes when I finish reading some ghost stories or films about ghosts, I feel scared and always think the ghosts are harmful to me. So what can I do to solve these kinds of problmes? Lastly, what do you think of the coming war between America and Iraq from a Buddhist point of view? Some people say that this war would lead to the end of the world. Is it true? From Kimmy 20190 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:53am Subject: Kiana Dear Kiana, I have read through the book "Ten lives of the Buddha" which you introduced to me before. The pictures inside are really nice, they're different from those drawn nowadays. The story I like the most is " Mahajanaka The Lost Prince". It stated out clearly about the human nature. In our daily lives, we always feel jealous towards somebody. However, after reading this story, I think jealousy is just something silly and nonsence. From Kimmy 20191 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 5:11am Subject: Re: Advise Needed Hi Rahula, Tough one. My first reaction is to emphasize the importance of living in the present moment. Learn from the past, have a direction for the future, but the present moment is the only true reality. If you are walking down the road and you are always looking into the far distance (the future), you can easily trip and fall. If you are walking down the road, but have your head turned so that you are looking behind you (the past), you can easily bump into something or wander off the road into the ditch. The way to arrive at your destination safely is to have most of your attention on where you currenly are and a small amount of your attention on your destination. There ain't much benefit to be had by looking backwards. This is my first reaction and first reactions are often wrong. Death of a close companion can impact one very deeply and superficial advice may not have much impact. Hope it helps. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rahula_80" wrote: > Hi, > > It's about a friend of mine. She is not a Buddhist. (I mean she is > not religious.) > > She had a boyfriend but he died. Now she have another boyfriend, but > she still can't let go of her previous boyfriend. > > Is there anything that can be done to help her? > > Thanks, Rahula 20192 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:35am Subject: RE: [dsg] ~ KoM~ !!! Hi Kiana! > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > From"The Dhammapada" I found that there were some > more sentences that impressed me much. > > always.> > > Nowadays the people think that they were really > unlucky of being jobless and they tried to kill > themselves, but yesterday I saw a T.V programme that > was about the girl that was burn without arms, she did > everything by her foot. She never gives up, and now > she even knew how to drive! So I think we should learn > from their patience and the power not to give up!!!! > We should not kill ourselves over such little things! > > Do you agree, Kom?I hope I can get your reply > soon^.^! > Thanks for sharing with me this very nice reminder. Here's another translation of the above pada from Thanissaro Bhikkhu http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/dhp/12.html If you hold yourself dear then guard, guard yourself well. The wise person would stay awake nursing himself in any of the three watches of the night, the three stages of life. If we know that we hold ourselves dear, then we should keep it the best we can. How? We can keep ourselves well by being mindful, by not being forgetful to give, to avoid doing bad deeds or saying bad speeches, and to develop the knowledge and mind as best as we can. If we do these well, regardless of how old we are, then we are said to be keeping or guarding ourselves well. Since good causes always lead to good results - this is a natural law, then we can keep ourselves well by having good causes. I think human life is quite precious, especially during the time when we can truly learn who we really are. It is hard to be born as a human being, for it must be a good cause that gives result in being born as a human. It is even harder to have friends who can point us the good way, that would lead us to the end of suffering. So, we should definitely keep hope, for death is not going to solve our problems. Do you know what happen after death? If you are not so sure, given that death can be so near, then we should always be as good as we can. Thanks for making my name look so happy, ;-) ~KoM~ 20193 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 7:36am Subject: RE: [dsg] ~ KoM~ !!! Thanks, Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > I've just tracked this one down and it's no 157. That was very helpful. kom 20194 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Abhidhamma and science Dear TG, Rob M and all, op 09-03-2003 19:42 schreef TGrand458@a... op TGrand458@a...: TG:> The heart base is one, the object of sight, sound > not "meeting" the eye, ear is another. (We can only experience contacts.) > Light does indeed meet the eye, sound does indeed meet the ear. I know nothing about science. I have only one point that may be of interest: sound meeting the ear: it is far more complex in the teaching of the abh: sound does not arise alone, it is accompanied by the four great elements and by colour, flavour, smell and nutritive essence, eight rupas. Sound can hurt your ear: what is that? Not the sound itself, this can only be heard, it cannot cause painful feeling. But the accompanying earth element is so forceful. Thus, when we consider what you say about meeting, we have to be careful what we mean by meeting, meeting in what sense? The same with colour. We have to be careful using the term light, but it is OK if you mean: only that what can be seen. In science light means something else again. There could be confusion because of the terms used. Also with regard to sound waves, dots, retina, etc. there may be confusion: what is the science, what is the Abhidhamma. They have different aims. If we mix them we shall become confused as to ultimate realities: the dhammas which each have their own unalterable characteristic that can be directly known without having to name it. It is very good you write about these points, they are useful to discuss. Do bring up other points you find contradictory. Feel free to speak out. Otherwise they may hinder the understanding of the development of satipatthana. As to heartbase: I do not mind how it is called, it is just the physical base of many cittas. The decad of heartbase, or if you like the base decad arises at the first moment of life, it is produced by kamma. It is extremely tiny, but even now, the heartbase is an infinitesimally small rupa. It falls away immediately. The Commentators had no intention to teach medical science, they wanted to point out that cittas in our plane of life do not float in the air, that they need a physical base of arising. When you read about heart, blood near the heart: just terms to make clear the reality of that rupa. Why heart? Because the Indian philosophy sees the heart as central, not the brain as we Westerners do. Now you can see the difference between pannatti: the term and the idea the term stands for, and the absolute reality of rupa that has its own unalterable characteristic. A term can also represent an absolute reality. You write: TG Where you say:< in terms of elements, mental factors and types of consciousness, and how they interact; Abhidhamma is a brilliant analysis. > What else is this but ultimate realities, that is, different from conventional terms? It may be the word ultimate realities you do not like. You can use another term, like: paramattha dhammas, dhammas, realities, actualities, or just nama and rupa. You say: < I don't know how accurate it is, but I consider it a useful model in contemplating conditionality> That is it, very important. You have to verify it yourself. Consider conditions right now. Is there a slight annoyance? This you also had in the past. It is conditioned by past moments. Are you seeing now? This is conditioned: visible object impinges on the eyesense so that seeing arises. Is there thinking of what you see? That is conditioned by seeing. You can verify that there isn't any moment of your life arising without conditions. That is Abhidhamma. The more you consider your life now, the clearer it will become what actually the Abhidhamma is. You write: "Abhidhamma a brilliant analysis": it is more than that, but again, you have to discover this yourself. You see it intellectually, you look at the Abhidhamma more from outside. Abhidhamma is closely connected with satipatthana, helping you to know yourself, to know your life at this moment. Take the meditation on asubha, the Foulness of the Body: spleen, liver, blood, etc. It looks like a lesson in anatomy, a lot of medical terms. What is the aim: know that the body consists of only rupas that arise and fall away immediately. Is there beauty in what falls away immediately? Only rupas: this is Abhidhamma. The Abhidhamma points to the purpose of the teachings, less delusion, detachment. We read in the Commentary to the Khuddakapatha, the Illustrator of Ultimate Meaning, I, The Three Refuges: "...the Enlightened One is like a clever physician because he is able to cure the sickness consisting in defilement by underlining tendencies; the True Idea (Dhamma) is like a rightly applied medicine; and the Community (Sangha) , whose underlying tenedencies to the sickness of defilement are quite cured, is like people whose sickness is quite cured by the application of the medicine." Decads ago I received a statue of Buddha the Healer from someone who had read my Buddhism in Daily Life (book based on conversations with A. Sujin). By means of this book he learnt about the Dhamma. In the beginning of this book I deal with citta. He said that had he not read this book he would not have been alive now. That is why he gave me this statue of Buddha the Healer. May we all see the Abhidhamma as the right medicine to cure our delusion and other defilements, Nina. 20195 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:08am Subject: Dhamma Issues 4, lakkhana rupas, no. 1. Dhamma Issues 4, lakkhana rupas, no. 1. Chapter 4. Lakkhana Rúpas, Characteristics inherent in all Rúpas Introduction [1] . There are four characteristics that are inherent in all rúpas. These characteristics have been classified as different rúpas, the lakkhaùa rúpas (lakkhaùa means characteristic), which are the following: arising or origination (upacaya 2) continuity or development (santati) decay or ageing (jaratå) falling away or impermanence (aniccatå) These four lakkhana rúpas are rúpas without their own distinct nature, asabhåva rúpas 3 , but they are themselves characteristics inherent in all rúpas. These four characteristics are different: the arising of rúpa, its development, its decay and its falling away. Origination, upacaya rúpa, and continuity, santati rúpa, are characteristics indicating the moments rúpa has arisen but not yet fallen away, whereas decay, jaratå rúpa, indicates the moment close to its falling away and impermanence, aniccatå rúpa, the moment of its falling away. The duration of rúpa when compared with the duration of citta is seventeen moments of citta. Rúpa does not fall away as quickly as citta. Citta can be subdivided into three infinitesimal moments, the moment of its arising, uppåda khana, the moment of its presence, titthi khana, and the moment of its falling away, bhanga khana. When we take this subdivision into account, rúpa lasts as long as three times seventeen, that is, fiftyone moments of citta. When we consider that rúpa lasts as long as fiftyone moments of citta, it will be clearer that all four characteristics manifest themselves during the time one group of rúpas lasts. This has been explained in this Issue. It reminds us how short-lived rupa is. As we shall see, the ³Atthasåliní² (II, Book II, Part I, Ch II, 327) does not deal with the four characteristics of rúpa which are manifest during the period a group of rúpas lasts, namely fiftyone moments of citta. It states that integration and continuity are synonyms for the production of matter, but here this commentary speaks in a general, conventional sense. There is the arising of groups of rúpas at the first moment of life, initial arising, ³integration² or ³accumulation², and there is the subsequent arising of groups of rúpas, ³continuity². The text states: ³... integration of matter has the characteristic of accumulation, the function of making material things arise at the beginning, leading them, or the fullness of matter as manifestation, integrated matter as proximate cause. Continuity has the characteristic of continuous occurrence, the function of linking or binding without a break, unbroken series as manifestation, matter bound up without a break as proximate cause.² As we see, the function of integration (upacaya) is production of rúpas at the beginning of life, whereas the function of continuity (santati) is linking without a break. The seemingly permanence of the body is merely due to the continuous production of new rúpas replacing the ones that have fallen away. Footnotes: 1. I have added this introduction. 2. åcaya is accumulation, and upacaya is initial arising. The prefix upa indicates here: initial. Upacaya is also translated as integration. It is the arising of rúpa. 20196 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 60, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Dear Larry, op 10-03-2003 02:06 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > This section, "Clear comprehension in going forwards and backwards", > might be a good one to contemplate on a long journey. It says in part (I > think) what we perceive as movement is really the successive arising > and ceasing of different dhammas, and also of course, there is no person > who goes. N: I liked this part and also this one: [T] As the break-up of sesamum seeds that are roasted takes place almost at once with the sound of crackling, the destruction of conditioned phenomena takes place almost at once with phenomena's arising. For, similar to the crackling sound, the sign of the breaking up of the sesamum seeds, is arising the sign (indicatory) of the (eventual) breaking up of conditioned phenomena, owing to the destruction (inevitably and) assuredly of phenomena that have arisen. [T] Who is the one that goes forward? Just no one. [ko eko abhikkamati nabhikkamati yeva]. 20197 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Howard's tree and a little hint Dear Larry op 09-03-2003 18:12 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Is the mental image of Howard's tree a nimita (sign)? Is a mental image > considered to be a concept? N: Yes, it is not a nama or rupa with its own unalterable characteristic that can be directly experienced such as hardness. We do not have to name hardness, it can be experienced through the bodysense, no matter what name we use.. L:The mental image for me is generic and > somewhat ideal, for Howard it may be specific and "flawed". Would the > generic and ideal image be a counterpart sign and the specific and > flawed image be a learning sign? N: No, I do not see it in this way. Counterpart sign and learning sign are referred to in connection with samatha only. Take the kasina: first there is the learning sign when one begins to develop calm, later on one does not have to look, there is already the counterpart sign. However, I understand that you want to compare different impressions of Howard's famous tree. Nina 20198 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] the Way, our own experience. Dear Larry, op 09-03-2003 19:56 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I've been slowly reading the concentration section in > Visuddhimagga and it's clarifying little by little but I think I need to > bring in Vimuttimagga and Patisambhidamagga. I haven't been able to find > anyone who is willing to describe their own experience (except Howard). > Where's all the arahants??? N: No arahats in this world anymore. My own experience? Life goes on as usual, as smallchap said. If there are special experiences now, those can be conditioned by former experiences. They are only conditioned namas and one should take them as such. It is important to find out whether there is clinging to those experiences.You study now Visuddhimagga on Concentration. As Suan pointed out it is important to be very cautious, he reminded us that only very few people can realize access concentration and attainment concentration (Visuddhimagga). I realize more that we are slow, slow, slow, as Swee Boon said. There is some more understanding what awareness is and what it is not, and how little we know. I understand more the connection between Abhidhamma and satipatthana, that whatever we study of the Tipitaka, even each sutta, whatever we consider and learn, it is the present reality. I like your direct questions, as always, Nina. 20199 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:36am Subject: On the Nonduality of Subject and Object Hi, all - The knowing of an object and the known object, itself, are mutually dependent, and, in that interdependence there is a form of nonduality implying the corelessness of each. On the other hand, it is an error, I think, to misinterpret this nonduality, this interdependence, as a unity or identity. As with all conditionality, what is implied is at the middle in some sense which avoids the extremes. But I would like to point out something that occurred to me while meditating earlier today - a matter of practicality. It occurred to me that there lies a danger at early stages of practice, and even further on, to put too much emphasis on the nonduality of subject and object (in the sense of the interdependence of the two). My reason is that at early and middle stages of practice the sense of self is stil extremely strong. When, particularly during meditation, we have this nonduality in the back of our minds, it may strengthen the tendency to identify subject with object, to identify the breath, say, or pleasant sensations with an alleged knowing self, and instead of awakening to the impersonality of these objects and the knowing of them, we merely grasp onto a kind of "unified self" of our making. Perhaps this is why one of the early stages in the cultivation of insight is, in fact, not an insight into nonduality of subject and object, but pretty much the opposite - the distinguishing of the knowing from the known, so that each can get to be seen as impersonal. Just some thoughts, folks. Comments anyone? With metta, Howard 20200 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:16pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Kom Hi Kimmy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > > Today (Saturday), I went > to school to do my artwork. Luckily, yesterday when I > told my mother about this, we didn't have any quarrel. > I think it is because she knows I really need to do > the work in school. The Buddha taught us that if there is a cause, there must be results. There cannot be results without a cause. What this means is that in a similar situation, people can behave differently. For example, suppose a friend tease you today, but you have been in a good mood, so you found the teasing funny and laugh with your friend. On the other hand, if you have had a bad day today, you may find the teasing not so funny, and feel angry about what is said. Anger (and quarrelling) is like this: there can't be one without the cause for it. However, when there is still a cause for anger in us, then one day we will quarrel with somebody, sometimes in the most surprising and absurd situation!!! > Sometimes when I finish reading some ghost stories or > films about ghosts, I feel scared and always think the > ghosts are harmful to me. So what can I do to solve > these kinds of problems? I think the answer is similar to above. When we read a scary story (ghost story, etc.), we feel naturally scared. When we think about scary stuffs (about ghost story that you have read, or about other things that are scary), then again we are scared. This is natural. You can be sure that as long as you can still be scared, when you see, hear, smell, taste, touch, or think scary stuffs, you can still be scared. Everyone, except the enlightened ones, is like this. I am scared when I watch scary movies too. > > Lastly, what do you think of the coming war between > America and Iraq from a Buddhist point of view? Some > people say that this war would lead to the end of the > world. Is it true? > The Buddha teaches about non-violence. There is a Buddha's saying (paraphrased) that: Ill-will is not ended by ill-will, but ill-will is ended by its opposite (metta or kindness). We ultimately cannot stop violence by violence. This may be hard to agree to, because in our daily life, sometimes we see that violence (or anger) works the way we want. You may say something bad to people sometimes, or use bad-attitude to talk to people, in hoping that you will get what you want, and sometimes, this seems to work. On the other hand, we don't know *exactly* why that works, but the Buddha said that good results cannot come from bad causes. Hence, non-violence cannot come from violence. You can see it for yourself. How does anger feel? Does it feel pretty? Does it feel ugly? You can see its results. When you are angry, do you feel happy? Does one (you or other people who are angry) look good when one is angry? Do we do nice thing for people when we are angry? If anger is bad, why should we expect anything good to come from bad thing (anger)? kom 20201 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 3:36pm Subject: Way 61, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 1. Clear comprehension in going forwards and backwards, p. 78 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html [Tika] Since the nature of mind and mental characteristics [citta cetasika] is to cognize or to have objects, mind and mental characteristics arise cognizing [vibhaventa] according to their strength [yatha balam] the thing become a condition to mind and mental characteristics, in the form of an object or the thing become an object-condition to mind and mental characteristics [attano arammana paccayabhutamattam]. And immediately after the accomplishment or the effectuating of that which comprises the nature or quality of mind and mental characteristics, and that quality is just the process of cognizing, there occurs the ceasing of mind and mental characteristics [tesam sabhava nipphatti anantaram nirodho]. [T] Material phenomena, however, do not take objects, have no objects [anarammana]; they do no cognizing. Material phenomena have to be cognized [pakasetabba]. Cognizibility's fulfillment [pakasetabba bhava nipphatti] occurs with sixteen thought-units [solasehi cittehi hoti]. Hence the reduction of material phenomena to seventeen thought-units, together with the one thought-unit of the past, is acknowledged, by the commentator, it is said [tasma eka cittakkhanatitena saha sattarasa cittakkhanayukata rupadhammanam icchitati]. [T] The swift changeability of mind or consciousness [viññanassa lahuparivattita] takes place through the mere combination of the other three mental aggregates with variform consciousness [the protean mind] and through the mere combination of objects with the same consciousness that is replete with variegation [lahuparivattana viññana visesassa sangati matta paccayataya tinnam khandhanam visaya sangatimattataya ca]. [T] The state of slow change of material form [rupassa garu parivattita] occurs owing to the condition of sluggishness of the primaries, namely, of the processes of extension, cohesion, caloricity and oscillation symbolized by earth, water, fire and air, respectively [dandha maha bhuta paccayataya]. [T] Only the Tathagata, he who has arrived at the Truth by traversing the Ancient Road of the Buddhas, has knowledge of the different processes according to reality [yatha bhutam nana dhatu ñanam kho pana tathagatasseva]. And by means of that knowledge of the Tathagata, the condition of pre-nascence as just a material phenomenon is stated. Likewise, by that knowledge of the Tathagata, the condition of post-nascence, too, is stated. Because of the statement of the pre-nascent and post-nascent conditions (the idea of) the identity of moment of occurrence of mental and material phenomena is just not fit. Therefore it was said by the commentator, the elder Ananda thus: Just according to the method stated should the meaning be understood here [tena ca pure jata paccayo rupa dhammova vutto paccha jata paccaya ca tathevati ruparupa dhammanam samanakkhanata na yujjateva tasma vuttanayenevettha attho veditabboti acariyena vuttam]. [T] This matter was stated in this way because it is easy to understand the simultaneity of cessation of mind and bodily or vocal expression [tadetam cittanuparivattiya viññattiya eka nirodha bhavassa suviññeyyatta evam vuttam].[22] [T] The meaning should be understood thus: Quite another conscious state (i.e., thought-units) ceases with the ceasing of the material form arisen at the starting point of the seventeenth thought-unit which is earlier to the material form together with expression that is physical, in short, seventeen thought-units arise and pass away during the life-time of all material form except those connected with expression [tato saviññattikena puretaram sattarasama cittassa uppadakkhane uppannena rupena saddhim aññam cittam nirujjhatiti attho veditabbo]. [T] The passage should be constructed thus: One conscious state ceases and quite another arises -- i.e., the conscious states at the arising and the ceasing of material phenomena are different [aññam cittam nirujjhati aññam uppajjate cittanti yojetabbam]. Indeed one is the word explanation; another is the explanation of the sense [añño hi saddakkamo añño atthakkamo]. While the conscious state arisen earlier, in ceasing, it ceases in just the form of proximity-condition and so forth, to another conscious state arising after it [yam hi purimuppannam cittam tam nirujjhantam aññassa paccha uppajjamanassa anantaradi paccaya bhaveneva nirujjhati]. Then another conscious state which has just obtained a condition, arises [yathaladdha paccayameva aññampi uppajjate cittam]. And here (mind is) in a different state by reason of the difference of occasion [avattha visesato cettha aññatha]. 22. Material phenomena of bodily or social expression which arise and cease together with the thought that motivates expression are ignored as too plain to be misunderstood. Only other phenomena of matter not connected with vocal or bodily expression are mentioned. 20202 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:00pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Advise Needed Hi Rahula, Tell your friend, whenever she thinks of her boyfriend who has died, to send him her love. If she can do this (it's an "energy" thing) the bottled up feelings will be released. This works with any loved one who has died. Certainly what you send, will be received. Larry 20203 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 60, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Hi Nina, Thanks for all your comments. Unfortunately, my mind is blank. Cheerio! Larry 20204 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, Thanks for helping us Cooranites with our questions. You wrote: ----------- > I like the rose in front of me. This liking of the rose created a kammic seed that may eventually (when conditions are right) develop into a vipaka citta. In addition, the liking of the rose creates an impression, a habit, an accumulation, towards the liking of roses. This impression / habit / accumulation can condition the arising of attachment to roses as a mind-door citta process. > ----------- At the eye-door citta-vithi [including its javana cittas], there is no rose, just visible object. At that stage, do the javana cittas have strong cetana, lobha, etc., for that paramattha dhamma? Or is it only in subsequent mind-door vithis, with rose concept as object, that kammic seed is created? Is it the case that many of the subsequent mind-door cittas take as their object, not the concept rose, but the actual visible rupa that has just fallen away? ------------ > Visible object is ALWAYS accompanied by neutral feeling. When sanna links the current visible object with a long-term memory of the same object (i.e. when I name it as "flower"), then in the next set of mind-door citta processes, sanna grabs the "feeling" (pleasant / unpleasant / neutral) associated with the long-term memory. This feeling conditions the arising of craving, the next link in dependent origination. > -------------- (I have discussed this recently with you and Htoo Niang, but I'm not sure if I've made my questions clear.) Are you saying that the pleasantness (as distinct from pleasant feeling), of the object of eye-door vipaka citta, is not determined until a concept, rose, has been formed? How is the javana citta of the eye-door vithi to respond, if it has no way of knowing [as it were], whether the paramattha dhamma in front of it, is pleasant or unpleasant? Don't you find it unsettling that the pleasantness or unpleasantness of vipaka, seems to be decided by subsequent, concept-thinking citta-vithis? Where is the natural law in that? (Perhaps your point is that the way we think, is determined by accumulated tendencies and therefore, by our past kusala and akusala.) I find it more compelling that all sense-door objects should be inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Exactly which of the two types would arise in any given case, would depend purely on the kamma that conditioned the co- arising sense-door consciousness (on whether it was kusala or akusala respectively). Obviously, this is not your preferred interpretation of the Abhidhamma, but could it be a consistent one? Kind regards. Ken H 20205 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:32pm Subject: Last conversations..... Dear Friends, I just talked to Jon’s mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she probably has a few days to live at most. She’s comfortable in a hospice and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering for her birthday celebration. She’s decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions and I can fully understand her decisions and didn’t try to persuade her otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she’s given to all those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can rejoice when we’ve done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When we’ve acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she’s never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those around her. I told her that all of us who’ve known her have been touched and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of herself. She’s fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her final words to take good care of Jon of whom she’s very, very fond. Of course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we’d do what I could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her other sons are with her in Adelaide. We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of view, life continues on. It’s just one life in so many and we may all meet again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the kindest assistance. I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my thoughts and feelings. It’s not always possible and one isn’t always given the warning. I’m also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? With metta, Sarah ===== 20206 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 10:43pm Subject: Re: I don't underdstand --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > > Thank you for your reply. I'm so sorry that you were > sick. > > Okay let's go onto something else.Now what do you mean > about compete against others to move to 'advanced' or > more 'wise' than them or if you brag about how special > you are because of your wisdom that will actually make > you fail a grade? Please write back to me. > > I'm 9 now, but still don't > understand some of these words. > > Please explain. Hope you get well soon! > > Janet Hi Star Kid Janet! Thank you for the wishes to get well. My cold is almost gone, but I still have it! It is really the pitts to be sick for so long, but that is life. First, I am really sorry about that letter where I used such big words. I have been kind of busy, sick, and I had so many Star Kids letters to respond to that I wrote that letter, and some others, too fast. For me, if I write a letter too fast I will use a lot of big words. Sometimes, I will use words so big I don't even know what they mean! ;-) just kidding. I will try to use more simple words and to not write so fast anymore. About your question, I meant that some people think that they are better than others because they are more `wise' than them. Let me explain from the beginning since I did such a bad job in that other letter. Janet, when you go to school you look at your classmates and you will think certain things about them. You will think, "That person is as smart as me," or "That person isn't as smart as me," or "That person is smarter than me." And all of these things may or may not be true. But if you look at other people and think "That person is not as good a human being as me," or "That person is a better human being than me," or "That person is the same kind of human being than me," than that is the wrong way of looking at things! Even though people are different in intelligence, or money, or looks, or talents, etc., that doesn't mean that the value of one person should be compared to the value of another. And this doesn't mean that we are all `worth' the same either; because that is another wrong way to look at things. Put simply, you cannot give a `value' to yourself or other people because what we think is a `person' isn't really that at all. It is just a bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but will be something else later on. In other words, if you were once a butterfly, then a snake, then a dolphin, then an ant eater, then a whale, then a human being, are you really a human being? No, not really. You are a lot of things…and none of them. So if you start to think that people are what they appear to be, you will get it all wrong. That is what I was trying to say. I hope this explains better. Take care and make sure you study hard in school. Metta, James 20207 From: Date: Tue Mar 11, 2003 11:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Last conversations..... Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/12/2003 5:32:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Dear Friends, > > I just talked to Jon’s mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she > probably has a few days to live at most. She’s comfortable in a hospice > and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with > many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering > for her birthday celebration. --------------------------------- Howard: It's a blessing that Jon has had this precious time with her. That's often not the case. -------------------------------- > > She’s decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions > and I can fully understand her decisions and didn’t try to persuade her > otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she’s given to all > those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can > rejoice when we’ve done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When > we’ve acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had > many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she’s > never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we > describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those > around her. I told her that all of us who’ve known her have been touched > and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or > anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she > didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of > herself. > > She’s fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her > final words to take good care of Jon of whom she’s very, very fond. Of > course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we’d do what I > could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her > other sons are with her in Adelaide. > > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It’s just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It’s not always possible and one isn’t always given > the warning. > > I’m also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last > conversations? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== ================================= Sarah, thank you for sharing this with us, the list members. My wife, Rita, and I send our loving wishes for peace to your mother, and to Jon and yourself. May you be well. With much metta, Howard 20208 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 0:32am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > ----------- > > At the eye-door citta-vithi [including its javana > cittas], there is no rose, just visible object. At that > stage, do the javana cittas have strong cetana, lobha, > etc., for that paramattha dhamma? Or is it only in > subsequent mind-door vithis, with rose concept as object, > that kammic seed is created? ===== A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about this in some detail in my blurb on sanna (message 15923). When we only have visible object, the javana cittas create very weak kamma. We may be attracted to the sense of sight (photon gratification principle), but nothing too weighty. In fact, lobha doesn't become weighty (full course) until we want something for our own. Kammic seeds are created with every citta-process, but they are quite weak until we get past the naming stage and we are well into working with concepts at that point. ===== > > > Is it the case that many of the subsequent mind-door > cittas take as their object, not the concept rose, but > the actual visible rupa that has just fallen away? > ====== The very first mind door citta process after the sense-door citta process "copies" the sense door object into a concept and from that point on, the mind door citta processes build and build the concept. ===== > > ------------ > > Visible object is ALWAYS accompanied by neutral > feeling. When sanna links the current visible object with > a long-term memory of the same object (i.e. when I name > it as "flower"), then in the next set of mind-door citta > processes, sanna grabs the "feeling" (pleasant / > unpleasant / neutral) associated with the long-term > memory. This feeling conditions the arising of craving, > the next link in dependent origination. > > -------------- > > (I have discussed this recently with you and Htoo Niang, > but I'm not sure if I've made my questions clear.) > > Are you saying that the pleasantness (as distinct from > pleasant feeling), of the object of eye-door vipaka > citta, is not determined until a concept, rose, has been > formed? How is the javana citta of the eye-door vithi to > respond, if it has no way of knowing [as it were], > whether the paramattha dhamma in front of it, is pleasant > or unpleasant? > > Don't you find it unsettling that the pleasantness or > unpleasantness of vipaka, seems to be decided by > subsequent, concept-thinking citta-vithis? Where is the > natural law in that? (Perhaps your point is that the way > we think, is determined by accumulated tendencies and > therefore, by our past kusala and akusala.) > > I find it more compelling that all sense-door objects > should be inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Exactly > which of the two types would arise in any given case, > would depend purely on the kamma that conditioned the co- > arising sense-door consciousness (on whether it was > kusala or akusala respectively). Obviously, this is not > your preferred interpretation of the Abhidhamma, but > could it be a consistent one? > ===== Ironically, I find it compelling that sense-door object must be inherently neutral with a feeling added later as a subjective process. Here are a few examples to explain why: - Sadam and Bush both see the same image (a US flag); feelings are different - My wife and I both smell seafood; feelings are different (I hate seafood, my wife loves it) - You and I both see the same person in a crowd (my wife); feelings are different To me that natural law is that positive or negative feeling must be attached to a concept, which is subjective. My understanding of the progression from visible object -> shape -> name -> feeling is discussed in my sanna post (15923) of two weeks ago. Hope that this helps and I hope to join one of your future discussions in person. Metta, Rob M :-) 20209 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 0:35am Subject: Re: Last conversations..... Hi Sarah, One of the things that I like most about the Dhamma is the healthy way in which death is viewed. Metta to you, to Jon and to your mother-in-law, Rob M :-) 20210 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 1:29am Subject: Re: Last conversations..... Dear Jon and Sarah, Jon, I'm sorry to learn that your dear mother is experiencing her final illness, but thankful that you knew in advance of her deteriorating health and were able to go to Adelaide and spend time with her. Your presence then would have been a priceless, calming gift for her. Just to see you, touch you, and listen to you would have been her heart's delight. She will be peaceful and happy when she thinks over her long life and realises how her children have grown into wholesome, successful, loving adults due largely to her early guidance and influence. May I, when my dying day comes, also be able to look back on such a job well done, and such a life well lived. Sarah, your letter "Last Conversations ..." was so honest that in reading it, I had tears in my eyes. Every reminder you gave is absolutely true. Thank you. I'm glad you are there for Jon at this moment - he couldn't have a better, or more loving, companion. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I just talked to Jon's mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she > probably has a few days to live at most. She's comfortable in a hospice > and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with > many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering > for her birthday celebration. > > She's decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions > and I can fully understand her decisions and didn't try to persuade her > otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she's given to all > those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can > rejoice when we've done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When > we've acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had > many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she's > never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we > describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those > around her. I told her that all of us who've known her have been touched > and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or > anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she > didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of > herself. > > She's fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her > final words to take good care of Jon of whom she's very, very fond. Of > course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we'd do what I > could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her > other sons are with her in Adelaide. > > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It's just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula's friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It's not always possible and one isn't always given > the warning. > > I'm also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== 20211 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:30am Subject: Philip: Reply to James Dear James, and everyone: I have received your letter. Thanks for using your time to write a letter to me. I think that my letter was more like a test about Buddhism rather than a letter. I don't quite agree with you about the "Buddhism is the most unique religion" thingy. What is wrong with Christianity? Did the Buddha die on a cross? Ha, got cha there! (Just joking). Well, what I am really trying to mean is, all religions have a special belief, and to me it doesn't occur that that makes a religion more unique than the others. Anyway, I have another load of questions waiting for you to answer: 1. Why do the people who believe in the Buddha shave their heads and use a lighted thingy to poke six holes on their head? What is the point of that? 2. How did you first come in touch with Buddhism? 3. Do you think that you have reached all the requirements that the Buddha required? 4. Why is Buddhism only popular in Asia, while Christianity is popular internationally? (Not to be offensive)? 5. Can you tell me the names of some of the Buddhas? (like the smiling one). 6. Well, you said that there are many Buddhas. Then why when I ask you when is the Buddha born, you didn't ask me which Buddha did I mean? OK, that is it. Thanks for the answers. If you have any questions about Christianity, do not hestitate to ask me. Yours sincerely Philip Chui 20212 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 2:32am Subject: Religion and non-self Hi, every body, I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the statue in the temple they all look like they are made out of gold, are they really? I found the most interesting information that Buddhism is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? I hope you guys get friendly with me. Bye. From Tom 20213 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 54, Comm, Clear Comprehension 1 Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > I couldn't follow the tika either, so I ignored it. ..... ;-) Ah, smart.... ..... >The commentary makes > sense without it anyway. ..... and after all, it’s meant to clarify the commentary... .... >The gist of it seems to be a bunch of guys who > want release (self improvement) band together and vow to not take a step > if a defilement arises in their mind and they fail to restrain it. So > these guys are walking down the road single file and one of them has a > bad thought he can't restrain. So he stops and everyone behind him stops > also. If he is lucky, this guy is so ashamed because his friends see he > has an unrestrained bad thought, that he has a path moment and becomes a > sotapanna on the spot. If not, he somehow restrains the thought and > takes up the subject of meditation and everyone starts walking again. > > I think an unrestrained bad thought (defilement) is, in this case, any > wandering of attention from the meditation subject. So the idea is to > correct that immediately as they are walking down the road, but if they > space out for several minutes they have to stop. That was the discipline > they made up for themselves. ..... ;-) I like your summary. These guys remind me of the kids making everything (even letter and essay writing) into a kind of game. Now if I were walking down the road with ‘these guys’, it would be very slow progress indeed. Like Nina, I’ve been missing your comments and questions. I think the recent extracts have contained some excellent reminders - I’ll try to fish out some. I also like the crackling sesame seeds like Nina, reminding us of the impermanence of realities. Jon likes cooking popcorn and roasting various seeds, so I’m very used to the crackling.... Metta and thx, Sarah ==== 20214 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Last conversations..... Hi Howard, --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Sarah - > Howard: > It's a blessing that Jon has had this precious time with her. That's > often not the case. > -------------------------------- Yes, both Jon and his mother greatly appreciate this. A few years ago he also had the good fortune to be able to do the same with his father who also lived til his late 80s, also with very little discomfort and also with full mental capacity til the end, seeming to ‘control’ his passing away as well, til everything was in order. As we know, kamma and so many other conditions are involved in these matters. I think this makes it easier to help us rejoice in others good fortune as in these examples and have acceptance and equanimity when there are not any opportunities for precious time together in other cases as there wasn't with my father. We’ve just decided Jon will go back down to Adelaide tomorrow nite and his mother says she’ll ‘hang on’ til he arrives. We’ll see.... at least she’s very happy now that there is the prospect of his being at her side or at least doing his best in this regard. > ================================= > Sarah, thank you for sharing this with us, the list members. My > wife, Rita, and I send our loving wishes for peace to your mother, and > to Jon and yourself. May you be well. ..... Actually I was rather emotional but wanted to quickly make notes from the discussion in case any of it might be helpful for Jon and the eulogy he’s making a few notes for. Meanwhile, thank you Howard and Rita for your very quick loving wishes as always and we hope you’re both enjoying your days with little Sarah, your new grandchild;-). At my mother-in-law’s recent birthday lunch, luckily her young great grandchild also attended, so it was very special for her. With metta, Sarah ===== 20215 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 4:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > One of the things that I like most about the Dhamma is the healthy > way in which death is viewed. > > Metta to you, to Jon and to your mother-in-law, > Rob M :-) ..... Thx for this. There was a little shock at mid-day when I got a call with notice, but I think that now we're all doing very well and my mother-in-law is very realistic and accepting of her state and condition. I think we're all counting our blessings at this stage and yes, the Dhamma reminds us that any sadness, natural as it is, is just connected with ourselves, our own feelings and our own attachments. Metta and kindness for others is never sad. Meanwhile, appreciating all your Dhamma considerations and reflections, Rob. Metta, Sarah ==== 20216 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and Conventional Events: A Brief Comment Howard, Sarah and Larry Thanks to Sarah for reminding me of Larry's post, and thanks to Larry for going to the trouble to find the right reference, and for setting out the sutta. (I did notice Larry's post at the time and meant to come back to it, but obviously forgot all about it later.) Here is a translation of the same passage by Bhikkhu Bodhi, together with a translation of the commentary on the meaning of the 4 terms in question, here translated as 'actuality', 'inerrancy', 'nototherwiseness' and 'specific conditionality': "Thus, monks, the actuality in this, the inerrancy, the nototherwiseness, specific conditionality: this is called dependent origination.[54]" [54], p742, from the commentary: "Actuality (tathataa) is said to indicate the occurrence of each particular phenomenon when its assemblage of appropriate conditions is present. Inerrancy (avitathataa) means that once its conditions have reached completeness there is no non occurrence, even for a moment, of the phenomenon due to be produced from those conditions. Nototherwiseness (ana~n~nathataa) means that there is no production of one phenomenon by another's conditions. The phrase specific conditionality [idappaccayataa] is used to refer to the (individual) conditions for ageing and death etc., or to the conditions taken as a group (paccayasamuuhato)." Just for information. Jon --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Jon & Howard, > > I think the extract from Larry's post pasted below should help. > Sarah > ***** ... > Larry wrote: ... > L:>Here is the sutta Kalupahana referenced: ... > Below is the relevant section. I inserted the pali. The translation > is slightly different: "Now what is dependent co-arising? From birth as a requisite condition comes aging & death. ... From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. Whether or not there is the arising of Tathagatas, this property stands -- thisregularity of the Dhamma, this orderliness of the Dhamma, this this/thatconditionality. The Tathagata directly awakens to that, breaks through to that. Directly awakening & breaking through to that, he declares it, teaches it, describes it, sets it forth. He reveals it, explains it, makes it plain, & says, 'Look.' From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. What's there in this way is a reality [TATHATAA], not an unreality [AVITATHATAA], not other than what it seems [ANA~N~NATHATAA], conditioned by this/that [IDAPPACCAYATAA]. This is called dependent co-arising." 20217 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Sarah, your letter "Last Conversations ..." was so honest that in > reading it, I had tears in my eyes. Every reminder you gave is > absolutely true. Thank you. I'm glad you are there for Jon at this > moment - he couldn't have a better, or more loving, companion. ..... Many thanks for your kind words. I know that your mother has also been ill and in hospital and as we are all so aware of here (on DSG), old age, sickness and death are close by all the time. I’d like to add the Salla Sutta in full at the end of the post as it’s quite short. I can never read it enough. Metta, Sarah ==== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-08a.html Sutta Nipata III.8 Salla Sutta The Arrow Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. For free distribution only. From The Discourse Collection: Selected Texts from the Sutta Nipata (WH 82), translated by John D. Ireland (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Unindicated and unknown is the length of life of those subject to death. Life is difficult and brief and bound up with suffering. There is no means by which those who are born will not die. Having reached old age, there is death. This is the natural course for a living being. With ripe fruits there is the constant danger that they will fall. In the same way, for those born and subject to death, there is always the fear of dying. Just as the pots made by a potter all end by being broken, so death is (the breaking up) of life. "The young and old, the foolish and the wise, all are stopped short by the power of death, all finally end in death. Of those overcome by death and passing to another world, a father cannot hold back his son, nor relatives a relation. See! While the relatives are looking on and weeping, one by one each mortal is led away like an ox to slaughter. "In this manner the world is afflicted by death and decay. But the wise do not grieve, having realized the nature of the world. You do not know the path by which they came or departed. Not seeing either end you lament in vain. If any benefit is gained by lamenting, the wise would do it. Only a fool would harm himself. Yet through weeping and sorrowing the mind does not become calm, but still more suffering is produced, the body is harmed and one becomes lean and pale, one merely hurts oneself. One cannot protect a departed one (peta) by that means. To grieve is in vain. "By not abandoning sorrow a being simply undergoes more suffering. Bewailing the dead he comes under the sway of sorrow. See other men faring according to their deeds! Hence beings tremble here with fear when they come into the power of death. Whatever they imagine, it (turns out) quite different from that. This is the sort of disappointment that exists. Look at the nature of the world! If a man lives for a hundred years, or even more, finally, he is separated from his circle of relatives and gives up his life in the end. Therefore, having listened to the Arahant,[1] one should give up lamenting. Seeing a dead body, one should know, "He will not be met by me again." As the fire in a burning house is extinguished with water, so a wise, discriminating, learned and sensible man should quickly drive away the sorrow that arises, as the wind (blows off) a piece of cotton. He who seeks happiness should withdraw the arrow: his own lamentations, longings and grief. "With the arrow withdrawn, unattached, he would attain to peace of mind; and when all sorrow has been transcended he is sorrow-free and has realized Nibbana. -- vv. 574-593 ================ 20218 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:13am Subject: Re: Religion and non-self Hi Tom, To your question "how did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self?", here is a reply that is worth considering: "Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Buddha categorically declare, without qualification, "There is no self".[1] Any question that begins along the lines of, "If there's no self..." is thus inherently misleading, dooming the questioner to a hopeless tangle of confusion -- "a thicket of [wrong] views" [MN 2]. Such questions are best put aside altogether in favor of more fruitful lines of questioning.[2]" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/bfaq.html#noself Take care, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi, every body, > > I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to > Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old > school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, > talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I > think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there > something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the > statue in the temple they all look like they are made > out of gold, are they really? > > I found the most interesting information that Buddhism > is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how > did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? > > I hope you guys get friendly with me. > Bye. > > From Tom 20219 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Dear Jon, Victor, Dharam et al., > > 'Modesty' and 'contentment' are the first two of the 'eight > thoughts of a > great person' (sorry if this has been pointed out earlier): ... > It occurs to me that (1) these 'thoughts' are in the conventional > terms of > the suttas and as such maybe refer to ideas and concepts rather > than to > paramattha dhammas (?) and (2) the Buddha spoke this discourse to > Anuruddha > shortly before his total enlightenment so may refer to very > rarified states. > > Still an old favorite, though. > > mike No, this hadn't been pointed out before, so your post is most welcome. As to your points (1) and (2), in general I would agree. It seems to me that a (great) person having these thoughts would only do so based on developed understanding (panna), so they would reflect aspects of the development of the path (but expressed conventionally). Just my guess, though. There's nothing like commentaries for giving a better understanding of a sutta. Jon The Blessed One said, "Now, what are the eight thoughts of a great person? This Dhamma is for one who is modest, not for one who is self-aggrandizing. This Dhamma is for one who is content, not for one who is discontent. This Dhamma is for one who is reclusive, not for one who is entangled. This Dhamma is for one whose persistence is aroused, not for one who is lazy. This Dhamma is for one whose mindfulness is established, not for one whose mindfulness is confused. This Dhamma is for one whose mind is centered, not for one whose mind is uncentered. This Dhamma is for one endowed with discernment, not for one whose discernment is weak. This Dhamma is for one who enjoys non-complication, who delights in non-complication, not for one who enjoys & delights in complication." Anguttara Nikaya VIII.30 Anuruddha Sutta To Anuruddha 20220 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 5:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seclusion Hi Victor, --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > I would be interested to have a conversation on seclusion with > anyone who is interested. To start the conversation, I will put > forth the questions: What does it mean by seclusion? What are the > benefits of seclusion? ..... I think seclusion is usually a translation of viveka. Here are two sets of definition. There may well be others in different contexts. If you have a particular sutta in mind or use in context, pls let us know. I look forward to your further comments. Metta, Sarah ========== 1.From Nyantiloka dictionary: http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_v.htm * viveka 'detachment', seclusion, is according to Niddesa, of 3 kinds: * (1) bodily detachment (káya-viveka), i.e. abiding in solitude free from alluring sensuous objects; * (2) mental detachment (citta-viveka), i.e. the inner detachment from sensuous things; * (3) detachment from the substrata of existence (upadhi-viveka). In the description of the 1st absorption, * the words "detached from sensuous things" (vivicc' eva kámehi) refer, according to Vis.M. IV, to 'bodily detachment'; * the words "detached from karmically unwholesome things" (vivicca akusalehi dhammehi) refer to 'mental detachment'; * the words "born of detachment" (vivekaja), to the absence of the 5 hindrances. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ * viveka-sukha 'happiness of detachment', or aloofness (s. prec). "Whoso is addicted to society and worldly bustle, he will not partake of the happiness of renunciation, detachment, peace and enlightenment" (A.VII.86). ========================================================================== 2. From Sammohavinodani, Comy to Dhammasangani, PTS, (1544): on seclusion as in “he develops the mindfulness awakening factor which is dependent on seclusion”: “Vivekanissita.m (“dependent on seclusion”) = viveke nissita.m. Seclusion is secludedness; it is fivefold, namely seclusion through substitution of opposites (tada”ngaviveka), through suppression (vikkhambhana), cutting off (samuccheda), tranquillisation (pa.tipasaddhi) and renunciation (nissara.na). “Herein, seclusion through substitution of opposites is insight; seclusion through suppression is the eight attainments; seclusion through cutting off is the path; seclusion through tranquillisation is fruition; seclusion through renunciation is nibbana, which has renounced all signs. Thus “dependent on seclusion” is dependent on this fivefold seclusion......” ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20221 From: shakti Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 6:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Sarah, Thank you for sharing this sutta. It brough me comfort and understanding. Two good friends just lost loved ones. One friend her mother the other friend her husband. With metta, Shakti Sarah wrote:Hi Christine, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Sarah, your letter "Last Conversations ..." was so honest that in > reading it, I had tears in my eyes. Every reminder you gave is > absolutely true. Thank you. I'm glad you are there for Jon at this > moment - he couldn't have a better, or more loving, companion. ..... Many thanks for your kind words. I know that your mother has also been ill and in hospital and as we are all so aware of here (on DSG), old age, sickness and death are close by all the time. I’d like to add the Salla Sutta in full at the end of the post as it’s quite short. I can never read it enough. Metta, Sarah ==== http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/khuddaka/suttanipata/snp3-08a.html Sutta Nipata III.8 Salla Sutta The Arrow Translated from the Pali by John D. Ireland. For free distribution only. From The Discourse Collection: Selected Texts from the Sutta Nipata (WH 82), translated by John D. Ireland (Kandy: Buddhist Publication Society, 1983). Copyright ©1983 Buddhist Publication Society. Used with permission. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ "Unindicated and unknown is the length of life of those subject to death. Life is difficult and brief and bound up with suffering. There is no means by which those who are born will not die. Having reached old age, there is death. This is the natural course for a living being. With ripe fruits there is the constant danger that they will fall. In the same way, for those born and subject to death, there is always the fear of dying. Just as the pots made by a potter all end by being broken, so death is (the breaking up) of life. "The young and old, the foolish and the wise, all are stopped short by the power of death, all finally end in death. Of those overcome by death and passing to another world, a father cannot hold back his son, nor relatives a relation. See! While the relatives are looking on and weeping, one by one each mortal is led away like an ox to slaughter. "In this manner the world is afflicted by death and decay. But the wise do not grieve, having realized the nature of the world. You do not know the path by which they came or departed. Not seeing either end you lament in vain. If any benefit is gained by lamenting, the wise would do it. Only a fool would harm himself. Yet through weeping and sorrowing the mind does not become calm, but still more suffering is produced, the body is harmed and one becomes lean and pale, one merely hurts oneself. One cannot protect a departed one (peta) by that means. To grieve is in vain. "By not abandoning sorrow a being simply undergoes more suffering. Bewailing the dead he comes under the sway of sorrow. See other men faring according to their deeds! Hence beings tremble here with fear when they come into the power of death. Whatever they imagine, it (turns out) quite different from that. This is the sort of disappointment that exists. Look at the nature of the world! If a man lives for a hundred years, or even more, finally, he is separated from his circle of relatives and gives up his life in the end. Therefore, having listened to the Arahant,[1] one should give up lamenting. Seeing a dead body, one should know, "He will not be met by me again." As the fire in a burning house is extinguished with water, so a wise, discriminating, learned and sensible man should quickly drive away the sorrow that arises, as the wind (blows off) a piece of cotton. He who seeks happiness should withdraw the arrow: his own lamentations, longings and grief. "With the arrow withdrawn, unattached, he would attain to peace of mind; and when all sorrow has been transcended he is sorrow-free and has realized Nibbana. -- vv. 574-593 ================ 20222 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava Dear friends, you may like to read about our discussion. ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:18:14 +0100 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava Dear Lars, all other newcomers and friends, Lars, I appreciate it that you really reflect on avijjaasava. and also this: < I became quite > curious about the real meaning behind all those translations (sometimes it > is really interesting how much more meaning it makes when you read the > Pali). > This is so true. op 11-03-2003 21:42 schreef Lars Siebold op khandha5@g...: . If you look at the PED it also suggests the translation as > outflows. It has: > 1. spirit, the intoxicating extract or secretion of a tree or flower > 2. discharge from a sore > So aasava, also in it's non-buddhist use, seems to have had the connotation > of outflow rather than inflow. And while I can still think of kaama and > bhaava as inflows I have a hard time seeing avijja as something coming from > outside. Nina: O.K. I shall quote part of what I wrote in my "Cetasikas", but not all, I do not want to make it too long on this list. This may answer some of your questions. L:> Buddha didn't use certain terms without a reason and that there is some > deeper psychological significance to them, so I generally prefer to > translate them rather literally where possible. N: Quite right. The aasavas keep on flowing, also now. All we learn, all we read in the suttas pertains to our life now, it is not theory at all. Avijjaa is so hard to detect, because it covers up the truth, it is darkness. Without the Buddha we would not know about it. It is the first link in the Dependent Origination, the conditions for the cycle of birth and death to go on and on. When the citta is not kusala, intent on daana, siila or bhaavanaa, all our actions and speech, even thinking, is akusala. Avijjaa accompanies each akusala citta, but we do not notice this, the truth is covered up. Ignorance, not knowing the four noble Truths: the five khandhas are dukkha, they are impermanent and thus unsatisfactory. We do not see their impermanence each moment. How to know this? Through vipassanaa, or in other woords satipa.t.thaana. Guarding the sense-doors. No need to first develop siila or samatha. We should not delay developing more understanding of our life, it is urgent. Hearing the Dhamma, considering it, creates conditions for awareness now. But first intellectual understanding, pariyatti, and considering what we hear in our life now, that is very important. (If you like to discuss this more, I want to refer to dsg yahoo list. In fact, I shall frwd this post to them.) Derek wrote: The sense I get is of aasava being a fundamental, underlying tendency in the mind that drives all other defiled mental activity. N: the underlying tendencies are the anusayas, another group of defilements. They are like microbes, lying dormant in each citta and can condition the arising of akusala citta. Nina. 20223 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] M 1: 120, 18-19, about different ways of eliminating unwholesome thoughts Dear Sarah Thank you for B.B. notes and additions. As I see it, sa.n.thhaana is not: stopping. Some people translate it with calming. I see it differently: Co: As to the analysis of sa.nkhaara: he should consider his "sa.n.thaana sa"nkhaara", that is, whatever reality (sabhaava, nature) conditions that cause (hetu), that reality is sa"nkhaara. It is explained that this is the condition (paccaya), kaarana, cause of action, root (muula). As to the analysis of sa.n.thaana: where it is well established , where it is located. The sa.n.thaana of vitakka sa"nkhaara is called "vitakka sa.nkhaara sa.n.thaana". The bhikkhu should consider that vitakka sa.nkhaara. The Buddha explained that the bhikkhu should consider what is the cause and what is not the cause of his thoughts: what is the cause, the condition of this thought, for which reason does it arise.> Thus, he is aware of his evil thoughts and realizes their conditions, but not by thinking. He does not try to stop them, but naturally, he sees them as only, only conditioned namas. We should remember that the second stage of tender insight is realizing nama and rupa as conditioned realities, not by thinking. The effect is that they are eliminated, but not by a self who tries. If we do not understand satipatthana we shall not know what is in this text, is that not the case, time and again? I want to go in more into this important text. Nina. op 10-03-2003 08:05 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > MA: “vitakka-sankhaara-sa.n.thaana”m. MA understands sankhaara here as > condition, cause, or root, and takes the compound to mean “stopping the > cause of the thought.” This is accomplished by inquiring, when an > unwholesome thought has arisen: “What is it cause? What is the cause of > its cause? etc. Such an inquiry, according to the MA, brings about a > slackening, and eventually the cessation, of the flow of unwholesome > thought. 20224 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: FW: Commentary Mahaarahulovaadasutta ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:26:05 +0100 Aan: Pali yahoo Onderwerp: Commentary Mahaarahulovaadasutta Commentary Mahaaraahulovaadasutta, no. 8. Relevant Sutta passages: Atha kho aayasmaa Raahulo saayanhasamaya.m pa.tisallaanaa vu.t.thito.... Then, at evening time, the venerable Rahula got up from solitude "Ya.m ki~nci, Raahula, ajjhatta.m paccatta.m kakkha.la.m kharigata.m upaadinna.m, seyyathida.m - kesaa lomaa nakhaa whatever internally, and individually, is solid, solidified, and clung to, namely: head hair, body hair, nails, teeth... Commentary: bhagavataa pana aacikkhitakamma.t.thaanameva purebhattampi pacchaabhattampi -- ``itipi ruupa.m anicca.m, itipi dukkha.m, itipi asubha.m, itipi anattaa''ti aggi.m abhimatthento viya nirantara.m manasikatvaa saayanhasamaye cintesi -- Rahula contemplated the meditation subject that was explained to him by the Blessed One before and after his meal thus: ³Materiality truly is impermanent, it truly is unsatisfactory, it truly is foul, it truly is non-self². After he had contemplated this continuously (nirantara.m), just as someone who desires to have light, the following thoughts occurred to him towards evening: ``aha.m upajjhaayena aanaapaanassati.m bhaavehiiti vutto , tassa vacana.m karissaami aacariyupajjhaayaana~nhi vacana.m akaronto dubbaco naama hoti. ³Since my preceptor has told me (aha.m vutto) to develop mindfulness of breathing I shall be obedient (vacana.m karissaami). If I don¹t follow what my teachers and preceptors say, I am indeed obstinate ( dubbaco, difficult to speak to). `dubbaco raahulo, upajjhaayassapi vacana.m na karotii'ti ca garahuppattito kakkha.lataraa pii.laa naama natthii''ti bhaavanaavidhaana.m pucchitukaamo bhagavato santika.m agamaasi. ta.m dassetu.m atha kho aayasmaa raahulotiaadi vutta.m. Nothing is more oppressive and harsh than receiving the reproach, Rahula who is obstinate does not follow up the words of his preceptor. ³ He visited the Blessed One personally because he was eager to ask about the ways of mental development. It was said (by Ananda ), atha kho aayasmaa raahulo, then, (at evening time,) the venerable Rahula (got up from solitude) etc. tattha pa.tisallaanaati ekiibhaavato. ya.mki~nci raahulaati kasmaa? bhagavaa aanaapaanassati.m pu.t.tho ruupakamma.t.thaana.m kathetiiti. ruupe chandaraagappahaanattha.m. Then, as to the word, pa.tisallaanaa, (having got up), this means, from solitude (ekiibhaava, being alone). As to the words, ya.mki~nci raahulaa, whatever, Rahula (is internal, etc.), why is this said? When he asked the Blessed One about Mindfulness of Breathing, The Blessed One spoke about the meditation subject of materiality, so that he (Rahula) would abandon his attachment to materiality (attha.m, with the aim). **** Remarks, questions: na karissaami: Burmese and Siamese manuscript omit : na. I shall follow the words, be obedient... I erased the na in my text, it makes more sense. As to: garahuppattito kakkha.lataraa pii.laa naama natthii''ti , not sure. I compared with my Thai text. This came out. A comparative. I like to be corrected, please. Nina. 20225 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:11am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Dear Azita, see below op 11-03-2003 00:42 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: > We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): >> What is the Fetter of conceit? >> Conceit at the thought “I am the better man”; >> conceit at the thought >> “I am as good (as they)”; conceit at the thought “I >> am lowly”- all >> such sort of conceit, overweening conceitedness, >> loftiness, >> haughtiness, flaunting a flag, assumption, desire of >> the heart for >> self-advertisement— this is called conceit. >> >> The three ways of comparing oneself with others may >> occur in someone >> who is actually superior, in someone who is actually >> equal and in >> someone who is actually inferior. Under this aspect >> there are nine >> kinds of conceit. ... >> > Azita: I have a Q. how do you get nine out of this? > Is it something like accompanied by good feeling/bad > feeling/prompted/unpromted type of citta?? N: No. We read about Conceit at the thought “I am the better man >> conceit at the thought >> “I am as good (as they); conceit at the thought “I >> am lowly, now these three can occur: when comparing oneself with others >> occur in someone who is *actually* superior, etc. thus three times three makes nine. Nina. 20226 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 3:06pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Azita, > see below > op 11-03-2003 00:42 schreef azita gill op gazita2002@y...: > > > We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): > >> What is the Fetter of conceit? > >> Conceit at the thought "I am the better man"; > >> conceit at the thought > >> "I am as good (as they)"; conceit at the thought "I > >> am lowly"- all > >> such sort of conceit, overweening conceitedness, > >> loftiness, > >> haughtiness, flaunting a flag, assumption, desire of > >> the heart for > >> self-advertisement— this is called conceit. > >> > >> The three ways of comparing oneself with others may > >> occur in someone > >> who is actually superior, in someone who is actually > >> equal and in > >> someone who is actually inferior. Under this aspect > >> there are nine > >> kinds of conceit. ... > >> > > Azita: I have a Q. how do you get nine out of this? > > Is it something like accompanied by good feeling/bad > > feeling/prompted/unpromted type of citta?? > N: No. We read about Conceit at the thought "I am the better man > >> conceit at the thought > >> "I am as good (as they); conceit at the thought "I > >> am lowly, > now these three can occur: when comparing oneself with others > >> occur in someone who is *actually* superior, etc. thus three times three > makes nine. > Nina. Dear Nina, I'm sorry, but this question begs to be asked: Who is *actually* superior, inferior, or the same as anyone else, as opposed to just *thinking* that they are those things? I don't believe the Lord Buddha taught any such categorization. What is the 'Dhammasangaùi (§1116)'? I have never heard of it. There aren't nine types of conceit in Buddhism, there are only three. Are these the categories of conceit you are proposing?: 1. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Inferior 2. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Superior 3. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Equal 4. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Inferior 5. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Superior 6. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Equal 7. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Inferior 8. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Superior 9. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Equal It seems to me that these categories are hypocritical to the extreme and not what the Buddha taught. How do you respond? Metta, James 20227 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi James, I think you ask a very good question and understand why it sounds hypocritical and contrary to the Buddha’s Teachings when just put in the form given in the Vibhanga (2nd text of Abhidhamma Pitaka) which is: “Therein what is ‘ninefold conceit’? In one who is better the conceit thus, “I am better”......”equal”......”inferior” .......” just as you categorise below. J;> I'm sorry, but this question begs to be asked: Who is *actually* > superior, inferior, or the same as anyone else, as opposed to just > *thinking* that they are those things? ..... I think that it’s easier to understand and accept if we consider the long list of factors on account of which mana (conceit) is said to arise. For example,The Vibhanga,(Ch 17, 832) gives this list of objects on account of which mana arises: "Pride of birth; pride of clan; pride of health; pride of youth; pride of life; pride of gain; pride of being honoured; pride of being respected; pride of prominence; pride of having adherents; pride of wealth; pride of appearance; pride of erudition; pride of intelligence; pride of being a knowledgeable authority; pride of being (a regular) alms collector; accomplishment; pride of popularity; pride of being moral; pride of jhana; pride of dexterity; pride of being tall; pride of (bodily) proportion; pride of form; pride of (bodily) perfection..." The list goes on. To take one simple, easy to accept example, “pride of being tall”. I don’t think it’s hard to accept that mana arises on account of height in any of the ways mentioned. We may *actually* be taller than someone else and compare, feeling superior, inferior or equal. Or we may *actually* be shorter or the same height and still compare in these ways. Hence, as I read the texts, the comparing is always on account of an attribute, state, belongings or other object pertaining to others and ourselves. ..... >I don't believe the Lord > Buddha taught any such categorization. What is the 'Dhammasangaùi > (§1116)'? I have never heard of it. There aren't nine types of > conceit in Buddhism, there are only three. ..... The Dhammasangani is the first text of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. I agree that in the suttas, as far as I know, only the three categories are given. I’m not sure if what I’ve added is of any help. Nina may add more and of course, if it isn’t of any assistance, that’s fine too. I find it quite useful just to reflect now. We may think the problem is really being short, poor, young, lacking in some knowledge, not flexible or strong enough and so on. With these categories, we see how mana arises regardless of whether we’re tall or short, rich or poor, old or young and so on with any of the permutations. ..... >Are these the categories > of conceit you are proposing?: > > 1. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Inferior > 2. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Superior > 3. Actually Inferior/Considers Himself Equal > 4. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Inferior > 5. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Superior > 6. Actually Superior/Considers Himself Equal > 7. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Inferior > 8. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Superior > 9. Actually Equal/Considers Himself Equal ..... I understand this to be exactly right, perhaps with the proviso of “actually inferior/superior/equal IN REGARD TO some object or characteristic” and so on. One quick example from the Comy to the Vibhanga for pride of youth, which I'm reminded of after being called 'old' by Starkid Philip yesterday;-): "The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: 'I am young; the person of other beings is like a tree growing on a cliff. but I am in the first stage (of life)' is called "vanity of youth" (yobbananamada). ..... Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you for adding the link to Mike Olds article on the Mulapariyaya Sutta and for your many nice posts to the children. Hope you get well soon. ================================================ 20228 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 10:49pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" > >ROBM: Ironically, I find it compelling that sense-door object must be > inherently neutral with a feeling added later as a subjective > process. Here are a few examples to explain why: > - Sadam and Bush both see the same image (a US flag); feelings are > different > - My wife and I both smell seafood; feelings are different (I hate > seafood, my wife loves it) > - You and I both see the same person in a crowd (my wife); feelings > are different > > To me that natural law is that positive or negative feeling must be > attached to a concept, which is subjective. > > Dear RobM, Could you clarify this. Do you mean that at the moment of seeing the feeling is neutral but that the actual seeing consciousness is either the result of kusala or akusala kamma. Thus the objects are either pleasant or unpleasant? RobertK 20229 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Wed Mar 12, 2003 11:09pm Subject: Re: Religion and non-self Dear Star Kid Tom, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: Hi, every body, I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the statue in the temple they all look like they are made out of gold, are they really? I found the most interesting information that Buddhism is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? I hope you guys get friendly with me. Bye. From Tom KKT: It's great! You begin to probe into the question of self at the age of 13! It's fantastic! (and incredible :-)) I remember the first time I really looked into this question is when I was 23. (and I continue to do until now :-)) Best wishes for your search. KKT PS. About the statues of Buddha made out of gold you mentioned, I have a question for you (a puzzle :-)) The Buddha in wood could not avoid being destroyed by metal. The Buddha in clay could not avoid being destroyed by water. The Buddha in gold could not avoid being destroyed by fire. So what kind of Buddha could not be destroyed by whatever thing? 20230 From: Seylan Bank - DBD (Sumane Rathnasuriya) Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:44am Subject: RE: [dsg] Last conversations..... Dear Sarah (& Jon), Thank you for making an exemplary occasion of a common bereavement (we're so much used to this explanation) for many Dhamma friends to understand realities that we've been discussing of on more than one instance. I've no doubt that you've spent most of this dedication meaningfully, true to the teachings of the Buddha. How fortunate Jon's Mom has been! Any doubt of her decision to do away with medication etc. is cleared with your description in "Last Conversations". May she be blessed with continued peaceful presence of mind throughout! Sumane 20231 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 4:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) Hi Azita (& Jon), --- azita gill wrote: > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A Manual > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them to > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' ..... I don't remember seeing this reference to the fearless lions - do you know where it is? You may find it useful to review the quotes from Nina and K.Sujin given in this old post too (on mana, ditthi and lobha): http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/11868 Metta, Sarah ======= Metta, Sarah ======= 20232 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 5:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > I think you ask a very good question and understand why it sounds > hypocritical and contrary to the Buddha's Teachings when just put in the > form given in the Vibhanga (2nd text of Abhidhamma Pitaka) which is: > > "Therein what is `ninefold conceit'? In one who is better the conceit > thus, "I am better"......"equal"......"inferior" ......." just as you > categorise below. < Hi Sarah, Thank you for this explanation. Now I see that this further categorization of conceit of the Abhidhamma doesn't necessarily contradict the suttas. However, frankly, I don't see the benefit of it and it appears to be complicating an issue that doesn't need to be complicated. When a person believes himself/herself superior, inferior, or equal to anyone else, of course they are going to base that comparison on either actual differences or perceived differences; I don't see what difference it makes which they base it on. Actually, I would even go as far as to say that these nine categories are somewhat false because they assume that people can accurately and honestly *know* where they are superior, inferior, or equal to anyone else. For example, Napoleon the Great was very short in stature, but he perceived himself as being taller than everyone else. Consequently, he commissioned several portraits of himself which made him appear to be tall and majestic. He was not able to accurately know his *actual* height as compared to his *perceived* height. Regardless of the facts, he was going to believe what he wanted to believe. I don't think it is what is *actual* that is all that important, but what is *perceived* that is the deciding factor…and this is what I believe the Buddha taught in the suttas. Thank you for your well wishes and kind words. Star Kid Philip sounds like a real handful! ;-) (He sounds more and more like me all the time…:-). Metta, James 20233 From: Lars Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 6:19am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > N: ...Through vipassanaa, or in other woords satipa.t.thaana. > Guarding the sense-doors. No need to first develop siila or samatha. This is interesting. Can you tell me how you get to this conclusion, since it seems to contradict about everything I know about the Buddhas teaching. E.g. (D.16): "iti siila"m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naa. Siilaparibhaavito samaadhi mahapphalo hoti mahaanisa"mso. Samadhiparibhaavitaa pa~n~naa mahapphalaa hoti mahaanisa"msaa. Pa~n~naaparibhaavita"m citta"m sammadeva aasavehi vimuccati, seyyathida"m – kaamaasavaa, bhavaasavaa, avijjaasavaa"ti. Lars 20234 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:25am Subject: RE: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Dear James, > -----Original Message----- > From: buddhatrue [mailto:buddhatrue@y...] > contradict the suttas. However, frankly, I don't > see the benefit of > it and it appears to be complicating an issue > that doesn't need to be > complicated. When a person believes > himself/herself superior, The Buddha's teachings do not benefit everybody, depending on one's accumulations. For example, for someone who is not willing to listen, it is not beneficial at all. On the other hand, for someone with the right accumulation, even a teaching that we wouldn't think would be beneficial to anybody, is beneficial to that person. If you remember the story of the Buddha's father becoming a sotapanna, the Buddha's teaching was on giving alms, and he became enlightened. Enumerating the kinds of conceits, I think, give us the opportunity to recognize it when it arises. Prior to listening to the Buddha teaching, I certainly didn't think thinking of myself as lower than other people is a kind of conceit (just humility ;-) ). In these enumerations, it reminds me that both false and true conceit are just that: conceit. Furthermore, it is later mentioned that a sekkha that is not an Arahant has eliminated all false conceit. So, even if one doesn't benefit from the earlier enumeration, then at least one will get the story straight that out of the 9, how many a sotapanna has eliminated. True conceit has a degree of subtlety that false conceit doesn't have. For example, suppose I compare my wisdom to my respected teacher. Is that a conceit, or is that giving respect to the teacher? When we are saying, the Buddha's wisdom is great, is that with conceit or with respect? > accurately and honestly *know* where they are superior, inferior, or > equal to anyone else. You are right that just thinking about it can't give you an accurate picture. However, it is said there are people (at least, all the 80 maha-savaka) who know the minds of others accurately. The power of mind reading is not limited to just Ariyans, but to an accomplished tranquil mediator as well. Moreover, (take this with a grain of salt), some people may retain remnants of such power from their previous lives, giving them uncanny ability to accurately know how other people feel. As for me, knowing how other people feel are all based on observations, which are indirect evidence at best. But you can tell accurately (sometimes) when a person is angry, can you not? Given the subtleties of the Buddha teachings, I have no doubt that there is no way I personally would understand all of these subtleties. Are we a samma-sambuddha? Even V. Sariputta, the most eminent of all disciples with wisdom, had to ask the Buddha on subtle points. Great is the Buddha's wisdom. Metta, kom Weight Age Gender Female Male 20235 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:29am Subject: RE: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi Sarah & James, > -----Original Message----- > > "The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: > 'I am young; the person > of other beings is like a tree growing on a > cliff. but I am in the first > stage (of life)' is called "vanity of youth" > (yobbananamada). could be said substituting middle age or old age> > ..... Yes indeed, since I am older, I must be wiser, since I have learned and seen more ;-). Wise is the young samana, the one who is free from all taints. kom 20236 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi Kom, ----- Original Message ----- From: Kom Tukovinit To: Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2003 7:25 AM Subject: RE: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine > Enumerating the kinds of conceits, I think, give us the > opportunity to recognize it when it arises. I agree. I also think this is one of the great benefits of abhidhamma, that is, the enumeration and elucidation of the great breadth, depth and subtlety of akusala, so much of which I used to take for kusala (and still do in unguarded moments). mike 20237 From: bodhi342 Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Friends, There appear to be many forms of conceit, obvious and subtle, classified etc. Is not the main purpose of the Buddha's teaching of Anatta to enable ridding of personality belief (sakkâyadiööhi)and the conceit of `I am' (asmimâna)? Is not 'I am' the ultimate conceit? Compared to that, all the others seem trivial to me. u.w. dharam 20238 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Issues of Dhamma 4, lakkhana rupas, no 2. Issue of Analysis : what is the meaning of lakkhana rúpas, rúpas as characteristics, as explained when we take into account the groups, kalåpas, of rúpa? [3] Conclusion regarding the analysis of this issue: 1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa: the sabhåva rúpas (rúpas with their own distinct nature) of each group must have all four characteristics of origination of rúpa, upacaya rúpa, continuity of rúpa, santati rúpa, decay of rúpa, jårata rúpa, and impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa. 2. There is also an explanation of the meaning of these four characteristics in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra, such as in the ³Atthasåliní². The sources which support the conclusion of the analysis: 1. The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the section on rúpa. 2. Abhidhammattha Sangaha (Manual of Abhihamma), Ch 6. 3. The Abhidhammatthavibhåviní, the Commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha 4. The Paramattha Mañjuså, Commentary to the Visuddhimagga, in the explanation ³by rúpakkhandha². 5. Sacca-sankhepa, ³Outlines of Truths² [4] . The sources that explain the reasons for this conclusion: 1. Explanation according to the method of the groups of rúpa. If we take into account that each moment of citta can be subdivided into three infinitesimal moments, each group, kalåpa, of rúpas lasts as long as fiftyone sub-moments of citta. If we compare the duration of rúpa with the duration of the fiftyone sub-moments of citta, the arising moment of rúpa, upacaya rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the first sub-moment of citta. The impermanence of rúpa, aniccatå rúpa, is reckoned as equal to the last sub-moment of citta, the fiftyfirst sub-moment of citta. Continuity, santati rúpa, and decay, jaratå rúpa, are reckoned to come in between these moments, thus, from the second sub-moment until the fiftieth sub-moment of citta. Each group of rúpas must have all four characteristics of rúpa. As is stated in the ³Dhammasangani²(643), ³What is subsistence of rúpa? That which is upacaya rúpa (integration or the arising moment of rúpa) is santati rúpa (subsistence or continuation of rúpa) This is subsistence of rúpa². When there is upacaya rúpa, the origination of rúpa, there must also be santati rúpa, the continuation after the origination, because that rúpa has not fallen away yet. Footnotes: 3. Rúpas arise in different groups, kalåpas. 4.This work is ascribed to Dhammapåla of India, author of the Visuddhimagga Tíka, the subcommentary to the Visuddhimagga. It is classified in Burmese bibliography, together with the Abhidhammata Sangaha, as a group of nine ³little finger manuals² a group of classical summaries. 20239 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Last conversations..... Dear Sarah I really sympathize with Jon and you. And just this morning we listened to a tape, another sutta passage: This always strikes me so much. Just in and out of one life, in a wink. We had an opportunity to think of death today, visiting my father who goes slowly, very slowly, but every day more. You said: other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance.> Exactly. We have to develop all the perfections, also metta, even when we are short of time and have lots of things to do. I cling to the "lots of things I have to do", and may neglect metta. He is so depressed, and we would not try even to mention Dhamma. But he said a few times that he appreciates it when we come by. We tried to cheer him up, mentioning to play music for him next Sunday. Difficult such a depression. This is an excellent reminder you gave: Nina. op 12-03-2003 07:32 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It’s just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula’s friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It’s not always possible and one isn’t always given > the warning. > > I’m also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? 20240 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object in the mind-door process. Dear Rob M, op 12-03-2003 09:32 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > The very first mind door citta process after the sense-door citta > process "copies" the sense door object into a concept and from that > point on, the mind door citta processes build and build the concept. N: I do not think so. It is not a concept but visible object that has just fallen away. Later on, we do not count, there can be concepts as objects. In the Atth this is explained:I, Part II, Analysis of Terms, 74:"...Thus the apperception (javanacittas) of a visible object arises at the eye-door and also at the mind-door."And 72: "Of the six objects each comes into the avenues of two doors... In the purely representative process through the mind-door, however, there is no function of striking the sensitive orgen. These objects present themselves naturally by virtue of having been seen, heard, smelt, tasted and touched." The whole ch is worth studying. Now we have doubts about the mind-door, but through insight, when the first stage is reached, it is understood what the mind-door is. The difference between nama and rupa is realized through the mind-door. If rupa could not be experienced also through the mind-door how could the stages of insight arise? Can there not be awareness of just heat when it presents itself? No need to think: this is only relevant when citta experiences it. It has a characteristic. If there can be awareness it will be known more clearly what rupa is, different from nama. This is difficult for all of us. Realities and Conceptts, by A. Sujin: Nina. 20241 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 4 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 4 The Buddha had finally passed away and the arahats who were present at the first Council for the rehearsal of the teachings had heard these words before. However, even though the words they heard were spoken in the past and they would not hear them any more in the presence of the Blessed One, there was yet an opportunity to hear the Dhamma again. This fact can be recollected with reverence to the Triple Gem by all listeners today. Although these events occurred a long time ago, each time we hear the Dhamma we can see its benefit and we can understand that the accumulation of kusala in the past is the condition for the kusala vipåka which is hearing the Dhamma again in this life. Ånanda consoled people who were disappointed at not seeing the Blessed One, assuring them that this was not a teaching of a defunct teacher, but that the very Dhamma Vinaya was their teacher. By the words, evam me suttam, thus have I heard, the venerable Ånanda wanted to console the Buddhists in times to come, who may feel dismay that they cannot see the Buddha in person. However, we should remember that what we hear is not the teaching of a defunct teacher, but that the Dhamma Vinaya is now our teacher. We shall know whether the Buddha is our real teacher if we listen, consider and follow the right practice. When the venerable Ånanda spoke the word, evaÿ, meaning: thus, he demonstrated the excellence of the teaching, because there should be a person who teaches and also a person who listens. There cannot be a listener without a teacher. Just by the word evam, thus, he demonstrated the excellence of the teaching. When he said, me suttam, I have heard, he demonstrated the excellence of the discipleship. This disciple was the venerable Ånanda, not someone else. The venerable Ånanda, the disciple who was five times signalized as the Foremost-in-Discourse, said, evam me suttam, thus have I heard. When he said, ekam samayam, on one occasion, he demonstrated the excellence of the time, the time when he heard the teaching of the Dhamma. We should remember that now is the excellence of the time to hear the Dhamma. It is not easy to find the opportunity to hear the Dhamma. When people have important tasks to fulfill they cannot listen to the Dhamma, but they hear other things. With the words, ekam samayam, on one occasion, the venerable Ånanda demonstrated the excellence of the occasion to hear the teaching of the Dhamma. 20242 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 60, blank mind. Hi Larry, op 12-03-2003 01:03 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > > Thanks for all your comments. Unfortunately, my mind is blank. Cheerio! N: This is only one moment, Larry. It does not last. Cheerio, Nina. 20243 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:47am Subject: letters to star kids Dear Kom and James, I admire the way both of you explain difficult points in a simple way. You understand so well the world of the child. The way James explained conceit was so clear. And the touching story about the three year old, I enjoyed that very much. Her accumulations of a past life. With appreciation, Nina. 20244 From: Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 3:47pm Subject: Way 62, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 80 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front Alokite = "In looking straight on." Vilokite = "In looking away from the front." Here, looking straight on [alokitam] = seeing in the direction in front of oneself [purato pekkhanam]. Looking away from the front [vilokitam] = Looking out in all other directions [anudisa pekkhanam]. And other kinds of seeing, by way of turning the eye in the direction above, in the direction beneath and in the direction behind are called looking upwards, looking downwards and looking backwards. Here those are not taken. But just these two -- looking straight on and looking away from the front -- are taken, by way of what is befitting. Or, by this method, it is said, all those are also taken. [Tika] By way of what is fitting = In the form of that which is suitable to a recluse. [T] Since looking downwards could happen in such actions as sweeping and plastering the floor with clay and cow-dung, looking upwards in removing cob-webs and other similar actions, and looking backwards in such actions as the avoiding of danger coming from behind, it is said, that the commentator uttered the passage beginning with the words: Or, by this method. By that the commentator points out that the statement is also one of the kind that implies what is not expressed -- an elliptical statement. Here, the comprehending of purpose (in looking straight on), without having just looked by the force of the thought, when the thought "I shall look straight on" arises, is clear comprehension of purpose. That should be understood by making the venerable elder Nanda the example of a person who perceives through experience by the body [kaya sakkhi].[23] The following is stated in this connection: "Should looking straight on in the eastern direction become a thing that must be done, by Nanda, he looks straight on in the eastern direction, having reflected with all his mind thus: 'May no covetous, grief-producing, mean, unskillful mental phenomena flow upon (overcome) me while I am looking in the eastern direction.' There, he becomes mindful, thus." Further, purposefulness and suitability, here, too, should be understood just according to the manner in which they are explained in connection with the worshipping of a relic shrine and so forth. [T] When the venerable elder Nanda was working for insight he slid into an unfavorable state of mind beginning with boredom in regard to the holy life and on becoming aware of that state of mind of his, he stirred himself, saying, "I shall restrain myself well." Then having become energetic and very conscientious regarding guardedness at the doors of the controlling faculties of sense, he reached the state of one of great perfection in self-restraint, through the fulfillment of all duties. By reason of that perfection the Master placed him in the position of pre-eminence in regard to the controlling faculty of restraint, with the words: "This one, namely, Nanda, O bhikkhus, is the chief among my disciples endowed with the controlling faculty of restraint." 23. One who realizes that which one experiences. The person who experiences absorption first, realizes Nibbana afterward. That person should be understood as of sixfold character counting from the state of the fruition of stream-winning to the state of the path of arahantship. Therefore the commentator said: Here a certain person, having experienced by the body the eight emancipations, lives; in that person the cankers become destroyed owing to his having seen the emancipations with wisdom. Digha Atthakatha, Part III, pages 889-890. See P.T.S. Edition. 20245 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 7:04pm Subject: Re: Last conversations..... Dear Sarah And Jon, Thankyou Sarah for this post. It is both inspiring and contains good reminders. Most of us have to face such a situation in our lives, for some, many times. The last time I faced such a situation it was almost with total ignorance, the next time I am certain it would not be so. I really would like my own parents to study the Buddha's teachings and I have tried. And I would like to think that it is all in vain since they have not been very responsive. However I think the truth is that they do gain some inspiration just by seeing my own saddha and how the Teachings have affected me. In this way I think Jon must have had a positive influence on his mother in the past, and being with her now must be the best thing a son can do for a parent. As you have concluded, such situations should remind us about the importance of developing all kinds of kusala. We may have felt the same way toward our parents of a previous life, but in this lifetime those persons may pass us and we did not even notice it. How many of us on dsg have been related to one another in this way? I would like to think (I know..), that many of us here, are doing just what we wished we could do when the relationship was different! I would like to think that more is being achieved without the factor of clinging, (to a parent or child etc) by such persons as you both and several others on this list. I hope I can do the same for others as well. I would like to relay an incident which happened just very recently. Six weeks ago a friend (Manoj, you know him) informed me that one of his cousins was dying of cancer. Having met this cousin of his once many years ago and still having a good memory of her, I offered to get a set of K. Sujin's tapes for her to listen to. So that weekend I asked K. Sujin to recommend me a set and I got them. A week later the tape was given to her, but only when she left the hospital for home did she start to listen to them. She hadn't known about K. Sujin before this. She listened to the tapes for two weeks before she had to be readmitted to hospital where she finally passed away. I was told however, that at the hospital she told her mother that she looked forward to going back home and continuing to listen to those tapes. I can't know what her last thought were, and we can't know what Jon's mother's last thought will be, but we do our best. Courage and good cheer. May this often used reminder of Azita work in this situation as it should in any other. Metta, Sukin. ps. I had written a long post yesterday, but it was deleted.. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > I just talked to Jon's mother in Adelaide, Australia after being told she > probably has a few days to live at most. She's comfortable in a hospice > and Jon had a wonderful visit with her just a couple of weeks ago with > many heart-to-heart chats. She was even able to join a family gathering > for her birthday celebration. > > She's decided not to continue with her medications, tests and transfusions > and I can fully understand her decisions and didn't try to persuade her > otherwise. I just talked to her about the inspiration she's given to all > those around her with her kind intentions, wishes and acts and how we can > rejoice when we've done our best, no matter what outcomes follow. When > we've acted with kind thoughts, we can sleep well. She mentioned she had > many faults, but we all do and in her case she can be happy that she's > never deliberately caused any trouble and led what conventionally we > describe as a very good life and taken the best care possible of those > around her. I told her that all of us who've known her have been touched > and uplifted by her good example, kindness, modesty and lack of grudges or > anger towards others. Even whilst in a lot of discomfort in hospital she > didn't wish to turn any visitors away, thinking of them instead of > herself. > > She's fortunate that she has full mental capacity and just asked me in her > final words to take good care of Jon of whom she's very, very fond. Of > course I will (in all regards I can) and I also said that we'd do what I > could to help build harmony amongst other family members. Fortunately, her > other sons are with her in Adelaide. > > We also talked about how this time (of being so close to death) comes to > us all. Sooner or later the bodily functions give up but from our point of > view, life continues on. It's just one life in so many and we may all meet > again in whatever form. At these times, one can only say as much as the > other person is able to hear and sometimes, as with Rahula's friend, > perhaps just listening and showing support and compassion is often the > kindest assistance. > > I feel fortunate in this instance that I was able to express some of my > thoughts and feelings. It's not always possible and one isn't always given > the warning. > > I'm also reminded of how these last hours or days come so much sooner than > we think. All our possessions, our home, our family members, our cares and > concerns get left behind. May it be a reminder to us all to really see the > urgency in developing awareness and all wholesome states while we have the > chance. Who knows when we too will be having our last conversations? > > With metta, > > Sarah > ===== 20246 From: kenhowardau Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 8:44pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, You wrote: ------------- > When we only have visible object, the javana cittas create very weak kamma. We may be attracted to the sense of sight (photon gratification principle), but nothing too weighty. In fact, lobha doesn't become weighty (full course) until we want something for our own. Kammic seeds are created with every citta-process, but they are quite weak until we get past the naming stage and we are well into working with concepts at that point. > ------------ This is an important area that I'd like to understand better. The above explanation gives the impression that a single visible object is quite meaningless -- an insignificant dot. Other explanations put it very differently; they remind us that our entire world is bound up in this one present moment of, e.g., seeing consciousness. In this way, a single visible object might be regarded as our entire external world. On the subject of natural law, you wrote: -------------- > To me that natural law is that positive or negative feeling must be attached to a concept, which is subjective. > --------------- Here again, I am interested in the relative importance of concept and reality in daily life. Does the cognition of paramatta dhammas play a minor role compared to the cognition of illusory, conceptual realities? You give some good examples of how it does. I was reading about sannavipallasa in the useful posts file; it seems to be an example of important activity, purely at the level of paramattha dhammas. Message 14142, from Larry, quotes the guide to CMA par. 17 ch. IV: "The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibhanga, contends that when a person considers a desirable object to be undesirable, or an undesirable object to be desirable, he does so due to a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however, remains inherently desirable or undesirable independently of the person's personal preferences." For me, this brings vague memories of a sutta which employed the simile of a swarm of gad flies. They were racing towards a heap of manure shouting, "This we shall eat! This we shall eat!" At first reading, I thought, 'that's perfectly understandable; for a fly, manure is wholesome.' But maybe I was wrong; possibly the sutta was saying that, figuratively speaking, it was the flies' perversion of perception that made them mistake the undesirable for the desirable. What are your thoughts on this? ------------------ > Hope that this helps and I hope to join one of your future discussions in person. > ------------------ Thanks Rob, it does help, even though I have only mentioned the bits I disagree with. It will be excellent if we can welcome you to Cooran one day. (There'd be a lot of swatting-up for that meeting :-) Kind regards, Ken H 20247 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Dear James, At first sight, I can understand that you find this hypocritical. But when considering more texts it becomes clearer. Isn't that often the case? What Sarah says I find very clear. I like these examples of the Vibhanga. (Second Book of abhidhamma), they are rather crude reminders. Like a shake up. It does not have to complicate matters, I like what Kom says. I am happy you brought this up. It is possible that someone really has learnt more languages than others, and he/she can have conceit about this. How deeply rooted conceit is. And as Mike writes: I assure you that I have countless unguarded moments. You may find all those classifications and enumerations of the abhidhamma complicated, but when we go into it, or even partly, it occurs to us: O, I had not thought of that. Not everybody has to study all of the details of the abhidhamma. Nina. op 13-03-2003 00:06 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > >>> We read in the Dhammasangaùi (§1116): >>>> What is the Fetter of conceit? >>>> Conceit at the thought "I am the better man"; 20248 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna. Daer Lars, op 13-03-2003 15:19 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: ...Through vipassanaa, or in other woords satipa.t.thaana. >> Guarding the sense-doors. No need to first develop siila or samatha. > This is interesting. Can you tell me how you get to this conclusion, > since it seems to contradict about everything I know about the > Buddhas teaching. E.g. (D.16): It is an important question. People think when reading texts, including the Visuddhimagga, that there is a rule: first sila, then samadhi, then panna. But here it is a method of teaching, desana naya. Buddhaghosa made the tripartition to teach in a systematic way. But when we look carefully, we see: under sila are many degrees of sila, there is also the hihest sila, the eradication of defilements by magga-citta. When we see sutta texts we have to carefully consider under what heading they teach: when it is the eightfold Path, there are sila and samadhi and panna altogether. Or it may be lokuttara magga. When we consider sila: if there is awareness of a dhamma appearing through one of the six doorways, there is already sila, no lobha, dosa or moha. Through panna sila becomes fulfilled. When there is understanding of a dhamma, there is also kusala samadhi with the kusala citta, there is a degree of calm. It is all very detailed and subtle, and we have to look very carefully at the texts from all angles. We read about adhi- sila, adhi-citta, adhi-panna: higher sila, citta (concentration) and panna. These arise together when there is mindfulness and understanding of a reality. But there is no adhi, higher, if it is not accompanied by vipassana panna. We read about sila visuddhi, but there is no visuddhi without vipassana panna. The conditions for the arising of right mindfulness and right understanding are: listening to the dhamma and considering it in one's own life. It is not so that we first have to keep the precepts perfectly, and anyway, only the sotapanna can. No rule that everybody should develop concentration. People who have accumulations for jhana can develop it and then they can have jhana as base for vipassana, being aware also of jhanacitta. But, there is no rule that we should do certain things before we can begin to be aware of dhammas appearing in our life at this moment. We have to check: did the Buddha set any rule about the development of right understanding? Any time is the time for the development of right understanding, we should not delay this. I am glad you brought up this important point, and a great deal more could be said about it. I found the Pali commentary to the text you quoted, and I will bring this up later on. Ich brauche ein wenig mehr Zeit dieses zu studieren. Nina. 20249 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 9:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] M 1: 120, 18-19, about different ways of eliminating unwholesome thoughts Dear Nina & All, --- nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Sarah > Thank you for B.B. notes and additions. As I see it, sa.n.thhaana is > not: > stopping. Some people translate it with calming. I see it differently: > Co: As to the analysis of sa.nkhaara: he should consider his > "sa.n.thaana > sa"nkhaara", that is, whatever reality (sabhaava, nature) conditions > that > cause (hetu), that reality is sa"nkhaara. ..... Of course, I agree with your comments as I understand them. PTS dict (Stede/Rhys Davids) gives these meanings for sa.n.thaana, inc, this passage in MNi-120: configuration, position, composition, nature, shape, form. Shape seems the most common meaning in other contexts and yesterday when I was considering more about mana (conceit) on account of various attributes, I came across a good example that neatly combines sa.n.thaana and mado (vanity). I also find it helpful to consider conceit as an intoxicant, so I’ll give the definition of mado first: Sammohavinodani 17,2317: “mado (vanity) is an intoxicant (madanaka); majjana (intoxication) is a mode of intoxication (majjanaakaara); majjitatta.m (intoxicatedness) is the intoxicated state (majjitabhaava).” (You just explained in another post (to Lars) about intoxicants: "the asavas (intoxicants) are like liquor which has fermented for a long time, the Atthasalini explains" - so apt.) now from the above text,2326: “The conceit that arises as intoxication thus: ‘The bodies of the rest of beings are unshapely, misshapen, but mine is agreeable and pleasing’ is called “vanity of shape” (sa.n.thaanamada)......” > It is explained that this is the condition (paccaya), kaarana, cause of > action, root (muula). > As to the analysis of sa.n.thaana: where it is well established , where > it > is located. The sa.n.thaana of vitakka sa"nkhaara is called "vitakka > sa.nkhaara sa.n.thaana". The bhikkhu should consider that vitakka > sa.nkhaara. The Buddha explained that the bhikkhu should consider what > is > the cause and what is not the cause of his thoughts: what is the cause, > the > condition of this thought, for which reason does it arise.> ..... Where it is well-established, located or how it is ‘configured’ (first meaning given??) ..... > Thus, he is aware of his evil thoughts and realizes their conditions, > but > not by thinking. He does not try to stop them, but naturally, he sees > them > as only, only conditioned namas. ..... I’m thinking of Rahula’s friend. Who can stop the thinking and dwelling on different subjects? Most helpful of all is to understand the thinking as conditioned namas, regardless of the concepts. They are ‘formed up’ just as they are and understanding the conditioned nature, no self involved and knowing what is wholesome and unwholesome will be the way that more wholesome states develop in future, rather than by any trying or wishing. ..... >We should remember that the second > stage of > tender insight is realizing nama and rupa as conditioned realities, not > by > thinking. The effect is that they are eliminated, but not by a self who > tries. > If we do not understand satipatthana we shall not know what is in this > text, ..... To put it another way, while we cling to an idea of self, it will appear that phenomena can be controlled or stopped at will, but with more understanding of namas and rupas, the conditioned nature of these phenomena will also become more apparent. By considering the details more carefully, as Kom said, it can be a condition to see the danger of the more subtle kilesa (defilements) also, so that gradually they can be ‘overcome’. One moment mana, one moment ditthi taking a self or being to exist, following each other in succession. I've been appreciating Jon's example of metta and patience but one moment there's appreciation and joy in the kusala, the next moment, (not even in words) an idea of 'he has more metta or patience than I do.' The self-importance and waving of the banner comes in so quickly and then more appreciation or perhaps the wrong idea of Jon as being a kind person. The sotapanna will have the flashes or perhaps even trains of thought comparing, but no idea of it actually being a person who is kind. Kindness is just a conditioned reality just as conceit is - just for a moment and then gone. ..... > is that not the case, time and again? > I want to go in more into this important text. ..... Thanks, Nina. I've rambled into a few other topics, but I know you won't mind;-) Metta, Sarah ========= 20250 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Sukin, Sumane, Shakti and Nina, Thank you all for your kind wishes and helpful reflections too. As you all remind us, this is part of daily life. I’ll make sure Jon sees your messages too. A little more ramble, which I know you’ll understand - When I last wrote we decided we’d get Jon on the Wednesday nite flight to Adelaide (changing in Melbourne) - the earliest he could get permission at work and so on. On Wednesday morning we were told that there had been a serious deterioration overnight in her condition and that she could ‘go’ at any minute. The doctor was there holding her hand and one of Jon’s brothers had been there most the night. I suggested to Jon he’d better just speak to her briefly and send his love and so on to help put her mind at rest. He agreed, but when he got spoke, by conditions, he told her that she wasn’t to go anywhere yet, that he was on his way that nite (this was the first she knew of it) and to wait for him!!! We dreaded getting a call before he set off, but wait, she did! She now has all her sons at her bedside, is very happy and peaceful as she slips in and out of consciousness, a little confused but mostly lucid in her thoughts and awareness of those around. So we’re really feeling very fortunate that it’s all working out so well. ..... --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > Thankyou Sarah for this post. It is both inspiring and contains good > reminders. Most of us have to face such a situation in our lives, for > some, many times. The last time I faced such a situation it was > almost with total ignorance, the next time I am certain it would not > be so. .... ....Or we may be a little wiser, but still not have these opportunities. ..... > I really would like my own parents to study the Buddha's teachings > and I have tried. And I would like to think that it is all in vain > since they have not been very responsive. However I think the truth > is that they do gain some inspiration just by seeing my own saddha > and how the Teachings have affected me. ..... I think so. Sometimes it’s the example that has most effect. I think we also have to present the best opportunities but then be detached about the outcome. I remember when K. Sujin stayed in my family home in England and I arranged discussions. Some people travelled long distances to attend, but my parents were very polite and helpful but made sure they were otherwise occupied at discussion time! I just felt happy that I’d given them this chance and I was able to chat to them a little more afterwards. Jon’s parents also went on a short trip with K.Sujin and friends in Bangkok and at least have greatly appreciated Jon’s encouragement and example of wholesome states according to their own understanding. ..... >In this way I think Jon must > have had a positive influence on his mother in the past, and being > with her now must be the best thing a son can do for a parent. ..... I think so too. Thank you also for telling us about your friend - your quick generosity is always inspiring, Sukin. Sometimes we may feel lazy to make the effort, but your prompt energy in this regard is a great example. (oops, some mana and comparing creeping in so quickly, “Sukin is more generous....”, thanks to the reminders;-)) ..... > I can't know what her last thought were, and we can't know what Jon's > mother's last thought will be, but we do our best. .... That’s it...we just do our best and as Nina always reminds us, no need even at these times to feel stressed about it or to cling to the outcome. ..... > Courage and good cheer. May this often used reminder of Azita work in > this situation as it should in any other. .... Thanks, this is just how we’re feeling at this time.....very fortunate indeed and definitely smiling. Metta, Sarah p.s I appreciate the trouble you went to re-writing your message....I’m familiar with the patience this involves;-) ===== 20251 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 10:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: avijjaasava Hi Lars, Just a quick welcome to DSG. I hope you find some of the discussions useful/interesting and I greatly look forward to more of your well-informed comments as in your post below. I know Nina has already replied and there will be a lot of interest in this theme and encouragement from the side-lines for you to pursue it. There will be some past posts saved on the same topic at this link, but like Larry's brain, mine has suddenly gone blank (for just this moment, hopefully;-)) http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Best wishes, Metta, Sarah p.s if you are inclined to add any more comments anytime about yourself or your interest in Buddhism, of course we'd all be glad to hear. ====== --- Lars wrote: . > This is interesting. Can you tell me how you get to this conclusion, > since it seems to contradict about everything I know about the > Buddhas teaching. E.g. (D.16): > > "iti siila"m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naa. 20252 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Conceit/Mana , nine Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Thank you for this explanation. Now I see that this further > categorization of conceit of the Abhidhamma doesn't necessarily > contradict the suttas. However, frankly, I don't see the benefit of > it and it appears to be complicating an issue that doesn't need to be > complicated. When a person believes himself/herself superior, > inferior, or equal to anyone else, of course they are going to base > that comparison on either actual differences or perceived > differences; I don't see what difference it makes which they base it > on. Actually, I would even go as far as to say that these nine > categories are somewhat false because they assume that people can > accurately and honestly *know* where they are superior, inferior, or > equal to anyone else. ..... These are good points and I liked your example of Napoleon to show that even my example of heights is not quite so simple;-) I think this is just the point as you say, really it doesn’t matter what the actual differences are - whether one really is taller/shorter, older/younger, more knowledgable/less, more or less generous and so on. Conceit can arise regadless in any of the 9 ways for us.... ..... > I > don't think it is what is *actual* that is all that important, but > what is *perceived* that is the deciding factor…and this is what I > believe the Buddha taught in the suttas. ..... I agree.....like Kom says, it just depends on whether what we read gives any helpful reminders at the time or not. I’m very glad you picked up this point because it’s been a condition for some useful consideration for us all, I think. ..... > > Thank you for your well wishes and kind words. Star Kid Philip > sounds like a real handful! ;-) (He sounds more and more like me all > the time…:-). .... Hmmm...he certainly enjoys ‘talking’ to you. Ok, I’ll tell you a little more about him. (Anyone else may wish to ignore this veering off-topic part of the post). Philip came late to class on Tuesday and the other kids were complaining about how quiet it was without him (I thought it was nice and peaceful!). Then he arrived like an erupting volcano as usual and the next thing was that all the other kids were complaining to me about how annoying he was and couldn’t I control him better...... Other kids read the letters carefully, write drafts for their letters in slow motion, take them home and sometimes send a final version for posting, but often lose the draft in the meantime. Starkid Philip took a quick glance at your reply to his ‘test’ questions, put it aside, marched into my computer room and belted out his last letter in less than 5 mins, complaining as he did so about how my computer is too slow and out-of-date. We had to have a little ‘negotiation’ to remove an extra question referring to how come Jimbo (you) says Buddhism is a religion and Silly Old Mrs Abbott says it is a philosophy (of life). That was the best deal I could get from this 12 year old boy;-) This year is fine and mostly we get on pretty well. Last year there were two ‘Philips’ in the class and that was too much of a handful for me, even though I’ve been working with teenagers referred by schools at their wits’ end for a very long (maybe too long) time.... Metta, Sarah ====== 20253 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:15pm Subject: Euthanasia Hi, James I am Ki Yong. I am glad that you are not mad at me. Now I am not sad anymore about the subway accident, but I still hate the man who caused it. I just can't forgive him. Our English teacher told me that you may write a book! I am so proud because many people will get to know Asians more and they will read the poem. This time for my English lesson, I wrote about Euthanasia. I wrote the essay 'for' and 'against' the topic. I think Euthanasia should be legal because I don't want to see people dying painfully. I learned that Euthanasia was illegal in US, and I read about a man called Jack Kevorkian. I heard that he ended a lot of people's lives. He is also known as Dr.Death. He was against the laws of US. I think you heard of him. Is Euthanasia legal in US now? What do you think about Euthanasia? Do you think Dr.Death is doing the right thing? Do you think Euthanasia should be legal or illegal? Are the Buddhists against Euthanasia? If so, why do they think mercy killing is wrong? No more questions. Thank you for reading my letter. Bye. From Ki Yong 20254 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 13, 2003 11:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, I know you already have many posts waiting for you. Let me add one more, with a few more questions as they relate back to our discussions on freewill;-): I have quite a few questions about this passage you quote and I assume agree with: --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Howard, > These habits are the results of javana cittas. Here is a paragraph > summarized from Bikhu Bodhi's "Questions on Kamma": > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm > > When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an > imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It > has a tendency to repeat itself and reproduce itself. As these > actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is a sum > of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated > kamma. By yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses > of the mind, we slowly build up a greedy character, an aggressive > character or a deluded character. By resisting these unwholesome > desires, we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome > qualities. We develop a generous character, a loving and a > compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened > beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, > and as we change our character we change our total being. That is > why the Buddha emphasizes the need to be mindful of every action, of > every choice. Every choice has a tremendous potential for the future. ..... Qus: 1. Is a ‘willed action’ referring to conascent kamma condition (cetana which arises with every citta, directing or coordinating other mental factors) or asynchronous kamma condition (cetana which is kusala or akusala an which can produce results)? 2. Accepting that the passage is using conventional language, does it not give the impression that there is a self or a ‘me’ that can ‘yield’ or ‘resist’ unwholesome desires with some kind of intervention? 3. Can ‘we’ change anything? Can anything change anything that is conditioned already? 4. Is there really any choice? I know that B.Bodhi might well say that this is conventional language being used for the general reader and not for those who like abhidhamma details. However, isn’t it more important, not less, to be accurate when writing for the general reader. I’d be glad to hear your comments. I forget if this is the same article that Chris and others discussed at Cooran. If so, I’d be glad to hear any comments from the Cooranites as well;-) Metta, Sarah p.s Ken H, glad to hear your comments and reflections from the weekend of course. Hope you can prompt the others as well;-) ==================================== 20255 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 0:58am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob K, Sorry for the delay. I have been in Mumbai for the past few days and wasn't close to a network connection. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear RobM, > Could you clarify this. Do you mean that at the moment of seeing the > feeling is neutral but that the actual seeing consciousness is either > the result of kusala or akusala kamma. Thus the objects are either > pleasant or unpleasant? I agree 100% with your sentence, "Do you mean that... kamma." The moment of seeing (cakkhu-vinnana citta) is always accompanied by neutral feeling. There are two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta; the only difference between them is that one is the result of a past akusala javana citta and the other is the result of a past kusala javana citta. The two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta are both rootless; this means that they are not inherently "good" or "bad". I do not understand your sentence, "Thus the objects... unpleasant?" A visible object presents itself. The cakkhu-vinnana citta is accompanied by neutral feeling. For the sake of argument, let us imagine that this visible object is the kammic result of a past akusala javana citta. At the determining citta, conditioned by accumulations, a set of javana cittas arise. If (because of acumulations) we dislike the object, then dosa-mula javana cittas arise accompanied by unpleasant feeling. If (because of acumulations) we like the object, lobha-mula javana cittas arise accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. If (because of acumulations) we ignore the object, moha-mula javana cittas arise accompanied by neutral feeling. If (because of acumulations) we see the object as it truly is, with wise attention, kusala javana cittas arise accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. If, for the sake of argument, we imagine that the visible object is the kammic result of of a past kusala citta, then all of the above still holds. In other words, the nature of the original javana citta that conditions the vipaka does not correlate with the nature of the javana citta that arises, conditioned by the vipaka. Does this make sense to you? Metta, Rob M :-) 20256 From: Sarah Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Friends, Jon just called to say his mother passed away a little time ago. He had been at her side, holding her hand for the last few hours, stroking her and gently talking to her. His brothers and the Priest were also at her side at the end. Apparently it was a very special occasion. I can't say more as I have students. Jon will add his own comments in due course, I'm sure. Metta, Sarah ====== 20257 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 1:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Visible object in the mind-door process. Hi Nina, I think (and hope) that we are saying the same thing (perhaps my phrasing and use of the word, "concept" was not clear). --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear Rob M, > op 12-03-2003 09:32 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > > > The very first mind door citta process after the sense-door citta > > process "copies" the sense door object into a concept and from that > > point on, the mind door citta processes build and build the concept. > N: I do not think so. It is not a concept but visible object that has just > fallen away. Later on, we do not count, there can be concepts as objects. My understanding is that the object of a sense-door citta process is a rupa (i.e. visible object). This rupa lasts only for the duration of 17 cittas. The first mind door citta process after the rupa has fallen away has, as its object a mental image (a copy) of the rupa that has just fallen away. Subsequent mind-door citta processes build upon this mental image. I have called this mental image (the copy of the rupa) a "concept" as it is the object of a mind-door citta process. What we normally think of as a "concept" is something much bigger and more complex than this simple "mental image" of a rupa, but I see concepts of varying complexity. The simplest, most elemental concept is this "mental image", which forms the basis of larger, more complex concepts which are built by later mind-door citta processes. Nina, is my understanding correct? Metta, Rob M :-) Thanks for the Atth quotes. My understanding came after reading Khun Sujin's "Reality and Concepts", and it is good to know the original source. 20258 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:12am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Rob M, > ------------ > This is an important area that I'd like to understand > better. The above explanation gives the impression that > a single visible object is quite meaningless -- an > insignificant dot. Other explanations put it very > differently; they remind us that our entire world is > bound up in this one present moment of, e.g., seeing > consciousness. In this way, a single visible object > might be regarded as our entire external world. ===== Visual "reality" is a single dot. You call that dot "meaningless" and "insignificant"; if by this you mean "devoid of meaning and significance originating from our own accumulations", then you are 100% correct. Seeing things as they truly are means being able to separate the objective "reality" from the subjective "meaning and significance". I agree that our entire world is bound up in the present moment; it is only in the present moment that reality exists. I am not sure of the conflict with the fact that visual reality is a single dot. Sorry for "twisting your own words around"; does it clarify anything? ===== > > On the subject of natural law, you wrote: > -------------- > > To me that natural law is that positive or negative > feeling must be attached to a concept, which is > subjective. > > --------------- > > Here again, I am interested in the relative importance of > concept and reality in daily life. Does the cognition of > paramatta dhammas play a minor role compared to the > cognition of illusory, conceptual realities? You give some good > examples of how it does. ===== I highly recommend Khun Sujin's "Reality and Concepts - The Buddha's Explanation of the World". http://www.abhidhamma.org/sujin3.htm This book has excellent explanations to the questions you are asking (and probably some that you haven't thought of asking yet). What do you mean by "minor role"? The number and kammic impact of sense-door citta processes is far smaller than the number and kammic impact of mind door citta processes. Does this mean that sense-door citta processes (taking paramattha dhammas as object) take a "minor role" when compared with mind-door citta processes (taking concepts as object)? Does a seed play a "minor role" in the creation of a tree, even though the seed is very small when compared with the tree? ===== > > I was reading about sannavipallasa in the useful posts > file; it seems to be an example of important activity, purely > at the level of paramattha dhammas. Message 14142, from > Larry, quotes the guide to CMA par. 17 ch. IV: > > "The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibhanga, > contends that when a person considers a desirable object > to be undesirable, or an undesirable object to be > desirable, he does so due to a perversion of perception > (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however, > remains inherently desirable or undesirable independently > of the person's personal preferences." ===== Thanks for raising this. I am going to study further and get back to you. ===== > > For me, this brings vague memories of a sutta which employed > the simile of a swarm of gad flies. They were racing > towards a heap of manure shouting, "This we shall eat! > This we shall eat!" At first reading, I thought, 'that's > perfectly understandable; for a fly, manure is > wholesome.' But maybe I was wrong; possibly the sutta was > saying that, figuratively speaking, it was the flies' > perversion of perception that made them mistake the > undesirable for the desirable. > > What are your thoughts on this? I tend to agree with your second analysis. I think of perversion of perception being like a deer mistaking a scarecrow to be a man; this is because sanna is inherently superficial. Metta, Rob M :-) 20259 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:14am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > Dear RobM, > > Could you clarify this. Do you mean that at the moment of seeing > the > > feeling is neutral but that the actual seeing consciousness is > either > > the result of kusala or akusala kamma. Thus the objects are either > > pleasant or unpleasant? > ____________________________________________________ > RobMI agree 100% with your sentence, "Do you mean that... kamma." > > The moment of seeing (cakkhu-vinnana citta) is always accompanied by > neutral feeling. There are two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta; the > only difference between them is that one is the result of a past > akusala javana citta and the other is the result of a past kusala > javana citta. The two types of cakkhu-vinnana citta are both > rootless; this means that they are not inherently "good" or "bad". _______________ Yes they are the jati of vipaka > > _________________________________ > RobM:I do not understand your sentence, "Thus the objects are either pleasant or unpleasant?" ______________________ Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all cakkhu-vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or good, agreeable ). Of course following javana processes- which are of an entirely different jati- may be with aversion( in the case of those who dislike the Buddha) or with lobha (attachment) or they could be kusala. RobertK > > A visible object presents itself. The cakkhu-vinnana citta is > accompanied by neutral feeling. For the sake of argument, let us > imagine that this visible object is the kammic result of a past > akusala javana citta. At the determining citta, conditioned by > accumulations, a set of javana cittas arise. If (because of > acumulations) we dislike the object, then dosa-mula javana cittas > arise accompanied by unpleasant feeling. If (because of > acumulations) we like the object, lobha-mula javana cittas arise > accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. If (because of > acumulations) we ignore the object, moha-mula javana cittas arise > accompanied by neutral feeling. If (because of acumulations) we see > the object as it truly is, with wise attention, kusala javana cittas > arise accompanied by either pleasant or neutral feeling. > > If, for the sake of argument, we imagine that the visible object is > the kammic result of of a past kusala citta, then all of the above > still holds. > > In other words, the nature of the original javana citta that > conditions the vipaka does not correlate with the nature of the > javana citta that arises, conditioned by the vipaka. > > Does this make sense to you? > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 20260 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:21am Subject: Candlelight Vigil for Peace Dear Group, You are welcome to join the Global Candlelight Vigil for Peace: Sunday, March 16 -- 7:00 PM Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Reverend Robert Edgar, and other religious leaders call for candlelight vigils around the world on march 16th to say yes to peace -- and no to war with Iraq. So far, 2874 vigils have been scheduled in 103 countries. http://www.moveon.org/vigil/ [For any interested Aussies - you have approx. 185 Silent Vigils to choose from. (Remember to buy candles - I hear paper plates with a hole in the centre make good protectors against hot candle wax on the hands.)] metta, Christine 20261 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Friends First of all, my thanks and appreciation to everyone who has posted on this thread, for your encouragement and support, and my apologies for not having been able to respond to you individually. I hope you will excuse me in this instance. As Sarah has mentioned, my mother passed away earlier this evening. Happily, I was able to be at her side, together with my 2 brothers, for the few hours leading up to her passing away. Although it was a little distressing to see her labouring physically (trouble with breathing, etc), we were comforted by the knowledge that she was at peace with herself and the world and that there was no apparent mental anguish about the prospect of leaving this life. My mother had the good fortune to be accepting about the inevitability of death, and I think this made it easier for her to approach the recent rapid deterioration in her condition with equanimity. I am grateful to Sarah for her support for my making this second trip to Australia so soon after the last one. I will be staying on here for the funeral next week, and I hope to have some time over the next few days to catch up with posts again. Jon --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Jon just called to say his mother passed away a little time ago. He > had > been at her side, holding her hand for the last few hours, stroking > her > and gently talking to her. His brothers and the Priest were also at > her > side at the end. Apparently it was a very special occasion. > > I can't say more as I have students. Jon will add his own comments > in due > course, I'm sure. > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== 20262 From: azita gill Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 2:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... --- Sarah wrote: > Dear Friends, > > Jon just called to say his mother passed away a > little time ago. He had > been at her side, holding her hand for the last few > hours, stroking her > and gently talking to her. His brothers and the > Priest were also at her > side at the end. Apparently it was a very special > occasion. ...... > > Metta, > > Sarah > ====== > > dear Sarah, when I read this, I stared at the screen for several moments with rather watery eyes, but also with the thought that this event is sooooo inevitable for all of us, an event that no-one escapes, and that we never know when that event will arise and fall away. Cuti citta followed by Patisandhicitta - already for Jon's mum there is rebirth consciousness. I think about life and death quite a lot bec. of my work. Sometimes when I see a newborn baby, I think about death and that a condition for death is birth. Endings can sometimes be very sad occasions, and part of those tears in my eyes was for an ending of my own. Our family home has finally been cleaned out and sold - the house where my daughters grew up - that my ex partner and I build and .... well, I'm sure you all relate to endings and that you all know how inevitabe they are. It's how we deal with those events that is the important issue, I believe. Is there kusala or akusala citta at this moment? IN the end that's all that matters, in the end it is only the good or the evil that I've done that I will inherit. I shall quote Howard's 'logo' 'this is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: a star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightening in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom and a dream' Patience to not run away from this moment, Courage to stay here and good cheer to make life a little easier. Azita 20263 From: azita gill Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Azita (& Jon), > > --- azita gill wrote: > > > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A > Manual > > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them > to > > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' > ..... > I don't remember seeing this reference to the > fearless lions - do you know > where it is? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ======= > dear Sarah, as mentioned, this came from Narada's 'A Manual of Abhidhamma', it is in footnote form at the bottom of p124, and gives no other detail about which commentary. Sorry, can't give any more details. thanks for the message no. It is much clearer now to me why Mana and Ditthi do not arise together. cheers, Azita > 20264 From: Lars Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 3:40am Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > The conditions for the arising of right mindfulness and right > understanding are: listening to the dhamma and considering it in > one's own life. O.K. I think our views are not so far appart after all :-) > It is not so that we first have to keep the precepts perfectly, > and anyway, only the sotapanna can. And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) > We have to check: did the Buddha set any rule about the > development of right understanding? Any time is the time for the > development of right understanding, we should not delay this. In fact right view is the first factor of the path, and according to M 117 all other factors are based on it. However in the very same sutta it is also stated that the right view that is a factor of the path is a right view that is ariyacittassa. So to say that having right view, to have entered the path, already means to have attained at least to sotapanna stage. (Correct me if I misunderstand this.) And the conditions for the arising of right view are as you said: another ones utterance and yoniso manasikara. So no mention of sila here. But then when the Buddha used the gradual teaching to lead people the the understanding of the four noble truths (which is right view - S. 45.8) he would very well speak of sila first. And also in the course of practice for monks (e.g. M 125) the Buddha would first let the monk perfect sila before he would teach him sense restraint, let alone satipatthana. So even if it may not be essential for the arising of right view, it is certainly a supporting condition. Then as M 43 points out after the arising of right view five things are needed to arrive at the liberation of mind: sila, hearing (the dhamma), discussing it, samatha and vipassana. (This also about samatha not being necessairy.) > I am glad you brought up this important point, and a great deal > more could be said about it. I hope we will have some more insightfull discussion about this. Lars 20265 From: Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Dear Jon (and Sarah) - Jon, may the loss of your mother's presence be eased by the recollection of your love for each other and the good "fortune" of your being able to be with her at the time of her passing. It is wonderful that your mother wasn't fearful of death and that she was in a state of relative calm and peace with things. I'm sure that your being with her was an important factor in that. A number of years back I was with my mother at the time of her passing. Near the end, she was comatose or semicomatose, and I can't be certain that she was aware of my bedside presence and my talking to her, but still I held her hand, I told her that my wife and I, and our sons, and others that she loved were all well and would continue to be, and I assured her that all would be well for her, and that things would be "getting better". Maybe she heard me, maybe not. I do put great stock in the importance of a calm, peaceful mind at the time of death, and I think that the loving presence of you and your brothers with your mom at this time was surely a great help to her. May you be well. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/14/2003 9:23:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Dear Friends > > First of all, my thanks and appreciation to everyone who has posted > on this thread, for your encouragement and support, and my apologies > for not having been able to respond to you individually. I hope you > will excuse me in this instance. > > As Sarah has mentioned, my mother passed away earlier this evening. > Happily, I was able to be at her side, together with my 2 brothers, > for the few hours leading up to her passing away. Although it was a > little distressing to see her labouring physically (trouble with > breathing, etc), we were comforted by the knowledge that she was at > peace with herself and the world and that there was no apparent > mental anguish about the prospect of leaving this life. > > My mother had the good fortune to be accepting about the > inevitability of death, and I think this made it easier for her to > approach the recent rapid deterioration in her condition with > equanimity. > > I am grateful to Sarah for her support for my making this second trip > to Australia so soon after the last one. > > I will be staying on here for the funeral next week, and I hope to > have some time over the next few days to catch up with posts again. > > Jon 20266 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 10:26am Subject: FW: [Pali] Re: aasava ---------- Van: nina van gorkom Datum: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 11:22:46 +0100 Aan: Onderwerp: Re: [Pali] Re: aasava Dear Lars op 13-03-2003 15:01 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > But what rendering would follow from those texts? Inflow or Outflow? > The descriptions of the aasavas flowing into the faculties is quite > good, but I shall discuss that on the other list. N: I just followed the tr of the Atthasalini 48: they flow or arise from the senses and the mind. The aa is explained: keeping within, like madira wines, a long fermentation. Savanti: they flow. Dhammasanga.ni: a long footnote: flowing in, upon, over. They flow onto, circulate about the senses and the mind. Now, these are similes to explain realities. It does not matter whether we see it as in- or outflow. An image is an image, nothing more or less than that. What is important: to see that there are aasavas now, in daily life. They are so persistent, keep on trickling, are like intoxicants. They are dangerous. The same akusala dhammas are also classified as oghas, floods (keep us submerged in the cycle), and yoghas, yokes. This in order to show us different aspects. but they are very real. Buddhist Dictionary, Ven. Nyanatiloka: aasava: lit. influxes. The Commentary to the Abhidhammattha Sangaha, the Abhidhammattha Vibhaavinii (A recent Tr. as Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma and Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma, PTS) gives: "They are the taints (aasavas) in the sense of standing [fermenting] (paarivaasiya) for so long that the beginning cannot be known, or because, like pus flowing from a wound, they flow (visandana) from the eye, etc. towards the objects (of consciousness). Alternatively, they are taints in that they flow (savati)-they ocur- up to (aa) the summit of existence as far as existence is concerned, and up to the point of change-of-lineage (gotrabhuu) as far as dhamma is concerned. Here the prefix aa has the sense of limit, and a limit is twofold as exclusive and inclusive." Here we have to remember that they occur up to the highest plane of existence. And also that they are eradicated with enlightenment (occurring after gotrabhuu), but only all of them are eradicated at the stage of arahatship. Again, I do not fall over different translations. We also have to remember that the aim of the commentators was not linguistics or etymology, but they used word associations in order to explain about dhammas, realities. Nina. 20267 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 4:48pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Robert K, Ken H (and others), --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . > Vedana accompanying all cakkhu-vinanna is always neutral. However,at > the actual moment of seeing (before the javana)this visible object is > inherently pleasant (or good, agreeable ). > Of course following javana processes- which are of an entirely > different jati- may be with aversion( in the case of those who > dislike the Buddha) or with lobha (attachment) or they could be > kusala. I know that CMA (IV, 17) clearly states that sense objects are intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or extremely desirable. I have a hard time understanding or accepting this. The computer that I am typing on; is it "intrinsicly" good because it can be used for sharing dhamma or "intrinsicly" bad because it can be used for sharing pornography? Bhikkhu Bodhi writes, "The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between the intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average being (majjhima-satta): 'It is distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants.' " In these post-Enron days, I have a problem accepting "accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants" as the determining factor for moral qualities. Robert K (and others), please help me. I am stuck; - I don't want to say that the Abhidhamma is WRONG; it was written by people much smarter than I am - I can't understand how this "intrinsic quality of sense objects" can be true Ken H brought up the same issue in a recent post, and I said that I would revert to him. Metta, Rob M :-) 20268 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:45pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > > These habits are the results of javana cittas. Here is a paragraph > > summarized from Bikhu Bodhi's "Questions on Kamma": > > > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm > > > > When a willed action is performed it leaves a track in the mind, an > > imprint which can mark the beginning of a new mental tendency. It > > has a tendency to repeat itself and reproduce itself. As these > > actions multiply, they form our character. Our personality is a sum > > of all our willed actions, a cross-section of all our accumulated > > kamma. By yielding first in simple ways to the unwholesome impulses > > of the mind, we slowly build up a greedy character, an aggressive > > character or a deluded character. By resisting these unwholesome > > desires, we replace them with their opposites, the wholesome > > qualities. We develop a generous character, a loving and a > > compassionate personality, or we can become wise and enlightened > > beings. As we change our habits gradually, we change our character, > > and as we change our character we change our total being. That is > > why the Buddha emphasizes the need to be mindful of every action, of > > every choice. Every choice has a tremendous potential for the future. > ..... > Qus: > 1. Is a `willed action' referring to conascent kamma condition (cetana > which arises with every citta, directing or coordinating other mental > factors) or asynchronous kamma condition (cetana which is kusala or > akusala an which can produce results)? ===== Interesting question. My first reaction is that 'willed action' refers to a javana citta. All cittas (including javana cittas), must have conascent kamma condition as one of the conditions to coordinate the citta and cetasikas. My understanding of asynchronous kamma condition is that this is the way in which a result is conditioned. In other words, a vipaka citta arises conditioned by asynchronous kamma condition or a kamma-produced rupa such as the six sense bases is conditioned by asynchronous kamma condition. I don't think that javana cittas are conditoned by asynchronous kamma condition. I think that javana cittas are the conditioning factors for asynchronous kamma condition to arise. ===== > 2. Accepting that the passage is using conventional language, does it not > give the impression that there is a self or a `me' that can `yield' or > `resist' unwholesome desires with some kind of intervention? ===== Yes, this passage does seem to give an impression of an "I" who is in control (so do most of the Suttas). I found a quote (not sure of the Sutta) attributed to the Buddha, "These are merely names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Perfect One (Tathagata) uses, without misapprehending them." If I tried to teach my Abhidhamma class without once using an "I" concept, it would be so awkward that the class would be completely lost and miss the point of the Dhamma being taught. As "uninstructed worldlings" we still use the "I" concept to communicate and understand the Dhamma. When our understanding has matured, we can go back and say to ourselves, "the Dhamma that I have learned is still valid, but now I can go back and see how it works without an 'I' concept at the centre." Early man personified nature (weather gods, tree spirits, etc.). Imagine trying to explain lightning to a cave man using science (assuming that you could communicate using the same language). Initially, you have have to communicate using terms / concepts that were familiar to him and then you could gradually progress to a higher level of understanding. (also see my comment at the end.) ===== > 3. Can `we' change anything? Can anything change anything that is > conditioned already? ===== It is a natural law (anicca) that things change. Things change because appropriate conditions (noun) arise which condition (verb) this change. From our limited point of view, from our narrow perspective, we cannot see the big picture of how all these conditioning factors arise and interact (only a Buddha can see this). You have the illusion that you had free will to choose to write this message to me. In reality, there was no free-will, no choice involved. Conditions arose which might have included: - An eye-door sense process arose in the mental stream now known as Sarah, which (after many mind door citta processes) built words and concepts (then stored in short term memory) - The concepts from the earlier message conditioned the arising of other (questioning) concepts in the mental stream now known as Sarah - An eye-door sense process arose in the mental stream now known as Sarah, which (after many mind door citta processes) was named as "my computer" - The earlier (question) concept and the current (computer) concept together conditioned, together with accumulations conditioned the arising of the "will to type" cittas. << Is it ever tough to try and communicate concepts without inserting an 'I'!!>> ===== > 4. Is there really any choice? ===== The accumulation of personality belief (sakkaya-ditthi) conditions the arising of the concept of "I chose to type the message". Actually, there was no choice involved; it was the natural unfolding of things that "you" should type that message. If, in an effort to disprove this, you had stopped typing the message half way through, then this stopping of typing was also a natural event. The event that helped this all fit into place for me occured when we were together in Hong Kong. Jon was trying to explain something to me and I was confused. I recognized the mental state of confusion and a "light bulb went on". I thought to myself, "Was there an 'I' who chose to be confused at this moment? No! Confusion arose naturally. Is there an 'I' who chooses to have wrong view? No! Wrong view arises naturally. Is there an 'I' who choses to be restless? No! Restlessness arises naturally." I realized that I had gone through the moha-mula javana cittas and come to the conclusion that it made perfect sense that moha-mula javana cittas arose because of conditions and accumulations, not because of an 'I'. I realized that it could not be any other way. The idea that there was a 'part-time I' that only got involved with lobha-mula and dosa-mula cittas, but did not get involved with moha-mula cittas did not make sense. Lobha- mula and dosa-mula cittas are more "active" than moha-mula cittas, so it not difficult to understand that we all have an accumulation that tries to attribute a "doer" to this action; just as cave-men attributed a doer to lightning. ===== > > I know that B.Bodhi might well say that this is conventional language > being used for the general reader and not for those who like abhidhamma > details. However, isn't it more important, not less, to be accurate when > writing for the general reader. I'd be glad to hear your comments. ===== Another quote (not by the Buddha), "Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it." Metta, Rob M :-) 20269 From: Andrew Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 5:55pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Robert K, Ken H (and others), > > Robert K (and others), please help me. I am stuck; > - I don't want to say that the Abhidhamma is WRONG; it was written > by people much smarter than I am > - I can't understand how this "intrinsic quality of sense objects" > can be true > > Ken H brought up the same issue in a recent post, and I said that I > would revert to him. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hi Rob M & others Ken H is nagging me to flaunt my ignorance online again so that he doesn't get in trouble from Sarah (joke!). I don't feel that I know enough yet to be of much help, however I will contribute a thought on this topic. I too tend to think of "pleasant" and "unpleasant" as subjective and conceptual rather than intrinsic. My thought is this: could Rob M and I being falling into a language trap here? Rather than thinking of ice cream pleasant and snake bite painful, should we be more thinking of attraction and repulsion along the lines of magnets attracting or repelling according to their poles? I looked up SUBHA-NIMITTA in my Pali dictionary and found a quotation of the Buddha talking about "attractive" objects to be wisely considered lest sense-desire arises. To sum up, are we talking about an intrinsic quality of attractiveness or repulsion that exists even if there is no flowing on to the mind-door and its engaging concepts? Thinking of Jon and Sarah, metta to all Andrew PS we would love to see RobM at Cooran sometime. PPS Smokey Joe hasn't lost any weight! 20270 From: Dan D. Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:08pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Robert, you write: "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all cakkhu- vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or good, agreeable )." I have a couple of questions: 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his skin is just brown. Don't you agree? 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I don't understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a flavor of vedana, not of rupa. I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between rupa and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it might useful to split hairs here. Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as applied to visible object? Dan 20271 From: Star Kid Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 7:39pm Subject: Kom Dear Kom, Thanks for your helpful letter, I have heard of the cycle of the result and cause before, I agree with it, so everytime after I had a quarrel with others, I think we were too silly. Tomorrow I will have my project presentation, it's held by my school every year. Many parents will see our presentation, I hope I could get a good result because I think we put a lot of efford into it. ( And I think it is a good cause!) I am glad that someone is similar to me, and I'm surprised that you are scared when watching scary movies~ After reading your letter, I feel better already, thanks. Lastly, I will have my house basketball competition next week, I already know I will lose because the others are very strong, so I would like to ask, how can I enjoy the matches better even I know I will lose from a Buddhist point of view? Kimmy 20272 From: azita gill Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 8:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- "Dan D." wrote: > Robert, you write: > "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana > accompanying all cakkhu- > vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual > moment of seeing > (before the javana)this visible object is inherently > pleasant (or > good, agreeable )." > > I have a couple of questions: > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? > The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I > just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in > the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The > brown of his skin > is just brown. Don't you agree? > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently > pleasant", I don't > understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as > a flavor of > vedana, not of rupa. > > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it > second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object > can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can > "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha > as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. > Azita: I find this very interesting. I had thought that the object was inherently 'pleasant/unpleasant' no matter how we perceived it. To me, it makes sense because when we experience kusala vipaka thro. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body surely the object must be pleasant, otherwise how could we receive good result. What is kusala vipaka if not the experience of something pleasant? > It is so critical to understand clearly the > distinction between rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very > difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. > > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and > "desirable" as > applied to visible object? > Azita: "pleasant" seems to be more objective, dissociated from 'me', whereas "desirable" involves 'me'.... the object is pleasant whether I'm experiencing it or not, the desirable object is something that I've experienced and want. What do others think about this? Dan 20273 From: robmoult Date: Fri Mar 14, 2003 9:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Azita and others, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, azita gill wrote: > Azita: I find this very interesting. I had thought > that the object was inherently 'pleasant/unpleasant' > no matter how we perceived it. To me, it makes sense > because when we experience kusala vipaka thro. eyes, > ears, nose, tongue and body surely the object must be > pleasant, otherwise how could we receive good result. > What is kusala vipaka if not the experience of > something pleasant? I have a problem accepting your last sentence. Seeing consciousness is vipaka; it is rootless. It does not have any of the immoral roots (lobha, dosa, moha), nor does it have any of the moral roots (alobha, adosa, panna). When we define seeing consciousness as being "akusala vipaka" or "kusala vipaka", we are only referring to the nature of the javana which conditioned it ("good" or "bad"). Seeing consciousness cannot be intrinsicly "good" or "bad". If we look at the menal factors (cetasikas) which accompany "kusala vipaka seeing consciousness" and "aksuala vipaka seeing consciousness" we can see that they are identical. When we do something akusala (action A); a "kammic seed" is created. Do we interpret the Sammohavinodani as saying that this kammic seed can only condition seeing consciousness of an object that is inherently undesireable (anittha)? Then the seeing consciousness citta is neutral, but the object is inherently undesireable. I am confused. I am hoping that somebody can straighten me out on the intrinsic nature of rupa (undesirable / moderately desirable / extremely desirable). Metta, Rob M :-) 20274 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 0:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Larry (and all) Thanks for this interesting extract from the commentary. What do you make of the 3rd of the 3 types of contentment. Are the comments regarding disposal of surplus 'luxury' items to be read in the context of the monk's life, or do they apply generally, in your view? Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Victor, > > Here is the sutta on the ariya vamsa: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an04-028.html > > Notice there is contentment with the requisites of life and also > delight > in bhavana (mental development). The commentary to Kassapasamyutta > in SN 16.1, p. 662 Wisdom edition says the following: > > Spk [SN Commentary] discusses a threefold typology of contentment: > (i) > contentment that accords with one's gains, i.e., remaining content > with > any gains, whether fine or course; (ii) content that accords with > one's > ability, i.e., remaining content with whatever one needs to sustain > one's health; and (iii) contentment that accords with suitability, > i.e., > disposing with any luxury items received and retaining only the > most > basic requisites. 20275 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Rupa in the teachings Dharam D: I appreciate your thoughtful response, which actually addresses parts of the paradox I was trying to get at, by using the issue of concepts. We probably can manage various learning methods simultaneously, [alright, sequentially ;-) ]. IMO the main thing is avoiding premature closure on 'other' methods and constructs, e.g. concepts, until understanding the present dhammas becomes natural and continous. Again IMO there is no need to reject concepts while trying to make some point, and then blithely utilizing them, sometimes in the next sentence! This apparently schizophrenic approach can be unsettling to u.w. such as me. J: There is no question of the dhamma ‘rejecting’ concepts, as I understand the teachings. Concepts are expounded upon at length in (for example) certain parts of the Abhidhamma. They are a necessary part of the life of everyone living in the sensuous planes. Even the fully enlightened being thinks conceptually of persons and objects, time and distance, life and death, and of course no speech of any kind is possible without massive conceptualising. What the teachings do is to explain the difference between concepts and dhammas. Dhammas such as heat and hardness (experienced through the body-sense), sound (experienced through he ear-sense) and so on are universal and unchangeable phenomena that are experienced by everyone. The teachings explain to us how those dhammas can be known more truly for what they truly are (instead of being taken for something that they aren’t). They each have their own individual characteristic, and also share certain characteristics in common, and it is these characteristics that gradually become known as understanding is developed. D: There have been some interesting observations on science and Buddha's teachings. The only way to explore this exciting area (either of convergence or divergence) is to use concepts. Sound, its effect on the ear and mind-doors etc. can be fruitfully explored using both constructs. I believe it cannot be done by being fanatically averse to 'lowly' concepts. J: The object of the study of the dhamma as urged by the Buddha, to my understanding, is the seeing of any presently arising dhamma as it truly is (i.e., rather than the study of a specific, chosen dhamma). In order for this to occur there needs to be the discrimination between dhammas and concepts. This discrimination is neither a rejection of nor an aversion to concepts. Concepts are a necessary and unavoidable part of functioning in this world and developing understanding. D: I hope this is not just my clinging to concepts, but rather an appreciation for their limited value. I (being an u.w. interested in the rising and falling of theories in the span of recent history) cannot intelligently comment on 'correct answers', and suspect that in many cases, correctness is just another delusion. J: I forget the exact context of my reference to correctness was, but I would assume it was in the sense of being in accordance with what is found in the texts, that being one of our 'quests' here, as I see it. Jon 20276 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) Azita --- azita gill wrote: > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A Manual > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them to > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water rather than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). Interesting to think of mind without sati as being like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water. Jon 20277 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 2:22am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Robert, you write: > "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all cakkhu- > vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing > (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or > good, agreeable )." > > I have a couple of questions: > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his skin > is just brown. Don't you agree? ____________ Dear Dan, Good to see you around, hope we could see more of you. It is sometimes confusing to talk about paramattha (visible object) and samutti (the Buddha) in the same sentence. Nevertheless the texts do it so if we understand that the purpose is to elucidate and not cloud then it should be OK. The questions about this are very helpful though. Take the brown of the Buddhas skin: This brown would be, I believe,be of a different shade from say the brown of a piece of shit. Seeing one is the result of kusala kamma and the other is not. But it is not always obvious which is which in daily life. > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I don't > understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a flavor of > vedana, not of rupa. > > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. > > It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. > > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as > applied to visible object? > ________________ In my post I said "inherently pleasant (or > good, agreeable ).". Perhaps agreeable is better than pleasant. The pali gives a list of synonyms which make it clearer. Last year I wrote a letter to you which I repeat as RobM would probably like to read it too: From the Dispeller of Delusion(Sammohavinodani) p9-11: Rupa sadda (visible data, sounds)..there are none which are disagreeable that are born of profitable kamma; all are agreeable only....But a disputatious speaker (vitandavadin) said 'There is no intrinsic agreeable and disagreeable'It is according to the likings of these or those 9individuals)[and the vitandavadin goes on to give an example of how to people in some distant place worms are considered a delicacy whereas most people find them repulsive , he also says the same about peacocks flesh]. He should be asked 'But how? Do you say that there is no distinguishing an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable?' 'Yes: I say there is not?..[it continues a little more and then refutes the vitantavadin (sectarian of another school)] ''It is through perversion of perception that the same object is agreeable for one and disagreeable for another. But there is the distinguishing of an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable'.......the elder Tipitaka Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to vipaka (kamma result) only, not according to javana (impulsion that follows the vipaka). But it is impulsion through perversion of perception (sannavipallasa)only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable; that lusts for the disagreeable and hates the same agreeable. Only by way of vipaka however is it rightly distinguishable. For resultant consciousness (vipaka citta) cannot be mistaken. If the object is agreeable it is profitable result that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable result that has arisen. Although those of wrong view on seeing such exalted objects as the enlightened one(buddha) shut their eyes and feel domanassa (unpleasant feeling)[arising during the javana stage]and on hearing the Dhamma they stop their ears nevertheless their eye-consciouness, ear-consciousness , etc are only profitable kamma result (vipaka). Although dung eating pigs on smelling the odour of dung become joyful, thinking;'we shall get something to eat' nevertheless their eye-consciousness (a vipaka) in the seeing of the dung, nose consciousness (a vipaka) in smelling its odour and tongue consciousness (a vipaka)in tasting its flavour is only unprofitable result."" ENDQUOTE ------ It is true that often we cannot be sure whether the present vipaka is the result of kusala kamma or akusala kamma. And it is not so important to know - that is why all vipaka is classified as only one jati whereas akusala kamma and kusala kamma have a jati each: We must learn to distinguish kusala citta from akusala citta. Sarah pointed out recently that even when we read a dhamma book there could be many moments when the visible object is a slight stain on the page or something else (and at that moment akusala vipaka). And if we still think in wholes and situation we cannot understand vipaka either: For instance, I mentioned a while back the case of holding a soft dogshit in the hand and how most people think this is entirely akusala. However, the commentary (see sammohavinodani p11 )notes that in such a case that the vipaka through body sense is actually kusala (because soft) while through the eyesense and nose sense, akusala- for obvious reasons. In a short moment these different vipakas alternate many times, but one might not be aware of how it is changing. Even in the above example someone might object and say 'what if there were little hard bits in the shit; wouldn't it be akusala through the bodysense then?' And, yes maybe it would in that case. But the examples are given to help us see these matters so we can study dhammas directly and see for ourselves, not to cover every possible hypothetical case. RobertK > > Dan 20278 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 5:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Seclusion It is a joy to live in solitude, alone, secluded from sensuality and unwholesome. Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Victor, > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I would be interested to have a conversation on seclusion with > > anyone who is interested. To start the conversation, I will put > > forth the questions: What does it mean by seclusion? What are the > > benefits of seclusion? > ..... > > I think seclusion is usually a translation of viveka. Here are two sets of > definition. There may well be others in different contexts. If you have a > particular sutta in mind or use in context, pls let us know. I look > forward to your further comments. > > Metta, Sarah > ========== > > > 1.From Nyantiloka dictionary: > http://www.palikanon.com/english/wtb/dic3_v.htm > > * > viveka > > 'detachment', seclusion, is according to Niddesa, of 3 kinds: > > * > (1) bodily detachment (káya-viveka), i.e. abiding in solitude free from > alluring sensuous objects; > > * > (2) mental detachment (citta-viveka), i.e. the inner detachment from > sensuous things; > > * > (3) detachment from the substrata of existence (upadhi-viveka). > > In the description of the 1st absorption, > > * > the words "detached from sensuous things" (vivicc' eva kámehi) refer, > according to Vis.M. IV, to 'bodily detachment'; > > * > the words "detached from karmically unwholesome things" (vivicca akusalehi > dhammehi) refer to 'mental detachment'; > > * > the words "born of detachment" (vivekaja), to the absence of the 5 > hindrances. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- > * > viveka-sukha > > 'happiness of detachment', or aloofness (s. prec). > > "Whoso is addicted to society and worldly bustle, he will not partake of > the happiness of renunciation, detachment, peace and enlightenment" > (A.VII.86). > ===================================================================== ===== > 2. From Sammohavinodani, Comy to Dhammasangani, PTS, (1544): > on seclusion as in "he develops the mindfulness awakening factor which is > dependent on seclusion": > > "Vivekanissita.m ("dependent on seclusion") = viveke nissita.m. Seclusion > is secludedness; it is fivefold, namely seclusion through substitution of > opposites (tada"ngaviveka), through suppression (vikkhambhana), cutting > off (samuccheda), tranquillisation (pa.tipasaddhi) and renunciation > (nissara.na). > > "Herein, seclusion through substitution of opposites is insight; > seclusion through suppression is the eight attainments; seclusion through > cutting off is the path; seclusion through tranquillisation is fruition; > seclusion through renunciation is nibbana, which has renounced all signs. > Thus "dependent on seclusion" is dependent on this fivefold > seclusion......" 20279 From: Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 7:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Wrong view/Ditthi vs. Conceit/Mana (was, Dukkha as Medicine?) Hi, Jon (and Azita) - In a message dated 3/15/2003 8:23:52 PM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Azita > > --- azita gill wrote: > > BTW, I have just a this moment, read in 'A Manual > > of Abhidhamma' by Narada '.......where there is > > Ditthi there is no Mana. Commentaries compare them to > > two fearless lions that cannot live in one den' > > A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated > translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental factor > of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or function > of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the > object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water rather > than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). > > Interesting to think of mind without sati as being like a > pumpkin > bobbing about in the water. > > Jon ============================ It seems to me that "the citta fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the object" sounds like one-pointed mind, like a mindstate with (significant) concentration. I take "The mental factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the object" to mean not that mindfulness is the same as concentration but that mindfulness is a condition for the arising of concentration, that it has "the characteristic or function" of fostering concentration. Do you think I am interpreting this correctly? With metta, Howard 20280 From: Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Hi Jon, You asked what I thought about: "...contentment that accords with suitability, i.e., disposing with any luxury items received and retaining only the most basic requisites." I suppose there are differences of suitability for monastics and lay people. On the other hand, I don't see any _ultimate_ problem with heaping up mountains of riches. One could also apply this as a remedy. If a person has gotten into the habit of constantly complaining about the quality and amount of his possessions and all the agravation involved in acquiring and protecting those possessions, perhaps a simpler life would be in order. Larry 20281 From: Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:39am Subject: jhana Hi all, This is a note of encouragement for anyone who is interested in jhana. I think I have developed a counterpart sign for breathing. In my case it is the sign of air. My concentration is still weak, but I have managed to move it around and apply it to various parts of my body and mind. This sign is a bit on the subtle side but it is informed by the experiences of breathing and common knowledge of air. It is definitely a pleasant experience and something one would want to concentrate on, but it isn't extravagantly blissful. If you are interested in pursuing this, I suggest you read the "Concentration" section of the Visuddhimagga from the beginning as there are many aspects of "sign" (nimitta) scattered throughout. The Vimuttimagga and Vajira~nana Mahathera's "Buddhist Meditation in Theory and Practice" answered some questions the Visuddhimagga raised for me. Also, I think the regular practice of the Brahma Vihara would give you an experiential idea of what a sign is. Good luck! Larry 20282 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 10:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna. Dear Lars, I like your points very much and I shall try to find time next week to react more and go over the Co, but now the weekend I am busy. At times there is too much work for me, Nina. op 14-03-2003 12:40 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: >> The conditions for the arising of right mindfulness and right >> understanding are: listening to the dhamma and considering it in >> one's own life. 20284 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 15, 2003 9:45pm Subject: Re: jhana --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi all, > > This is a note of encouragement for anyone who is interested in jhana. I > think I have developed a counterpart sign for breathing. Hi Larry, Congratulations on your meditation success! I am glad that you have a firm grasp on the tactile sensation of the breath as it enters and exits the body. More than likely, you have a good understanding of signs and counter-signs and what constitutes one and what doesn't; however, some others on this list may be a bit confused about this matter. And, unfortunately, the various commentaries are contradictory because they sometimes confuse visual signs with tactile signs…which shouldn't be done. Allow me to offer a link to an excellent article on this issue which explains signs, counter- signs, and what can be confused as such: http://www.baynet.net/~arcc/dhamma/nimitta.html Metta, James 20285 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 0:26am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Rob M, Thankyou for replying in detail to the questions I raised on the extract from: > > > summarized from Bikhu Bodhi's "Questions on Kamma": > > > > > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/questions_on_kamma.htm ..... I found most of the rest of the article to be very clear and helpful I should perhaps add, that you happened to reproduce the one paragraph I personally find to be misleading, especially the part about “...as we change our character we change our total being, our whole world”. Granted we need to use conventional terms and “I” and so on, still the aim of the Teachings right from the start is to lead to more, not less, detachment from the idea of self and acceptance of conditioned realities, rather than attempts to “change” character or being. These ideas are unsupported by the texts as I read them. I am very relieved and delighted to read all your detailed comments in response to my questions, however. By the ‘choice’ of quote, I wasn’t sure if there was a little old “free-willing” slipping back in, but from what you say, it’s clear this isn’t so;-) I agree with everything you say in reply. As you emphasise, we all use terms and concepts. It just depends on the understanding while we use them and what is really meant. That’s why we need to question and clarify often, I think. On your comments in other posts about seeing and visible object, as I’ve said before, I think it is essential to get these points clear. The visible object that is seen is just as it appears now - if we say dot or even snapshot or colour, there’s so often an idea of something special, not just that which is seen and can be the object of awareness. We know convenitionally that some visible objects or sounds or tastes are pleasant and some unpleasant and in truth this is how it is, but no need to try and pinpoint. They are just as they appear. I know these comments are frustrating to read. I think the paragraph you wrote in a note to Azita is exactly how it is. You said that when an unwholesome deed is performed, the “kammic seed can only condition seeing consciousness of an object that is inherently undesirable....then the seeing consciousness citta is neutral , but the object is inherently undesirable.” As we know it is the result of very good kamma to see the Buddha and very bad kamma to see particular visible objects in the hell planes, even though they are only visible objects that are seen;-) I doubt this has helped but I hope the passages from Sammohavinodani which RobK quoted have helped more. If visible objects were only dots, I’m sure they would all be very neutral and life would not appear as it does now with all the stories and attachments on account of the visible objects. Metta, Sarah ===== 20286 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 0:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Howard Many thanks for these words of comfort and encouragement at this time of sadness for me, and for sharing your own experiences. I do agree with you about the importance of calm and peace to one about to depart this life, as I’m sure it gives the best opportunity for any accumulated kusala kamma to condition rebirth in a pleasant plane. Others present at my mother’s bedside placed importance on reassuring her that she would be entering the promised land, be reunited with my late father, and so on. While this was said with the best of intentions, I’m not sure that it conduces to calm and peace of the kusala kind. However, there was little I could do about this (being outnumbered several to one!). It was a time for equanimity on my part. Thanks again for your comments and thoughts, Howard. Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Dear Jon (and Sarah) - > > Jon, may the loss of your mother's presence be eased by the > recollection of your love for each other and the good "fortune" of > your being able to be with her at the time of her passing. It is > wonderful that your mother wasn't fearful of death and that she was > in a state of relative calm and peace with things. I'm sure that > your being with her was an important factor in that. > A number of years back I was with my mother at the time of her > passing. Near the end, she was comatose or semicomatose, and I > can't be certain that she was aware of my bedside presence and my > talking to her, but still I held her hand, I told her that my wife > and I, and our sons, and others that she loved were all well and > would continue to be, and I assured her that all would be well for > her, and that things would be "getting better". Maybe she heard me, > maybe not. I do put great stock in the importance of a calm, > peaceful mind at the time of death, and I think that the loving > presence of you and your brothers with your mom at this time was > surely a great help to her. > May you be well. > > With metta, > Howard 20287 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 1:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Pleasant and unpleasant objects (was, Questions from March weekend at Cooran) Dan It might be easier to consider this issue in the context of a doorway other than the eye-door first. It’s perhaps easier to see that in the case of the body-door some objects are inherently unpleasant (for example, the hardness or heat that is experienced as the result of a sharp blow), and some are inherently pleasant (the softness of, say, pillow against face). Likewise, through the ear-door, some sounds are inherently unpleasant (too loud, for example), even if they form part of music we like (the audible object is not ‘the music’). Similar considerations apply in the case of the visible object, but this is difficult to see unless we put aside thoughts of conventional objects (so when Rob K mentioned the Buddha, he was referring to the VO that we take for being the Buddha). Jon --- "Dan D." wrote: > Robert, you write: > "Take the case of seeing the Buddha. . Vedana accompanying all > cakkhu- > vinanna is always neutral. However,at the actual moment of seeing > (before the javana)this visible object is inherently pleasant (or > good, agreeable )." > > I have a couple of questions: > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his > skin is just brown. Don't you agree? > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I > don't understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a > flavor of vedana, not of rupa. > > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. > > It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between > rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. > > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as > applied to visible object? > > > Dan 20288 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Hi Dan, Always great to see you around and with such pertinent qus. Not sure if I can add more to what RobertK has written, but I think these are such good points, I’d like to try: --- "Dan D." wrote > 1. What visible object are you referring to here? The Buddha? My > understanding is that "visual object" is rupa, but I just can't see > how "Buddha" can be construed as a visual object in the paramattha > sense. The yellow of his robes is just yellow. The brown of his skin > is just brown. Don't you agree? ..... When we look at the Buddha, the visible object seen is not just a blank shade of yellow/brown. It’s exactly what appears to the seeing at the moment of looking just for an instant, just as it is. ..... > > 2. When you say "this visible object is inherently pleasant", I don't > understand what you mean. I thought of "pleasant" as a flavor of > vedana, not of rupa. ..... All rupas experienced through the senses are inherently pleasant or unpleasant, regardless of how they are later perceived . I particularly like this short quote from Sammohavinodani, Classification of the Aggregates, which follows the extract RobK gave: “Furthermore, agreeablesness and disagreeableness should also be understood by way of the doors (dvaara). For dung-mud which is pleasant to touch is disagreeable in the eye-door and nose-door, and is agreeable in the body-door. For one who is struck by the Wheel-Turning Monarch’s (cakkavatti) Gem Treasure (ma.niratana) and impaled on a golden spike, the golden spikes of the Gem Treasure are agreeable in the eye-door and disagreeable in the body-door? Why? Because of the arousing of great pain. Thus it should be understood that the agreeable and disagreeable are rightly distinguishable by way of (kamma) result.” I find it helpful because it can remind us how kusala and akusala vipaka cittas follow each other all the time through the different senses, expereiencing pleasant and unpleasant objects. ..... > I've read somewhere in the commentaries (was it second hand in > Narada's "Manual of Abhidhamma"?) that visual object can be > inherently "pleasant" or "unpleasant", but how can "pleasant" be an > attribute of a rupa. To me BB's rendering of ittha as "desirable" > (CMA, p. 42) hits closer to the mark. ..... In the PTS Stede/Rhys Davids dictionary for ‘i.t.tha’ (adj), it gives: “(p.p. of icchati) pleasing, welcome, agreeable, pleasant....” In Sammohavinbodani we read for ‘ani.t.tham’ “(disagreeable): disliked; or unsought for the purpose of obtaining; and if anyone should seek it let him do so; but this is a name for this kind of object (aarammana).” Another word, ‘akanta.m’ follows with the meaning of “undesired”. (For Rob M: the reference to average being (majjhimaka-satta) such as all those officials you have trouble trusting;-), is to indicate that what is intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable is for most people and not what is taken as so by ‘great emperors’ for whom ‘even a divine object appears unpleasing’ or for ‘extreme unfortunates who find it hard to get food and drink. For to them lumps of broken rice-porridge and the taste of rotten meat seem as exceedingly sweet as ambrosia.” All this on account of sanna vipallassa (perverted perception) as discussed.) You ask about the attributes of rupas as pleasant and unpleasant. When there is the hearing of the sound that we take for a waterfall, it’s not the same as that of thunder. Different tastes are not the same, regardless of the feelings and perceptions that follow. ..... > It is so critical to understand clearly the distinction between rupa > and nama, Robert, yet at the same time it is very difficult, so it > might useful to split hairs here. ..... I agree. Please continue to split hairs. ..... > Can you see any difference between "pleasant" and "desirable" as > applied to visible object? ..... For most of us, what is pleasant is desirable. For the ariyans who have eradicated attachment to pleasant sense objects (anagamis and arahants), what is pleasant is not desirable. So there were still conditions to see pleasant and unpleasant objects even for the Buddha. How does that sound? Very glad you chipped in here Dan and I hope you’ll excuse me doing the same. Best wishes to Lisa and the kids, Metta, Sarah ===== 20289 From: azita gill Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 2:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Dan, Dear RobM, you stated you had a problem with a comment of mine: 'what is kusala vipaka if not the experience of a pleasant object?' > I feel Sarah has elaborated upon this point in the following..... > All rupas experienced through the senses are > inherently pleasant or > unpleasant, regardless of how they are later > perceived . I particularly > like this short quote from Sammohavinodani, > Classification of the > Aggregates, which follows the extract RobK gave: > > “Furthermore, agreeablesness and disagreeableness > should also be > understood by way of the doors (dvaara). For > dung-mud which is pleasant > to touch is disagreeable in the eye-door and > nose-door, and is agreeable > in the body-door. For one who is struck by the > Wheel-Turning Monarch’s > (cakkavatti) Gem Treasure (ma.niratana) and impaled > on a golden spike, the > golden spikes of the Gem Treasure are agreeable in > the eye-door and > disagreeable in the body-door? Why? Because of the > arousing of great > pain. Thus it should be understood that the > agreeable and disagreeable > are rightly distinguishable by way of (kamma) > result.” > [snip] > I find it helpful because it can remind us how > kusala and akusala vipaka > cittas follow each other all the time through the > different senses, > expereiencing pleasant and unpleasant objects. > ..... > For most of us, what is pleasant is desirable. For > the ariyans who have > eradicated attachment to pleasant sense objects > (anagamis and arahants), > what is pleasant is not desirable. So there were > still conditions to see > pleasant and unpleasant objects even for the Buddha. > > How does that sound? > > Metta, > > Sarah > ===== > have deleted some of this, but you have probably read her message anyway, Rob. cheers Azita > 20290 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... Hi Azita, --- azita gill wrote: > > > dear Sarah, > when I read this, I stared at the screen for > several moments with rather watery eyes, but also with > the thought that this event is sooooo inevitable for > all of us, an event that no-one escapes, and that we > never know when that event will arise and fall away. > Cuti citta followed by Patisandhicitta - already for > Jon's mum there is rebirth consciousness. ..... Just so and it’s amazing that I was able to talk to Jon’s mum about just these points just a few days ago and she was able to respond so well. While we grieve, the new life is well underway;-) ..... > I think about life and death quite a lot bec. > of my work. Sometimes when I see a newborn baby, I > think about death and that a condition for death is > birth. .... I know. I just went out for my evening walk and passed a very sweet new baby and was reflecting in a similar way, even as I smiled at the proud mum. Starkid Charles amazed us all last year by coming out with this point, quite unprompted, after visiting a baby in hospital. ..... > Endings can sometimes be very sad occasions, > and part of those tears in my eyes was for an ending > of my own. Our family home has finally been cleaned > out and sold - the house where my daughters grew up - > that my ex partner and I build and .... well, I'm sure > you all relate to endings and that you all know how > inevitabe they are. It's how we deal with those > events that is the important issue, I believe. Is > there kusala or akusala citta at this moment? ..... I found it such a good reminder when some of us met last year in Queensland after an interval of 25years. The appearances had changed almost beyond recognition and we had all faced various losses and all had tales to tell, but instead we just talked about present moment realities and Dhamma. We all had the confidence that the world only exists at the present moment...just this moment of seeing visible object, hearing sound, thinking and so forth. I have a lot of admiration and respect for the way you have handled your loss with such dignity and that, as for others here, it is a condition to reflect wisely on the dhamma. The only real security is in the development of panna and detachment from all that is conditioned. There is no other way out than by learning to ‘live alone’ with the six worlds appearing now, one at a time. ..... >IN the > end that's all that matters, in the end it is only the > good or the evil that I've done that I will inherit. > I shall quote Howard's 'logo' > 'this is how ye shall see all this fleeting > world: a star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash > of lightening in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a > phantom and a dream' > Patience to not run away from this moment, > Courage to stay here and good cheer to make > life a little easier. ..... These are such good reminders. Thanks Azita. I greatly appreciate the patience, courage and good cheer you always share with us and yes, life is not easy, but with good cheer it can be a little easier as you say. Metta, Sarah p.s keep us posted with your travel plans. ======= 20291 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:27am Subject: VIRUS ALERT: PLEASE DON'T VIEW OR OPEN ANY ATTACHMENTS Sorry to say I've apparently been transmitting a virus as yet undetermined. If you've received an email with an attachment from me recently, please DELETE IT WITHOUT OPENING IT OR VIEWING IT IN YOUR 'PREVIEW PANE', THEN 'EMPTY' YOUR 'RECYCLE BIN'. My apologies for the inconvenience. If anyone has received this bug from me and identified it, please advise--thanks. mike 20292 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 6:39am Subject: The Promised Land Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:53 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... > Others present at my mother's bedside placed importance on reassuring > her that she would be entering the promised land, be reunited with my > late father, and so on. Is this reminiscent to you of the idea of rebirth in deva realms, etc? Do you tend to take the latter (or former, for that matter) literally, or as myth or metaphor, or...? A new can of worms? mike 20293 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 7:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Christine, Catching up on some old 'flagged' messages: ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Friday, January 31, 2003 12:09 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Love > When I first read the Piyajatika sutta, I was unhappy at the > Buddha's 'treatment' of a bereaved father. Nothing, I thought, could > be more noble than the 'sacrificial' love a parent bears for their > child. Even the grief (I thought) was noble. It was not 'natural' > to expect people not to be attached to their children. But the > Buddha (who named his son 'fetter') spoke the truth then and now - > "The truth of the Truth-speaker's words doesn't change." > > 'Discourse on Love as the Origin of Unhappiness' - Piyajatika Sutta > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Tipitaka/message/86 > "Thus it is, householder! Thus it is, householder! Grief, > lamentation, pain, distress and despair spring indeed from love; > their source is love." "Venerable Sir, to whom would it ever occur > thus: 'Grief, lamentation, pain, distress and despair spring indeed > from love; their source is love'? Venerable Sir, pleasure and > gladness spring indeed from love; their source is love." Displeased > with and disapproving of what the Bhagava said, the householder rose > from his seat and went away." Piyajatikasutta is one of my favorites. There are several different translations of which I think the most correct is 'born of a dear one (or 'one who is dear')'. > So what sort of 'love' conduces to detachment. Are we back at > only 'loving-kindness' or 'compassion', or is there more? This is my point (maybe my hobby-horse), really. I think that mettaa is better translated as 'friendliness', 'amity' or 'benevolence' rather than 'lovingkindness' (which word I believe originated in the King James Bible--you might be able to find this out in your OED). To me the ultimate in friendliness or compassion is that which encourages detachment. From the Visakhasutta: The sorrows, lamentations, the many kinds of suffering in the world, exist dependent on something dear. They don't exist when there's nothing dear. And thus blissful & sorrowless are those for whom nothing in the world is dear anywhere. So one who aspires to be stainless & sorrowless shouldn't make anything in the world dear anywhere. Udana VIII.8 Visakha Sutta To Visakha Well, just another of my opinions--maybe someday I'll be able to support it well from the Abhidhamma--or maybe I'll find out I'm wrong (again!). mike 20294 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love The sorrows, lamentations, the many kinds of suffering in the world, exist dependent on something dear. They don't exist when there's nothing dear. And thus blissful & sorrowless are those for whom nothing in the world is dear anywhere. So one who aspires to be stainless & sorrowless shouldn't make anything in the world dear anywhere. Mike, Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. This is the bargain, the price to be paid, the entry qualification. Relinquish EVERYTHING loved and dear, only then will you pass through. How many of us really confront this head-on and honestly? Even the theory, let alone the practice. I perceive we spend much more time rationalizing our attachments/detachments, fearful of the full implications of this all-or-nothing 'contract'. We have to pay heed to the Buddha telling us that we cannot have our cake, and eat it too! u.w. dharam 20295 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:21am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love > > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. Hi All, This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from context clues in several posts and still can't figure it out. Metta, James 20296 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > > > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. > > Hi All, > > This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me > what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from > context clues in several posts and still can't figure it out. > > Metta, James KKT: IMO = In My Opinion IMHO = In My Humble Opinion Following is a list of Acronyms ============= Here's some information copied from http://www.pb.org/emoticon.html: Common Emoticons and Acronyms Emoticons Emoticons (emotional icons) are used to compensate for the inability to convey voice inflections, facial expressions, and bodily gestures in written communication. Some emoticons are better known as "smileys." Emoticons can be very effective toward avoiding misinterpretation of the writer's intents. While there are no standard definitions for the following emoticons, we have supplied their most usual meanings. Most emoticons will look like a face (eyes, nose, and mouth) when rotated 90 degree clockwise. :) or :-) Expresses happiness, sarcasm, or joke :( or :-( Expresses unhappiness :] or :-] Expresses jovial happiness :[ or :-[ Expresses despondent unhappiness :D or :-D Expresses jovial happiness :I or :-I Expresses indifference :-/ or :-\ Indicates undicided, confused, or skeptical. Also :/ or :\. :Q or :-Q Expresses confusion :S or :-S Expresses incoherence or loss of words :@ or :-@ Expresses shock or screaming :O or :-O Indicates surprise, yelling or realization of an error ("uh oh!") Acronyms AAMOF as a matter of fact BBFN bye bye for now BFN bye for now BTW by the way BYKT but you knew that CMIIW correct me if I'm wrong EOL end of lecture FAQ frequently asked question(s) FITB fill in the blank FWIW for what it's worth FYI for your information HTH hope this helps IAC in any case IAE in any event ICL in Christian love IMCO in my considered opinion IMHO in my humble opinion IMNSHO in my not so humble opinion IMO in my opinion IOW in other words LOL lots of luck or laughing out loud MGB may God bless MHOTY my hat's off to you NRN no reply necessary OIC oh, I see OTOH on the other hand ROF rolling on the floor ROFL rolling on the floor laughing ROTFL rolling on the floor laughing RSN real soon now SITD still in the dark TIA thanks in advance TIC tongue in cheek TTYL talk to you later TYVM thank you very much WYSIWYG what you see is what you get Grinning Joking Laughing Smiling Yawning >> 20297 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > > > > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. > > Hi All, > > This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me > what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from > context clues in several posts and still can't figure it out. > > Metta, James Someone contacted me off-list and let me know that IMO means "In my opinion" and IMHO means "In my humble opinion". For some reason, I thought it meant something more complicated than that. So nevermind this question anymore. :-) Metta To All 20298 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi, James - In a message dated 3/16/2003 11:21:37 AM Eastern Standard Time, buddhatrue@y... writes: > Hi All, > > This may seem a stupid question, but could someone please tell me > what 'IMO' stands for? I have been trying to figure it out from > context clues in several posts and still can't figure it > out. > > Metta, James ============================= IMO = In my opinion IMHO = In my humble opinion AFAIK = As far as I know With abbreviated metta, Howard 20299 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:45am Subject: Issues of Dhamma, 4, lakkhana rupas, no 3. Issues of Dhamma, 4, lakkhana rupas, no 3. When we take into consideration the characteristics of realities, rúpa is sankhata dhamma, conditioned dhamma, and therefore, it arises and falls away. In between the moment of the arising of rúpa and its falling away, there must be its continuation and decaying until the moment of its falling away. Upacaya, the origination of rúpa and santati, its continuation, are aspects of arising, whereas decay, jaratå, and impermanence, aniccatå, are aspects of its falling away. Each kalåpa, group of rúpas arises due to its own origination factor [5] independently of the other groups of rúpa. Therefore, each group of rúpas must have its arising moment, upacaya. When we take into account the method of explanation according to the groups of rúpa, it cannot be said that the origination moment of rúpa, upacaya, occurs only at the moment of rebirth-consciousness, and that after the rebirth-consciousness has fallen away, the arising moment of the groups of rúpa is santati, continuation [6]. 2. Explanation in a general way or in conventional sense, vohåra: The Atthasåliní, the Commentary to the Dhammasangani, in the section on rúpa, in the explanation of upacaya and santati (II, Book II, Part I, Ch III, 327) states: ³In the real sense both integration and continuity are synonyms of the production (arising) of rúpa.... ŒThat which is the accumulation of the åyatanas (sense organs) is the arising of rúpa¹. ŒThat which is the arising of rúpa is continuity of rúpa¹ ². This whole passage explains the meaning of the characteristics of upacaya, arising, and santati, continuity, in a wider sense, by way of conventional terms. In the same way the ³Atthasåliní² explains jaratå as decrepitude, such as having broken teeth, greyness of the hair, wrinkled skin. The Tíka of the ³Abhidhammattha Sangaha², Manual of Abhidhamma², the Abhidhammatthavibhåviní [7] states about upacaya: ³Upacaya, accumulation is accumulating; the meaning is Œinitial accumulation¹, since the prefix upa indicates the meaning Œinitial¹ ...[8] Santati, continuity, is continuing; the meaning is Œconnected series¹. Therein, in the period from relinking (patisandhi) until the arising of the decads (groups of ten rúpas) of the eye, etc. the arising of materiality is called accumulation; after that it is called continuity.² [9] In the ³Sacca Sankhepa², and in the ³Abhidhammatta Sangaha², Chapter 6, Classification of Rúpa, we find more examples of explanation of the lakkhana rúpas in a more general or conventional sense. Footnotes: 5. There are four factors which produce rúpa: kamma, citta, temperature (utu) and nutrition (åhara). 6. As we shall see, in a more general explanation of the characteristics of rúpa it is said that the initial arising of groups of rúpa at rebirth is upacaya, or integration, and that after that there is santati, subsequent arising or continuation, of groups of rúpa. The ³Atthasåliní² (327) states with regard to the åyatanas: ³ ŒThat is integration of matter¹ means, Œthat accumulation of organs (åyatanas) of repeated production.¹ The meaning is growth...² 7. The Manual of the Abhidhamma together with the Tíka have been translated into English by R.P. Wijeratne and Rupert Gethin as: ³Summary of the Topics of Abhidhamma² and ³Exposition of the Topics of Abhidhamma². These works have been aranged together in one book, published by P.T.S. 8. Upacaya means accumulation or integration. The terms accumulation and integration denote the initial arising of rúpa. 9. After the first arising of the decads of eye, ear, etc. they grow and develop. This is an explanation in conventional terms. ***** (end of chapter) 20300 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation Dear Larry, op 15-03-2003 19:39 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Also, I think the regular practice of the Brahma Vihara would give you > an experiential idea of what a sign is. N: I am glad you mention the brahma viharas. As you remember, we read in the subcommentary to the satipatthanasutta that four meditation subjects are suitable for daily life, for all occasions. Among these is metta brahmavihara. I translated this part: buddhaanussati mettaa mara.nassati asubhabhaavanaa ca. N: The words , the meditation subjects on all occasions, mean: recollection of the Buddha, loving-kindness, mindfulness of death, and meditation of foulness. ida~nhi catukka.m yoginaa parihariyamaana.m ``sabbatthikakamma.t.thaana''nti vuccati N: This set of four meditations which is guarded by the yogi (practinioer), he called "the meditation subjects on all occasions". We do not have to do anything special, nor lead a secluded life. I find more and more that this is true. On the Pali yahoo list we had the first lesson of a new series, Pali Day by Day series B, and this was the first lesson: James W. Gair, W.S. Karunatillake Lesson 1 - Readings - Exercise 1. Buddha.m sara.na.m gacchaami I go to the Buddha as refuge dhamma.m sara.na.m gacchaami I go to the Dhamma as refuge sa.mgha.m sara.na.m gacchaami I go to the Sangha as refuge Dutiya.m pi ... Tatiya.m pi... I do not think, now I have to meditate on the Buddha, but during the day there can be spontaneously recollection of the Buddha. Also when we learn and understand a little more, we have more confidence in the Buddha Dhamma. Recolllection of the Buddha can arise quite naturally. And so it is with mindfulness of death, the circumstances in my life are such that I have to recollect this. Mindfulness of breathing would not be suitable for me, because I do not "lead a secluded life, quite removed from sense pleasures" as is stated in the Visuddhimagga. I find it very difficult to know what is air and what breath. As I see it, breath is rupa produced by citta, it is not the same as air. When one is blowing air may appear, it may not be breath. Very, very complicated. Moreover, the meditation subject is breath produced by kusala citta, not by lobha-mula-citta. Very difficult to know this, since lobha arises all the time and it may be very subtle. But everybody can only find this out for himself. I am glad you study the Visuddhimagga so thoroughly, Nina 20301 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 0:48pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Kom Hi Kimmy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > so everytime after I had a quarrel with others, I > think we were too silly. Many of my arguments are like that too: silly... > Tomorrow I will have my project presentation, it's > held by my school every year. Many parents will see > our presentation, I hope I could get a good result > because I think we put a lot of efford into it. ( And > I think it is a good cause!) I hope you have done well!!! > > I am glad that someone is similar to me, and I'm > surprised that you are scared when watching scary > movies~ You think adults would do better when watching scary movies, right? Not so, otherwise they wouldn't' be able to sell scary movies (which are many) to adults. > > Lastly, I will have my house basketball competition > next week, I already know I will lose because the > others are very strong, so I would like to ask, how > can I enjoy the matches better even I know I will lose > from a Buddhist point of view? > If I were you, I would enjoy playing with your teammates, making better friends, learning how to play basketball better, and doing the best you can in the game, even if you lose. Sometimes in life, you may find that the process of getting there is more valuable that the results. The Buddha teaches that the result comes about when its conditions are ripe. When all the causes are right, then the result is sure to follow, regardless of whether or not we wish for that result. kom 20302 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 2:27pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: jhana Hi James, I'm familiar with the essay by Bhikkhu Sona and found it wanting in some respects. My own accomplishment was just a glimpse that happened while lying in bed on a saturday morning, fooling around with the breath. I just wanted to encourage others to investigate this little known aspect of meditation. I found that the sign I experienced was neither visual nor touch based, maybe because it was the sign of air. It was sort of like an experienced idea with a presence of its own. For example, when practicing the Brahma Vihara we pervade every direction with loving kindness. That loving kindness and the directions could be generated as a learning sign, at least. In other words, we could imaginatively/actually send something out there. There is a difference between this and jhana but I don't want to pin anything down at this point. This is all very preliminary and I am sure others will have different experiences. It's a delicate process and maybe talking about it doesn't help but it isn't just an old myth. You can do it. Larry 20303 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:09pm Subject: Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 81 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html Because clear comprehension of resort is just the keeping to the course of meditation, looking straight on and looking away from the front should be done just according to each person's meditation (on the aggregates, processes and bases or on a contemplation-device and so forth) with the thought of meditation uppermost in mind. Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul which looks straight on or looks away from the front. Still, at the arising of the thought "I shall look straight on," and with that thought the process of oscillation (vayo dhatu) originating from mind, [citta samutthana] bringing into being bodily expression [viññatti] arises. Thus owing to the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity [cittakiriyavayodhatu vipphara], the lower eyelid goes down and the upper eyelid goes up. Surely there is no one who opens with a contrivance. Thereupon, eye-consciousness arises fulfilling the function of sight [tato cakkhu viññanam dassana kiccam sadhentam uppajjati], it is said. Clear comprehension of this kind here is indeed called the clear comprehension of non-delusion [evam sampajananam panettha asammoha sampajaññam nama]. Further, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be also understood, here, through accurate knowledge of the root (mula pariñña), through the casual state (agantuka bhava) and through the temporary state [tavakalika bhava]. First (is the consideration) by way of the accurate knowledge of the root: -- There is (first) the mental state of the life-continum, And (then) there are adverting, seeing, receiving, Considering, determining, and impulsion Which is seventh (in cognition's course). [bhavangavajjanañceva dassanam sampaticchanam santiranam votthapanam javanam bhavati sattamam]. There, in the course of cognition, the life-continum goes on fulfilling the function of a (main) factor of the rebirth-process [tattha bhavangam upapatti bhavassa anga kiccam sadhayamanam pavattati]; after the turning round of the life-continum, a barely active mind process, fulfilling the function of adverting or attending to an object at the sense-door of the eye, goes on [tam avattetva kiriya mano dhatu avajjana kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, fulfilling the function of seeing, eye-consciousness goes on [tannirodha cakkhu viññanam dassana kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, a resultant mind process, fulfilling the function of receiving, goes on [tannirodha vipaka mano dhatu sampaticchanna kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, a resultant mind consciousness process, fulfilling the function of considering, goes on [tannirodha vipaka mano viññana dhatu santirana kiccam sadhyamana]; from the cessation of that, a barely active mind consciousness process, fulfilling the function of determining, goes on [tannirodha kiriya mano viññana dhatu votthapana kiccam sadhayamana]; from the cessation of that, an impulsion impels seven times [tannirodha sattakkhattum javanam javati]. Now, among the mental states of the life-continuum and so forth or even in the mental state of the first impulsion, there is no looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred or ignorance by him who sees in any direction. Also there is no such stained vision by him in the mental state of the second impulsion, the third, the fourth, the fifth, sixth or even in the seventh impulsion. But when, like soldiers in a battlefield, the mental states, after breaking-up gradually are fallen, one atop of another, there takes place looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hate and ignorance, accompanied by the discriminatory thought: "This is a woman," or "This is a man," much in the same way as the fallen are distinguished after a battle; for in the frenzy of fighting there is no room for recognition of the individuals engaged in the fray.[24] Thus here in the first instance, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood, by way of the accurate knowledge of the root. 24. Here, it is necessary to explain further how a course of cognition with moral consequences takes place. Awareness or lack of it in regard to, for instance, the true nature of a visible object is not due to the sensory qualities of the eye. Nevertheless when a visible object becomes clear after existing for the space of a thought-unit in regard to consciousness of the life-continum without however causing any ruffle in the placid flow of the continum, there arises once and ceases consciousness as life-continum movement of one thought-unit's duration and once, too, arises and ceases consciousness as life-continum stoppage of one thought-unit's duration. Then completing the function of adverting or turning to the visible object, consciousness as a barely active mind-process arises once and ceases. After that in regular order arise and cease one thought-unit of eye-consciousness completing the function of seeing the object, one thought-unit of consciousness of a resultant mind-process completing the function of receiving the object, one thought-unit of resultant non-causal process of mind-consciousness completing the function of considering the object and one thought-unit of barely active non-causal mind-consciousness completing the function of determining the object. Immediately after that, conscious impulsion impels seven times, that is during the space of seven thought-units. There, from the state of the life-continum to that of determining no moral consequences take place. And no very strong moral consequences take place even in the first seven impulsion that follow determining. At the close of those seven impulsions consciousness slides into the life-continum or in other words consciousness becomes the life-continum taking up as object the karma, the karmical sign or the destiny-sign which brought about the relinking mind of the present existence. This activity of the life-continum is repeated very many times and then consciousness regrasps the visible object that was comprehended earlier in the course of sense-door cognition and exists for the space of one thought-unit by way of life-continum movement and for the space of one thought unit, by way of life-continum stoppage, at the mind-door. After that consciousness arises once and ceases by way of adverting to the mind-door and arises and ceases seven times by way of impulsion of mind-door cognition. It is even in the fourth impulsion-set beginning with sense-door cognition or in the impulsion-set of the third of the courses of mind-door cognition that very strong moral consequences take place. Cf. Majjhima Nikaya Atthakatha pp. 75-76 P.T.S. Ed. And the Visuddhi Marga by Buddhaghosa Thera with commentary of Kalikala Sahityas Sarvagjña Pandita Parakrama Bahu and new explanation by M. Dharmaratne, 1890, Colombo, Part I p.91. The extract given below is from the Paramattha Mañjusa Tika Part I p. 43 edited by M. Dhammananda Thera, 1928, Colombo: ettha ca cakkhu dvare ruparammane apathagate niyamitadi vasena kusalakusale javane sattakkhattum uppajjitva bhavangam otinne tadanu rupameva mano dvarika javane tasmim yevarammane sattakkhattum yeva uppajjitva bhavangam otinne puna tasmim yeva dvare tadevarammanam nissaya itthi purisoti adina vavatthapentam pasada rajjanadi vasena sattakkhattum javanam javati. 20304 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 3:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi all, I'm understanding this to say clear comprehension of resort is keeping the object (sign?) of meditation constantly in mind and cear comprehension of nondelusion is understanding the consciousness process in the moment. Larry 20305 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 4:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation Hi Nina, I think calming the body of the breath makes it kusala and the difference between breath and air doesn't matter. The true object of jhana meditation is the counterpart sign which is different from physiological sensations and also different from insight. Signs, in general, would be a really good topic for a doctoral thesis. Maybe someone will pick it up. Larry 20306 From: Dan D. Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Dear Azita (and others, who should feel free to read and chime in as they see fit), I enjoyed your comments about 'pleasant/unpleasant object' very much! You are perceptive -- that, I can tell. Let's work on vocabulary a bit to make sure we are talking about the same things. You wrote: > Azita: "I had thought that the object was inherently 'pleasant/unpleasant' no matter how we perceived it. To me, it makes sense because when we experience kusala vipaka thro. eyes, ears, nose, tongue and body surely the object must be pleasant..." Dan: I'm so used to thinking of 'pleasant' as 'sukha' or 'somanassa' -- types of vedana, purely nama, aspects of experience -- that you should be patient with me when the hearing of 'pleasant' applied to rupa gives me pause. Obviously, you can't mean that objects are inherently sukha or somanassa. In your mind, what is the difference between 'pleasant' as a characteristic of a vedana and 'pleasant' as a characteristic of an object? In Pali, the word often translated as 'pleasant' when referring to sense objects is 'ittha', which is the past participle of 'icchati' (to wish, desire, ask for). To rephrase my question, then: What do you see as the difference between 'ittha' and 'sukha'? Or even: what is 'ittha'? > Azita: "pleasant" seems to be more objective, dissociated from 'me', whereas "desirable" involves 'me'.... Dan: I agree. At least I *think* I agree, but we need to be sure we're talking about the same things. (In particularI'm not sure what you mean specifically by the word 'me' in single quotes.) I too see the word "pleasant" as applied to objects to be more objective, more dissociated from...well....dissociated from the experience or the object's relationship to nama, as seeming to be a characteristic of an object independent of the experience of the object; whereas "desirable" emphasizes the relationship of the object to its association with the experiencing (or nama). I think your sense about these two words strikes at the heart of the matter. Let's look further... > Azita: the object is pleasant whether I'm experiencing it or not... Dan: I'm not following you here. In your earlier comment, you said that the object must be pleasant when we experience kusala vipaka. Although, I don't like the word "pleasant" here, I think I get your point. The object of kusala-vipaka is "pleasant". Now, though, you are saying that the object is pleasant whether or not you are experiencing it. I wonder... What is an unseen visible object an object of? The point is that a visible object is an object of seeing consciousness and simply doesn't exist outside the experience of seeing. Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the experience of it? >Azita: ...the desirable object is something that I've experienced and want. Dan: Yes, sometimes. [Also, the desirable object may be something that you haven't experienced but want anyway.] Robert, Sarah, and Jon, I hope to get back to you soon. Then, I'll have to pop back out. Dan 20307 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Nina, > > I think calming the body of the breath makes it kusala and the > difference between breath and air doesn't matter. The true object of > jhana meditation is the counterpart sign which is different from > physiological sensations and also different from insight. Signs, in > general, would be a really good topic for a doctoral thesis. Maybe > someone will pick it up. > > Larry Hi Larry, I believe you have it mistaken. Signs should not be used as the object for jhana meditation; some commentaries mistakenly extrapolate this teaching from the suttas, but that is not what the Lord Buddha taught. Perhaps you find the essay by Bhikkhu Soma `wanting in some respects' because it debunks this teaching that counter-signs should be used as objects of meditation. They are merely signs along the road, not the main destination. Actually, if one tries to make them an object of meditation the result will not be insight but merely various states of bliss arising from single-pointed absorption. The most that one can hope to achieve from this is remembrance of past lives and the development of extra-sensory perception…but not liberation. While it is comforting to attach the mind to signs, and it gives one a measurable sense of direction and purpose, the true goal is to plunge the mind into the void…the sphere of neither perception nor non-perception…where signs no longer exist. Metta, James 20308 From: Andrew Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 8:51pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > The point is that a visible object is an object of seeing > consciousness and simply doesn't exist outside the experience of > seeing. Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > experience of it? > > Dan Hi Dan Accepting your invitation to chime in as I am a little confused. I thought visible object was rupa, a paramattha dhamma. Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? If so, why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? Have I lost the plot? Metta Andrew 20309 From: Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] meditation Hi James, Jhana is tranquility for tranquility's sake. There isn't any insight in it into the three characteristics. I think the reason a concept is the object of jhana is because any other kind of object is too busy, even very subtle breathing. It is profound calm. But I don't know about the state of neither perception nor non-perception. There may not be an object there. I vaguely remember reading something about this but I don't remember. However, jhana does set up the mind, somehow, for an insight that makes a difference. Maybe very rational people, people who really live with reason, don't need jhana to see clearly. Both jhana and insight are concerned with seeing clearly, but they see different characteristics. One sees a sign and the other sees impermanence, suffering, and no self. There is a lot to be investigated here. Do you have any other thoughts? Larry 20310 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:05pm Subject: Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > Jhana is tranquility for tranquility's sake. There isn't any insight in > it into the three characteristics. I think the reason a concept is the > object of jhana is because any other kind of object is too busy, even > very subtle breathing. Hi Larry, Oh, you were speaking of mundane jhanas while I thought you were speaking of supramundane jhanas. I am not quite sure why you are encouraging others or yourself to perfect mundane jhanas since they will only result in rebirth in higher realms of materiality and non- materiality, not liberation (nibbana). The four jhanas that the Buddha taught are the supramundane jhanas which don't use signs or counterpart signs as objects, but rather use the five aggregates as objects. The fact that the breath is changing and that the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Body, Feeling, Mind, Mental Activity) are constantly changing, that doesn't mean that jhana cannot be perfected using these items as objects of meditation because awareness of them doesn't change. The point is to find that still point in awareness and maintain it while observing the transient nature of the mind and body…and that will be perfection of the supermundane jhanas. In the highest state of supermundane jhana, from the realm of neither perception nor non-perception, there will be an instantaneous awareness of Nibbana and the Four Noble Truths. Hmmm…I don't know if I am making myself clear enough. I am not trying to disprove you or anything; I am just concerned for you to practice a type of meditation that the Buddha taught will continue your existence in samsara. Metta, James 20311 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 10:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Mike (& Christine), --- "m. nease" wrote: > To me the ultimate in friendliness or compassion is that which > encourages > detachment. From the Visakhasutta: > > The sorrows, lamentations, > the many kinds of suffering in the world, > exist dependent on something dear. > They don't exist > when there's nothing dear. > And thus blissful & sorrowless > are those for whom nothing > in the world is dear anywhere. > So one who aspires > to be stainless & sorrowless > shouldn't make anything > in the world dear > anywhere. > > Udana VIII.8 > Visakha Sutta > To Visakha ***** S: I also think there is a wealth of helpful detail in the commentary to these verses and I’d like to quote some parts I find it helpful to reflect on further. So that the Comy notes (Masefield transl, PTS) make more sense in context, I’ll also quote his more literal translation of these verses first as well, even though they may not sound so poetic: ..... “Whatever griefs or lamentations or dukkhas or so of countless forms in this world - these originate dependent upon something held dear; when there be no thing held dear, these do not exist. Therefore, these are happy, free of grief, those for whom there is no thing held dear anywhere in this world - therefore, the one wishing for that which is grief-free, for that which is dustless, should not engender that held dear anywhere in this world”. As most readers here will know, these verses were given by the Buddha when Visakha’s very dear grandaughter passed away. Visakha was distraught and approached the Buddha with wet hair and clothes, even though, as we know she had been a sotapanna since a young age. In the commentary we read that this particular grandaughter was devoted to the Teachings, greatly helped her grandmother support the Sangha and was ‘fair to behold’, inspiring ‘serenity’, all of which made her very dear and charming. ***** extracts from Comy to Ud 8, Pitali Villagers 8 Visakha: “ ‘Whatever i) griefs’, whose characteristic is that of mental torment for the fool as he is internally consumed upon being contacted by the (five) losses of relatives, possessions, disease, moralily and view, (and) of whatever kind, by way of their division into those that are mild and medium and so on, or” ..... S: I was interested in these five losses given and followed a few references. They refer to the 5 kinds of loss (vyasanaani) and in DN iii, 235 (Walshe transl), we read: “Five kinds of loss (vyasanaani): Loss of relatives, wealth, health, morality, (right) view. No beings fall into an evil state, a hell-state....after death because of loss of relatives, wealth or health; but beings do fall into such states by loss of morality and right view.” ..... S: I find this to be such a powerful reminder of what is really of value and important in life. While we grieve for loss of relatives or health, we fail to remember the value of developing sila and panna and to reflect on how these can be lost as well at far greater cost. ..... “.. ‘or ii) lamentations’, whoe characteristic is that of the verbal babbling given rise to by the bubbling up of grief for that same fool upon being contacted by those same (losses) ‘or iii) dukkhas’ whose characteristic is that of oppressing the body of the one whose body has been smitten by undesirable tangible objects or....” ..... S: Masefield also gives a note with this ref: “Vism 504 which contrasts grief, lamentation and despair as follows: Grief is like the cooking of oil, etc in a pot over a slow fire. Lamentation is like its boiling over from the pot when cooking over a quick fire. Despair is like what remains in the pot after it has boiled over and is unable to do so any more, going on cooking in the pot till it dries up.” ..... : “...’therefore the one wishing’ on his own account ‘for that which is’, due to the absence of the aforementioned grief, ‘grief-free’, for the grief-free state, ‘for that which is’, through the departure of the dusts of lust and so on, ‘dustless’, for the dustless state, for arahantship, or alternatively for nibbana, which has acquired the name “That which is grief-free, that which is dustless” on account of its being the root-cause of the absence of grief and of the dusts of lusts and so forth - ..” ..... S: “the dusts of lust” as compared to “the dustless state, for arahantship, or...for nibbana” helps us to understand how dusty our lives are. When we read elsewhere about the dusty lay life compared to the bhikkhu’s life, I understand ”the dusts of lust” and “holding dear” is what is being referred to. ..... “..the one filled with yearning (for same) by way of that yearning that is skilled in a desire to act - ‘should not engende’, should not give rise to, ‘that held dear’, any state in which things are held dear, holding dear, ‘anywhere in this world’, where any dhamma, such as a sight-object and so on is concerned, where even any dhamma associated with samatha or vipassanaa is concerned. For this is said: “Even (right) dhammas are to be abandoned, so how much more so wrong dhammas” (M i 135).” ..... S: Note the reference to ‘sight -object and so on’(visible object etc), on account of which attachment arises. Also even the holding dear of wholesome states “associated with samatha or vipassanaa” is to be abandoned as well. ..... Mike, I think your comments are well-supported throughout the entire Tipitaka and commentaries. Indeed this is an explanation of the 4 Noble Truths. We don’t need to wait until we’re in a more secluded place or leading another lifestyle to appreciate these truths as Visakkha did. Thank you for your helpful reminders. Metta, Sarah ===== 20312 From: azita gill Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] bobbing pumpkins!!! --- Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Azita > > Interesting to think of mind without sati as being > like a pumpkin > bobbing about in the water. > > Jon > > dear Jon, a great simile, and it has given me reason to smile. this morning, at the end of my yoga class, when we do relaxation, I was having difficulty, trying to stay relaxed!!! my mind was all over the place and I thought of the bobbing pumpkin. it was a wonderful reminder, and of course, there is no 'me' who can make 'me' relax - if I relax then it is by conditions only. Thanks again, Jon Cheers, Azita. 20313 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 11:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Dharam, I always enjoy your well-considered comments - --- bodhi342 wrote: > Thanks for this concise, and IMO fundamental, sutta. This is the > bargain, the price to be paid, the entry qualification. Relinquish > EVERYTHING loved and dear, only then will you pass through. ..... While it’s true that only when everything loved and dear is relinquished, arahantship will be attained (see Comy notes to sutta just given), still, there has to be one step at a time. The step for most of us for now is hearing these truths about suffering and its cause, carefully considering what is heard, so that panna and the other path factors can begin to do their work of knowing present realities. ..... > How many of us really confront this head-on and honestly? Even the > theory, let alone the practice. I perceive we spend much more time > rationalizing our attachments/detachments, fearful of the full > implications of this all-or-nothing 'contract'. ..... As Mike said, it is a path of detachment and as the Comy notes showed, this includes detachment from wholesome moments of samatha and vipassana as well. If the present realities are ‘rationalizing...’, ‘fear...’, clinging to a self that can confront or practice, then all the more reason to know these phenomena for what they are.....merely more conditioned realities. ..... > We have to pay heed to the Buddha telling us that we cannot have our > cake, and eat it too! ..... Isn’t this thinking or thinking about ‘all-or-nothing’ contracts merely more thinking at the present moment? In other words, yet another opportunity for awareness and knowledge of what is being held dear? Look forward to Mike’s and your own comments further. Metta, Sarah ===== 20314 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:01am Subject: Metta? Love? Dear Everybody, It's me Sandy! I know 'Metta' is a Buddhist word and it means love. But what's the difference with 'Love...' and 'Metta...'? Metta?/Love? Sandy 20315 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:08am Subject: A Reply Dear James, This letter (No:20206) explains better, but what do you mean by writing too fast? Also you write "just a bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but will be something else later on." Please explain this. Janet 20316 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:15am Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran Interesting questions, Andrew! Let me clarify briefly: > Andrew: Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? No. I'm not speculating about things that happen outside the realm of experience. > Andrew: For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? I'm not sure what you mean by "rupa". Could you please explain? ..... Then, I wrote: > > Dan: Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > > experience of it? > Andrew: ... why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? Doggonit, Andrew! Are you are changing the subject on me? I was talking about "pleasantness", not "attractiveness". Do you see any difference between these words? Dan 20317 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:40am Subject: From Christ to Buddha Dear Everyone, I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset (specifically Theravada). Are there resources to help one? Here are a few of my specific woes: 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there is no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct path? Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. It is very difficult to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, I just don't know how or where to start. Peace, Dave 20318 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 6:55am Subject: Re: Questions for YOU! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > Sorry that I didn't send you a letter for a long > time, it's because I had a holiday to malaysia to > visit my family and relatives. > > I kind of got confused, while reading the letter > half way, but I think I kind of understand the letter > ( no. 18856). I like the part when you said 'It was at > this time that I felt that true wisdom wasn't cold and > logical, but optimistic and loving.' > > I think I'm half Christian because I don't go to > church. Do Buddhists goes to any places during the > week like the Christian does? Do Buddhists have any > prayers like the Christian does? Do Buddhists have to > pray before eating? > > Take care and Happy New Year! > > Love Sandy Hi Star Kid Sandy! It is okay not to write for a while. I am glad that you had a nice vacation in Malaysia. Let me tell you a story about Malaysia. I have never been to Malaysia but I had a roommate in college who was from Malaysia. He was also Moslem which meant that he couldn't drink alcohol, had to eat meat (no pork) that was blessed (kosher), prayed five times a day on a little rug (no matter where he was), couldn't touch any dogs (in Islamic religion they are considered an `unclean' animal), and many other `rules' of behavior. It was kinda funny to me because if he and I would visit anyone at their house and they had a dog it was my job to keep the dog away from him! ;-) He told me that if he was touched by a dog he would have to rub the spot eight times with dirt and then rinse eight times with water. I mention all of this because it relates to your questions about attending church and praying. Many types of religions, like Islam and Christianity, have ceremonies and rules for the people of that religion to follow. As a result, those people who follow these rules and customs the closest are considered more `religious' or `blessed' than those people who don't. That is why you don't think you are full Christian because you don't go to church. You think this because `going to church' is one of the important customs and ceremonies of the Christian religion (even though Jesus didn't regularly attend any kind of church nor did he teach `church going'). Another ceremony of Christianity is praying before eating a meal, like Jesus did, and praying in church. But Moslems pray to God five times a day, everyday. Who is doing the right thing? Who is doing the wrong thing? My opinion is that these different customs are neither right nor wrong; they are just doing what they want/need to do. Sandy, in Buddhism, as in the original teachings of the Buddha, there aren't that many types of prayers or customs because the Buddha saw that they don't have the `magical power' many people seem to think they have. He did teach a few prayers and did recommend keeping some holidays `holy', but not that many and not in the same way as other religions. However, it turns out that many people need prayers and customs so different cultures have `invented' various types of things to go along with Buddhism. Buddhism is a very confusing religion to people because it appears to be completely different in each different country! ;-) But those differences are what are called the `trappings' of Buddhism, not the original teachings of Buddhism. I'm sorry for this long explanation, but this is a complicated issue. So, I cannot give you definite answers to your questions because it will depend on the country where Buddhism is established. Some Buddhists will go to temple during the week, some won't; some Buddhists will pray, some won't; some Buddhists will pray before eating, some won't. These differences are determined by culture, not by the religion of Buddhism. Sorry I can't give you a more definite answer but I hope you understand a bit more. Thank you for writing again Sandy and I hope you work really hard in school. Love, James 20319 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:54am Subject: Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi Dave, You will find many, many people in this group who have come to Buddhism from a Christian background. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Dear Everyone, > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset (specifically > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? ===== Raising the questions as part of this group is the best resource that I can imagine. ===== > Here are a few of my > specific woes: > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. ===== Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have five "rules of training" (precepts): - Avoid killing - Avoid stealing - Avoid sexual misconduct - Avoid lying - Avoid intoxicants In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are creating bad kamma for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think in terms of natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and punishments). ===== > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? ===== You have probably noticed some similarity between the precepts listed above and the ten commandments. Notice what is left out of the Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in Indonesia beliving in God. When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does not accept a all- powerful creator God. She was shocked and we went to a monk for a clarification. The monk said that I was correct but in order to fit into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the Buddhists had decided to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. Knowing that a belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not press the matter with her. As she read more and more, her belief in God melted away slowly. My advice is to focus on other areas of the teachings rather than trying to face the "no-God" head on. Give it time. ===== > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there is > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > path? ===== Rites and rituals are not very important in Buddhism. There are lots of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here at DSG. ===== > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. ===== It wasn't too much, but in future posts, why not ask one question at a time and see the responses. A word of warning, some of us (myself included) tend to get deep into theory. Please ignore us. ===== > It is very difficult > to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, I > just don't know how or where to start. ===== In your case, I suspect it is a case of returning to a faith that you had in a past life :-). Metta, Rob :-) 20320 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nice to meet you !!! Dear Kiana, I believe you must be very young. I have very little time so so I reply when I feel like I have a good point to help the society. My daughter also is very young but she is not so interested in Buddhism, which I believe is about REAL truth at least that is what I think and ONLY thing want it to be. To me it is NOT a religion. Religion can be a very narrow-minded and selfish groupie concept. Another thing is I do not believe in 'Yound Saint, Old Devil'. That must be they have not got the really correct philosophy or Life Truth. That is another indication of hypocrisy. It is interesting you ask me about human nature, why I say human world in the past was, presently is and in the future will be like. In other words, human world will just be like that according my Buddhist interpretation. Quickly Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very scientific too) of existences. Human world and animal world can see and be in touch with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we can not sense it at least easily. Human world is about in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly pleasant world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - so I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of the good, the bad and the ugly of everything - occassional happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha or go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to be or should I say the must place to be. So for all the other (religions ?) talk of the coming perfect world to follow soon, I think nothing will change, human world is and will be just like that. Another question you had asked is - How can I tell Buddha is gentle and warm, from reading what he had preached. No hatred, violence, killing under whatever pretext, no whatsoever condition including of course in defense of Buddha or Buddhism. He also was not ego-centric asking you to worship and praise and believe him and everything he say. He wanted you to check it out and use your own judgement. Like I mentioned above, Buddhism is and should be a truth seeking effort. If you have time try to find his explanation of many phenomena and the completeness and details are simply impressive. I still have not look at it but from the excerpts here and there only. I feel no ordinary genius (watch my use of genius) can explain such complicate things without stumbling all over by its own details and become a laughing stock over the 2,500 years. Also the knowledge of his explanation - I think is called Dhamma (I am still learning) will increase and decrease or even fade into oblivion at certain point, so is the coming into and going out of each Buddha. According to him, to become a human being is also not easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become a human being with this thinking capability compared with the smartest animals from the animal world that we are able to interface and interact with. One place of good source is www.buddha.net. Thanks, Metta. --- Star Kid wrote: > > Dear Eddie, > Hello! I'm Kiana! That was so nice that you wrote > me > a letter(quite a suprise!^.^) > I am a twelve year old girl that is living in Hong > Kong. Can you introduce youself too? I hope you > would > not mind! > I agree that the human nature is here to stay in > the > past, now or even in the future! On the other hand, > I > think we need the "Human Nature", because if we have > no pain such as when someone treats or did something > bad to you, then how can we have gain (the victory)? > We should learn when we fall!!! > You're right, Buddha is very warm and gentle, I > knew > that from the sentences or books that they wrote. > And > can I ask why do you think Buddha is gentle and warm > too ? > Love , Kiana. 20321 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Visible object in the mind-door process. Dear Rob M, op 14-03-2003 10:18 schreef robmoult op rob.moult@j...: > My understanding is that the object of a sense-door citta process is > a rupa (i.e. visible object). This rupa lasts only for the duration > of 17 cittas. The first mind door citta process after the rupa has > fallen away has, as its object a mental image (a copy) of the rupa > that has just fallen away. Subsequent mind-door citta processes > build upon this mental image. I have called this mental image (the > copy of the rupa) a "concept" as it is the object of a mind-door > citta process. > > What we normally think of as a "concept" is something much bigger > and more complex than this simple "mental image" of a rupa, but I > see concepts of varying complexity. The simplest, most elemental > concept is this "mental image", which forms the basis of larger, > more complex concepts which are built by later mind-door citta > processes. Nina: I still find this not quite clear, although I know what you mean by mental image and copy as a kind of simple concept. If we think of characteristics, not of words, I would say, it is just pure rupa presenting itselof through the mind-door, just after the sense-door process has fallen away. I think again of the first stage of vipassana nana: knowing the characteristic of nama as quite distinct from the characteristic of rupa. Through the mind-door, in different mind-door processes. As I wrote once before, Phra Dhammadharo asked A. Sujin: is the experience of rupa through the mind-door different from experience of rupa through a sense-door. Answer: exactly the same. She said that the mind-door process falls into the stream of the sense-door process, it is so extremely fast. We do not count processes. Panna just realizes different characteristics. I do not like to think of a copy or some kind of concept, no matter how simple, I find such words too complicated. I am just reminded by an object that is intrinsically pleasant or desirable: sometimes it can be known that an object is produced by kusala citta, and then it is pleasant. Desirable is the tr. of i.t.tha, it does not have to do here with attachment. We can translate this as agreeable, pleasing. The kind Pali teacher produced the three refuges on the screen. An agreeable visible object. But cittas are so fast, we cannot pinpoint everything. There can be akusala cittas in between the kusala cittas. A naughty child shouting, sound produced by akusala citta. It is not pleasant. Nina. 20322 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 We read further on: When he said the word bhagavå, the Blessed One, he demonstrated the excellence of the teacher, who was not an ordinary person. ³Bhagavå², the Arahatta Sammåsambuddha, was the person who taught the Dhamma. With the words, ³at Såvatthí, in the Jeta Grove, at Anåthapindika¹s Park², the venerable Elder demonstrated the support of the layfollowers of the Buddha in mentioning Såvatthí, and he demonstrated the support of the monks in mentioning the Jeta Grove. We read in the ³Paramatthadípaní², the Commentary to the ³Itivuttaka², ³As it was said², Khuddaka Nikåya, the Commentary to The Ones, Ch 1, §1, Lobha Sutta, an elaboration of the words ³arahat² and ³bhagavå². We read about four aditthåna dhammas, dhammas which are firm foundations connected with the ten perfections. We read that the aditthåna dhammas are: truthfulness, sacca, relinquisment, cåga, calm or peace, upasama, and paññå [3]. Sacca is truthfulness with regard to the development of paññå with the aim to realize the four noble Truths. We read in the Commentary to the Lobha Sutta: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 5 The word araham means that there should be truthfulness, sacca, with regard to the development of kusala ... As regards the word ³bhagavå², the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquisment. Thus, if truthfulness and relinquishment are not firmly established, the four noble Truths cannot be realized. We read: By the word bhagavå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas of sacca, truthfulness, and cåga, relinquishment, by explaining the Blessed One¹s truthfulness of his vow, patiññå, his truthfulness of speech and the truthfulness of his paññå; and by explaining the relinquishment of sense objects which are considered important in the world, such as gain, honour and praise, and the complete relinquisment of the abhisankhåras (accumulations leading to rebirth), namely, the defilements. Relinquishment, cåga, does not only refer to the giving up of possessions, but it also means the giving up of clinging to sense objects, such as visible object and tangible object. Apart from this it also refers to the giving up of what is considered important in the world: gain, honour and praise. Moreover, it refers to the relinquishment of all defilements. True relinquishment is the relinquishment of everything, even of all defilements. One needs from the beginning also sacca, truthfulness, as a firm foundation, so that defilements can be eradicated. We listen to the Dhamma, we understand it and we know that we still have a great deal of defilements. Therefore, we need to further develop and accumulate all the perfections in order to realize the noble Truths and to attain true relinquishment. Footnote: 3. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct² that these are dhammas which are foundations. Aditthåna is also translated as resolve. We read in the ³Dialogues of the Buddha², no. 33, The Recital, IV, XXVII: ³Four Resolves, to wit, to gain insight, to win truth, to surrender (all evil), to master self (calm).² The Commentary, the Sumangala Vilåsiní, states that the resolve of paññå, paññåditthåna, begins as vipassanå paññå ( which realizes the ownership of kamma by insight) and has as its supreme fruit, the fruition of the arahat. Truthfulness, beginning with truthfulness in speech, ends with the ultimate truth of nibbåna. As to surrendering or giving up, this begins with detachment from sense objects and ends with the eradication of all defilements by the highest Path. As to calm, this begins with the subduing of defilements in (jhåna) attainment and ends with the cessation of all defilements by the highest Path. 20323 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna no 1. Dear Lars, First your text op 13-03-2003 15:19 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > (D.16): > > "iti siila"m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naa. Such and such is sila, such and such is concentration, such and such is wisdom. Siilaparibhaavito samaadhi mahapphalo hoti mahaanisa"mso. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by sila Samadhiparibhaavitaa pa~n~naa mahapphalaa hoti mahaanisa"msaa. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration. Pa~n~naaparibhaavita"m citta"m sammadeva aasavehi vimuccati, seyyathida"m – kaamaasavaa, bhavaasavaa, avijjaasavaa"ti. utterly freed from the intoxicants (aasavas) of Lust, of becoming and of ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom. The commentary explains that sila here is: paarisuddhi sila. Before I go into the Co, I shall quote what I wrote about this subject in my "In Asoka's Footsteps" (See Zolag web.) Later on I shall continue. You wrote: And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) N: I cannot find this annotation, it must be in K V, Streamwinning, but where? Could you indicate the sutta. It cannot be one of the five precepts, but it could be a precept of Vinaya. Nina 20324 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Dear Mike and Dharam, This is the end of a long development up to arahatship. Let us not skip what has to be known first: all daily realities, including our attachments. No forcing not to have them, but understanding them as conditioned relaities when they naturally arise. They have to be understood as not mine, not self first. The development of understanding should be very natural. Nina op 16-03-2003 17:07 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > The sorrows, lamentations, > the many kinds of suffering in the world, > exist dependent on something dear. Mike, This is the > bargain, the price to be paid, the entry qualification. Relinquish > EVERYTHING loved and dear, only then will you pass through. 20325 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:30am Subject: Re: [dsg]the noting Dear Sarah op 09-03-2003 12:16 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: When there is > more understanding of paramattha sacca (absolute truth) and sammuti sacca > (conventional truth), even when we read about clenching the teeth’ or > other actions that may appear to suggest a self making a big effort, we > know there are just the various elements working in combinations and > according to conditions. .... > I’m not sure that this touches on your discussion with Jon. These are difficult points because they relate to developed stages of insight. N: I considered more the qu I raised to Jon about the third (please correct third, not second) stage of insight, as to panna that realizes even space in between groups of rupa. I realize better: there is I who would like to know, but it is panna that will perform its function. I listened to a tape: That is it. Nina. 20326 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi, I will like to contribute two things to understand The truth seeking Buddhism: 1. an email attachment of a transcript of a speech by the late U Ba Khin (my fellow country person, a practical vipassana practitioner). 2. a website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, understandably - I do not know about it too much) (Kiana, if you happen to look in this email - my mistake I provided the latter when I mean the former) It is 'important' to seize the moment of being a human being with the mind capacity to learn the real Life truth. Please see below: According to him, to become a human being is also not easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become a human being with this thinking capability compared with the smartest animals from the animal world that we are able to interface and interact with. Also,... Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very scientific too) of existences. Human world and animal world can see and be in touch with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we can not sense it at least easily. Human world is about in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly pleasant world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - so I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of the good, the bad and the ugly of everything - occassional happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha or go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to be or should I say the must place to be. So do check it out and is better and more interesting to see for yourself and make your own judgement, understand Buddhism. Have fun. Thanks. --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Dave, > > You will find many, many people in this group who > have come to > Buddhism from a Christian background. > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > wrote: > > Dear Everyone, > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > find myself > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > transitioning my Western, > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > mindset > (specifically > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > ===== > > Raising the questions as part of this group is the > best resource that > I can imagine. > > ===== > > > Here are a few of my > > specific woes: > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > find clear (or > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > structure one's behavior > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > similar idea in > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > message 210 ("Buddhist > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > got posted. > > ===== > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have > five "rules of > training" (precepts): > - Avoid killing > - Avoid stealing > - Avoid sexual misconduct > - Avoid lying > - Avoid intoxicants > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are > creating bad kamma > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think > in terms of > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and > punishments). > > ===== > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than > I thought. > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for > violating the > > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence > in the non- > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > of being "wrong." > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this > fear? > > ===== > > You have probably noticed some similarity between > the precepts listed > above and the ten commandments. Notice what is left > out of the > Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. > > My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in Indonesia > beliving in God. > When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does not > accept a all- > powerful creator God. She was shocked and we went to > a monk for a > clarification. The monk said that I was correct but > in order to fit > into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the > Buddhists had decided > to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. > Knowing that a > belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not press > the matter with > her. As she read more and more, her belief in God > melted away slowly. > > My advice is to focus on other areas of the > teachings rather than > trying to face the "no-God" head on. Give it time. > > ===== > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. > As such, there > is > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > become a part of. > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > follow the correct > > path? > > ===== > > Rites and rituals are not very important in > Buddhism. There are lots > of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here at > DSG. > > ===== > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > > ===== > > It wasn't too much, but in future posts, why not ask > one question at > a time and see the responses. > > A word of warning, some of us (myself included) tend > to get deep into > theory. Please ignore us. > > ===== > > > It is very difficult > > to move from one faith to another. Even though I > do truly want to, > I > > just don't know how or where to start. > > ===== > > In your case, I suspect it is a case of returning to > a faith that you > had in a past life :-). > > Metta, > Rob :-) > 20327 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] Nice to meet you !!! website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, understandably - I do not know about it too much) Kiana, my mistake I provided the latter when I mean the former) --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Dear Kiana, > > I believe you must be very young. I have very little > time so so I reply when I feel like I have a good > point to help the society. > My daughter also is very young but she is not so > interested in Buddhism, which I believe is about > REAL > truth at least that is what I think and ONLY thing > want it to be. To me it is NOT a religion. Religion > can be a very narrow-minded and selfish groupie > concept. > > Another thing is I do not believe in 'Yound Saint, > Old > Devil'. That must be they have not got the really > correct philosophy or Life Truth. That is another > indication of hypocrisy. > > It is interesting you ask me about human nature, why > I > say human world in the past was, presently is and in > the future will be like. In other words, human world > will just be like that according my Buddhist > interpretation. Quickly Buddha said there are 31 > levels (planes - very scientific too) of existences. > > > Human world and animal world can see and be in touch > with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we > can not sense it at least easily. Human world is > about > in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly > pleasant > world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly > unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - > so > I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of > the > good, the bad and the ugly of everything - > occassional > happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha > or > go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to > be > or should I say the must place to be. > > So for all the other (religions ?) talk of the > coming > perfect world to follow soon, I think nothing will > change, human world is and will be just like that. > > Another question you had asked is - How can I tell > Buddha is gentle and warm, from reading what he had > preached. No hatred, violence, killing under > whatever > pretext, no whatsoever condition including of course > in defense of Buddha or Buddhism. > > He also was not ego-centric asking you to worship > and > praise and believe him and everything he say. He > wanted you to check it out and use your own > judgement. > > Like I mentioned above, Buddhism is and should be a > truth seeking effort. If you have time try to find > his > explanation of many phenomena and the completeness > and > details are simply impressive. I still have not look > at it but from the excerpts here and there only. I > feel no ordinary genius (watch my use of genius) can > explain such complicate things without stumbling all > over by its own details and become a laughing stock > over the 2,500 years. Also the knowledge of his > explanation - I think is called Dhamma (I am still > learning) will increase and decrease or even fade > into > oblivion at certain point, so is the coming into and > going out of each Buddha. > > According to him, to become a human being is also > not > easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a > fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect > one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or > holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become > a > human being with this thinking capability compared > with the smartest animals from the animal world that > we are able to interface and interact with. > > One place of good source is www.buddha.net. > > Thanks, > Metta. > --- Star Kid wrote: > > > > Dear Eddie, > > Hello! I'm Kiana! That was so nice that you wrote > > me > > a letter(quite a suprise!^.^) > > I am a twelve year old girl that is living in > Hong > > Kong. Can you introduce youself too? I hope you > > would > > not mind! > > I agree that the human nature is here to stay in > > the > > past, now or even in the future! On the other > hand, > > I > > think we need the "Human Nature", because if we > have > > no pain such as when someone treats or did > something > > bad to you, then how can we have gain (the > victory)? > > We should learn when we fall!!! > > You're right, Buddha is very warm and gentle, I > > knew > > that from the sentences or books that they wrote. > > And > > can I ask why do you think Buddha is gentle and > warm > > too ? > > Love , Kiana. 20328 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:24am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Sorry, I forgot to provide the email attachment: --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > > I will like to contribute two things to understand > The > truth seeking Buddhism: > > 1. an email attachment of a transcript of a speech > by > the late U Ba Khin (my fellow country person, a > practical vipassana practitioner). > > 2. a website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ > and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, > understandably - I do not know about it too much) > > (Kiana, if you happen to look in this email - my > mistake I provided the latter when I mean the > former) > It is 'important' to seize the moment of being a > human > being with the mind capacity to learn the real Life > truth. Please see below: > > According to him, to become a human being is also > not > easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a > fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and expect > one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or > holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to become > a > human being with this thinking capability compared > with the smartest animals from the animal world that > we are able to interface and interact with. > > Also,... > > Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very > scientific too) of existences. > > Human world and animal world can see and be in touch > with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) we > can not sense it at least easily. Human world is > about > in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly > pleasant > world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly > unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) - > so > I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of > the > good, the bad and the ugly of everything - > occassional > happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha > or > go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place to > be > or should I say the must place to be. > > So do check it out and is better and more > interesting > to see for yourself and make your own judgement, > understand Buddhism. Have fun. > > Thanks. > --- robmoult wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > You will find many, many people in this group who > > have come to > > Buddhism from a Christian background. > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > > > wrote: > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > > find myself > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > transitioning my Western, > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > > mindset > > (specifically > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > > > ===== > > > > Raising the questions as part of this group is the > > best resource that > > I can imagine. > > > > ===== > > > > > Here are a few of my > > > specific woes: > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > find clear (or > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > structure one's behavior > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > similar idea in > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > message 210 ("Buddhist > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > > got posted. > > > > ===== > > > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have > > five "rules of > > training" (precepts): > > - Avoid killing > > - Avoid stealing > > - Avoid sexual misconduct > > - Avoid lying > > - Avoid intoxicants > > > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are > > creating bad kamma > > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think > > in terms of > > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and > > punishments). > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > than > > I thought. > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > for > > violating the > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > confidence > > in the non- > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > > of being "wrong." > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > this > > fear? > > > > ===== > > > > You have probably noticed some similarity between > > the precepts listed > > above and the ten commandments. Notice what is > left > > out of the > > Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. > > > > My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in Indonesia > > beliving in God. > > When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does not > > accept a all- > > powerful creator God. She was shocked and we went > to > > a monk for a > > clarification. The monk said that I was correct > but > > in order to fit > > into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the > > Buddhists had decided > > to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. > > Knowing that a > > belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not > press > > the matter with > > her. As she read more and more, her belief in God > > melted away slowly. > > > > My advice is to focus on other areas of the > > teachings rather than > > trying to face the "no-God" head on. Give it time. > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in > Indiana. > > As such, there > > is > > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > > become a part of. > > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > > follow the correct > > > path? > > > > ===== > > > > Rites and rituals are not very important in > > Buddhism. There are lots > > of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here > at > > DSG. > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > === message truncated === 20329 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:30am Subject: Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi Dave, I will try to respond to your questions. 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the Buddha with which one can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are the five precepts, observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. They are listed in http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by being "wrong". In particular, being wrong about what? 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and observing the five precepts. I would also recommend the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html for self-study. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Dear Everyone, > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset (specifically > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? Here are a few of my > specific woes: > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there is > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > path? > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. It is very difficult > to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, I > just don't know how or where to start. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20330 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Look like the email attachment is not there. One more time. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Sorry, I forgot to provide the email attachment: > > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I will like to contribute two things to understand > > The > > truth seeking Buddhism: > > > > 1. an email attachment of a transcript of a speech > > by > > the late U Ba Khin (my fellow country person, a > > practical vipassana practitioner). > > > > 2. a website: http://www.buddhanet.net/ > > and www.buddha.net (I just found it out now, > > understandably - I do not know about it too much) > > > > (Kiana, if you happen to look in this email - my > > mistake I provided the latter when I mean the > > former) > > It is 'important' to seize the moment of being a > > human > > being with the mind capacity to learn the real > Life > > truth. Please see below: > > > > According to him, to become a human being is also > > not > > easy to come by. It is likened it to throwing a > > fistful of small beans at a concrete wall and > expect > > one bean will get caught in one of the crevices or > > holes in that wall. This is how hard it is to > become > > a > > human being with this thinking capability compared > > with the smartest animals from the animal world > that > > we are able to interface and interact with. > > > > Also,... > > > > Buddha said there are 31 levels (planes - very > > scientific too) of existences. > > > > Human world and animal world can see and be in > touch > > with each other while the rest (29 other worlds) > we > > can not sense it at least easily. Human world is > > about > > in-between (some kind of halfway) the overly > > pleasant > > world (of Immortals, Gods, Spirits...) and overly > > unpleasant world (of Hell, ghosts?, low-life,...) > - > > so > > I think human world will have all the mixed-bag of > > the > > good, the bad and the ugly of everything - > > occassional > > happiness, sorrows, neutral, so to become a Buddha > > or > > go to Nirvana, here the human world is the place > to > > be > > or should I say the must place to be. > > > > So do check it out and is better and more > > interesting > > to see for yourself and make your own judgement, > > understand Buddhism. Have fun. > > > > Thanks. > > --- robmoult wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > You will find many, many people in this group > who > > > have come to > > > Buddhism from a Christian background. > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "dwlemen" > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently > I > > > find myself > > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > > transitioning my Western, > > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, > Buddhist > > > mindset > > > (specifically > > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > Raising the questions as part of this group is > the > > > best resource that > > > I can imagine. > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > > Here are a few of my > > > > specific woes: > > > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > > find clear (or > > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > > structure one's behavior > > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > > similar idea in > > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > > message 210 ("Buddhist > > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer > never > > > got posted. > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have > > > five "rules of > > > training" (precepts): > > > - Avoid killing > > > - Avoid stealing > > > - Avoid sexual misconduct > > > - Avoid lying > > > - Avoid intoxicants > > > > > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you > are > > > creating bad kamma > > > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists > think > > > in terms of > > > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and > > > punishments). > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > > than > > > I thought. > > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > > for > > > violating the > > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > > confidence > > > in the non- > > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this > fear > > > of being "wrong." > > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > > this > > > fear? > > > > > > ===== > > > > > > You have probably noticed some similarity > between > > > the precepts listed > > > above and the ten commandments. Notice what is > > left > > > out of the > > > Buddhist precepts; rites and rituals. > > > > > > My wife was brought up as a Buddhist in > Indonesia > > > beliving in God. > > > When I met her, I explained that Buddhism does > not > > > accept a all- > > > powerful creator God. She was shocked and we > went > > to > > > a monk for a > > > clarification. The monk said that I was correct > > but > > > in order to fit > > > into the social fabric of a Muslim nation, the > > > Buddhists had decided > > > to remain silent (abstain?) on the issue of God. > > > Knowing that a > > > belief in God was deeply ingrained, I did not > > press > > > the matter with > > > her. As she read more and more, her belief in > God > > > melted away slowly. > > > > > > My advice is to focus on other areas of the > > > teachings rather than > === message truncated === 20331 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] From Christ to Buddha Dear Dave, op 17-03-2003 15:40 schreef dwlemen op dwlemen@y...: > So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? N: Have no fear, and this will come when you gain confidence in the Buddha's teachings. The Buddha had such great compassion in teaching Dhamma, such patience and lovingkindness. When you read suttas the Buddha speaks personally to you. He helps you to know yourself better, also your own faults and vices. But you do not have to force yourself to suppress these, it is important to know them when they arise. In that way you will see that they are conditioned, conditioned by past experiences. This is a long way of learning the Truth of non-self. But it is not a way of suppressing, having to force yourself. You will gradually have more confidence when you learn things you never knew before. Every day I myself am surprised: without the Buddha I would not have known this or this. When there is confidence there cannot be fear at the same time. Nina. 20332 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:54am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Look like the email attachment is not there. One more again. If unsuccessful, can someone help out? I clicked attachment and browsed to attach, I clicked 'Done' but the result no email attachment (about 164 kilobytes) and I can see the attachment with name just before I send off, I do not know why. Does not look like very much luck. But I think I got that email attachment from that www.buddhanet.net. So if all fail, please look into that website. Hopefully, it is still there. Thx. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > 20333 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Hi Eddie, Yahoo strips all attachments from posts. It is not possible to put an attachment on Dhammastudygroup. I think this is to prevent the spread of viruses, and as a control on the use of scarce archival storage capacities. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou wrote: > Look like the email attachment is not there. One > more again. > > If unsuccessful, can someone help out? > > I clicked attachment and browsed to attach, I clicked > 'Done' but the result no email attachment (about 164 > kilobytes) and I can see the attachment with name just > before I send off, I do not know why. > > Does not look like very much luck. But I think I got > that email attachment from that www.buddhanet.net. So > if all fail, please look into that website. Hopefully, > it is still there. Thx. > --- Eddie Lou wrote: 20334 From: Eddie Lou Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 0:35pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: From Christ to Buddha Thanks. It really helps or else I will go on trying to no avail. Thx again. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Eddie, > > Yahoo strips all attachments from posts. It is not > possible to put an > attachment on Dhammastudygroup. I think this is to > prevent the > spread of viruses, and as a control on the use of > scarce archival > storage capacities. > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou > > wrote: > > Look like the email attachment is not there. One > > more again. > > > > If unsuccessful, can someone help out? > > > > I clicked attachment and browsed to attach, I > clicked > > 'Done' but the result no email attachment (about > 164 > > kilobytes) and I can see the attachment with name > just > > before I send off, I do not know why. > > > > Does not look like very much luck. But I think I > got > > that email attachment from that www.buddhanet.net. > So > > if all fail, please look into that website. > Hopefully, > > it is still there. Thx. > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: 20335 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Non-violence and War Dear Group, With the three roots/poisons of greed, hate and delusion so evident in world events, may you gain some strength from the Blessed One's words. Though spoken thousands of years ago in ordinary time, it is just an eye-blink in the length of Samsara, our wandering-on: "The truth of the Truth-speaker's words doesn't change." The Buddha's words on Non-violence: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html The Buddha's words on 'War' http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index-subject.html#w World Poets Against War http://www.nthposition.com/100poets.html metta, Christine Vive la France! 20336 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:24pm Subject: Precepts (was From Christ to Buddha) Rob, Thank you for your reply. I have some followup questions below. In taking your advice, I'll break up my replies into multiple posts to start more specific threads... > > DAVE STARTED: > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. > > ===== > ROB REPLIED: > > Christians have ten commandments, Buddhists have five "rules of > training" (precepts): > - Avoid killing > - Avoid stealing > - Avoid sexual misconduct > - Avoid lying > - Avoid intoxicants > > In Buddhism, if you break a precept, then you are creating bad kamma > for yourself; it is a natural law (Buddhists think in terms of > natural laws rather than in terms of rewards and punishments). > > ===== DAVE REPLY: Two questions here. First, how does this "natural law" relate to "Dependant origination?" Would these laws then be "absolutes" that are to be regardless of time or any cultural "relativism" with which one might apply? Second, are these 5 further defined or refined anywhere? For example "sexual misconduct" is pretty vague. Is there anything that further defines it? Is it just adultry, or are premarital sex, homosexuality, prostitution, etc. (again... just picking this one as an example for clarification Peace, Dave 20337 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:30pm Subject: Rituals (was From Christ to Buddha) Rob, > > DAVE STARTED: > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there > is > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > > path? > > ===== > ROB REPLIED: > > Rites and rituals are not very important in Buddhism. There are lots > of on-line resources and many "wise friends" here at DSG. > > ===== DAVE REPLY: I think I do struggle with the "rites and rituals" part, although I never really thought about them before with Christianity. But, to say grace before eating is good, the Lord's Prayer 3x a day, church 1x a week, communion, etc. Doing these "rituals" helps one feel like they are on the right path, so to speak. I think I wonder about myself and Buddhism because there isn't anything like that. So, it seems like one should meditate, but when, how long, in what way, etc. and there isn't much in the way of answers to those (I suppose to avoid it become ritualistic). > > DAVE STARTED: > > It is very difficult to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, > > I just don't know how or where to start. > > ===== > ROB REPLIED > In your case, I suspect it is a case of returning to a faith that you > had in a past life :-). > DAVE REPLY: You know, I don't know what it is... I studied religion in school (majored in it). I even went to Thailand for a summer semester course. But, that was all years ago. Lately, I've struggled with Christianity more and more and I had "created" my own religion, or at least a theory good for dinner talks. But, somewhere I came across something with Buddhism and it struck me some of the common points (esp. Dependent Origination). So, perhaps it is another life (although I don't actually believe in a literal reincarnation)! > Metta, > Rob :-) Peace, Dave 20338 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 1:40pm Subject: no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Victor, Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and I'll try to read them tonight. In response to your request for clarification on my question #2, by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong religion! If it turns out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're all in for an eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, etc. Although, if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of Christians in trouble for eating Ham every Easter! I guess my point was that I don't think that I believe in a Christian god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT believe... just in case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I was praying my little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my heart...") and I realized that, although I say those words over and over, they carried no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have enough confidence in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, even though I see my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still stuck there right now. So, I was looking to see if there were others who had gone through this. I guess there is just years and years of programming that must get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the mind in a way that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the Buddha with which one > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are the five precepts, > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. They are listed in > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by being "wrong". In > particular, being wrong about what? > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and observing the five > precepts. > > I would also recommend the page > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > for self-study. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > wrote: > > Dear Everyone, > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I find myself > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be transitioning my Western, > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist mindset > (specifically > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? Here are a few of my > > specific woes: > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to find clear (or > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can structure one's behavior > > according to these "commandments". Is there a similar idea in > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as message 210 ("Buddhist > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never got posted. > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me than I thought. > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments for violating the > > rules. So, while on one level, I have confidence in the non- > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear of being "wrong." > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" this fear? > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in Indiana. As such, there > is > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to become a part of. > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to follow the correct > > path? > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. It is very > difficult > > to move from one faith to another. Even though I do truly want to, > I > > just don't know how or where to start. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave 20339 From: Lars Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:51pm Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna no 1. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > You wrote: > And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can > transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) > N: I cannot find this annotation, it must be in K V, Streamwinning, > but where? Could you indicate the sutta. It cannot be one of the > five precepts, but it could be a precept of Vinaya. > Nina It is in the Sotaapatti sa"myutta, sarakaani-vaggo, sarakaani- sutta"m. No English translation online as far as I know. (There is a German one if you are interested.) But the sutta seems to indicate that Sakakani had been a drunkard (Sarakaani sakko sikkhaadubbalyamaapaadi, majjapaana"m apaayii). Maybe the com has some indication? Thank you for your pointers about the parisuddhi sila. I shall have a closer look at it tomorrow. Lars 20340 From: Andrew Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Interesting questions, Andrew! Let me clarify briefly: > > > Andrew: Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in > contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? > > No. I'm not speculating about things that happen outside the realm of > experience. A:Why not, Dan? Is such speculation not recommended in Dhamma? I read alot of posts on DSG talking about arahants etc. > > > Andrew: For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact > with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? > > I'm not sure what you mean by "rupa". Could you please explain? A: Yes, I mean "corporeality". > > ..... > Then, I wrote: > > > Dan: Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > > > experience of it? > > > Andrew: ... why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? > > Doggonit, Andrew! Are you are changing the subject on me? I was > talking about "pleasantness", not "attractiveness". Do you see any > difference between these words? A: "Doggonit" isn't in my Pali dictionary (only joking!). Seriously, "ittha" isn't in my Pali dictionary either. I am trying to come to terms with the notion of inherently "pleasant" or whatever rupa and there are lots of English words flying about eg pleasant, attractive, desirable. At the moment, "attractive" fits in best with my understanding (for some reason, it seems less conceptual - like a rule of physics that determines magnetic attraction). That being so, I would welcome - 1. a discourse on the various Pali terms and their shades of meaning; or 2. for the sake of discussion, just treat "pleasant" and "attractive" as synonomous. > > Metta Andrew 20341 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran [Andrew] Dear Andrew, A few more brief comments: > > > Andrew: Are you saying that rupa does not exist unless it is in > > contact with a sense-base thereby giving rise to consciousness? > > > > No. I'm not speculating about things that happen outside the realm of > > experience. > > A:Why not, Dan? Is such speculation not recommended in Dhamma? I > read alot of posts on DSG talking about arahants etc. It's just not what I'm doing here. I spend most of my professional life and most of my personal life speculating about "rupa existing outside" and about how it behaves. There's nothing wrong with that at all. However, here, I am just trying to understand sense objects and how they are processed by the mind. > > > > > Andrew: For example, does rupa only manifest anicca when in contact > > with a sense-base? Or is anicca inherent in rupa? > > > > I'm not sure what you mean by "rupa". Could you please explain? > > A: Yes, I mean "corporeality". > > > > ..... > > Then, I wrote: > > > > Dan: Can the "pleasantness" of an "object" exist outside of the > > > > experience of it? > > > > > Andrew: ... why couldn't attractiveness be inherent in a rupa? > > > > Doggonit, Andrew! Are you are changing the subject on me? I was > > talking about "pleasantness", not "attractiveness". Do you see any > > difference between these words? > > A: "Doggonit" isn't in my Pali dictionary (only joking!). Seriously, "ittha" isn't in my Pali dictionary either. ->Dan: "Ittha" is the past participle of icchati (to wish, desire, ask for), i.e. it means "wished for, desired, asked for". > Andrew: I am trying to come to terms with the notion of inherently "pleasant" or whatever rupa and there are lots of English words flying about eg pleasant, attractive, desirable. At the moment, "attractive" fits in best with my understanding (for some reason, it seems less conceptual - like a rule of physics that determines magnetic attraction). That being so, I would welcome - 1. a discourse on the various Pali terms and their shades of meaning; or 2. for the sake of discussion, just treat "pleasant" and "attractive" as synonomous. -> Dan: The problem I see with "pleasant" is that it is the same word that is so commonly used in the context of pleasant vedana -- a characteristic of mind. The nature of mind (mana) is so distinctly different from the nature of rupa that it is confusing to say "pleasant object" on the one hand and "pleasant vedana" on the other. "Pleasant" simply cannot mean the same thing in both instances. Dan 20342 From: Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation Hi James, I don't know anything about supramundane jhanas. I was just following what Buddhaghosa wrote, I think. I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, so maybe there will be something about these jhanas later. Also, I don't recall the Buddha saying don't practice jhana or be careful of jhana. The jhana that he was taught didn't go far enough. It needed that little extra push of insight. In a way, perhaps we could say nibbana is ultimate tranquility. If so, the progress of jhana from lesser to greater tranquility would culminate in nibbana _if_ the appropriate insight arose. That particular insight can't be practiced. It either happens or it doesn't; but it does make some difference in one's life to rehearse it. Also, tranquility can be practiced in most situations, and that is very much to the point. Whether or not we can figure out a way for householders to practice jhana is yet to be seen. More research is needed. Larry 20343 From: Andrew Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:24pm Subject: Bhavanga-cittas Dear Group In ADL, Nina says (in the context of a sense-door process) that the bhavanga-cittas do not experience the rupa. In "Realities and Concepts", Sujin B says (in the context of a mind-door process) that the arrest-bhavanga is "the mind-door through which the cittas of the mind-door process will experience the object" (p 63). Question: in a mind-door process, do the bhavanga-cittas experience the mind-object? What do they experience? Sujin also seems to say (p 24) that pannatti can be "included in" a mind-door-object. Question: what is an example of mind-door-object that is not pannatti? Any help in putting me straight on this area would be greatly appreciated. Metta Andrew 20344 From: Andrew Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: Questions from March weekend at Cooran [Andrew] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > -> Dan: The problem I see with "pleasant" is that it is the same word > that is so commonly used in the context of pleasant vedana -- a > characteristic of mind. The nature of mind (mana) is so distinctly > different from the nature of rupa that it is confusing to > say "pleasant object" on the one hand and "pleasant vedana" on the > other. "Pleasant" simply cannot mean the same thing in both > instances. > Dear Dan Thanks for clarifying those points. You point out the confusion caused by our use of English ie one word "pleasant" for both vedana and rupa. Is it the same in Pali? Are the same Pali adjectives applied to both vedana and rupa? Perhaps we should talk about "pleasant" vedana and "attractive" rupa in our English discussions to emphasise the distinction? Andrew 20345 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 5:25pm Subject: [dsg] FW: [Pali] Re: sila, samadhi, panna no 1. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lars" wrote: > --- > > And there seem to be indications that even a sotapanna can > > transgress some precepts. (S 55.24) > >> > It is in the Sotaapatti sa"myutta, sarakaani-vaggo, sarakaani- > sutta"m. No English translation online as far as I know. (There is a > German one if you are interested.) > But the sutta seems to indicate that Sakakani had been a drunkard > (Sarakaani sakko sikkhaadubbalyamaapaadi, majjapaana"m apaayii). > Maybe the com has some indication? > > Thank you for your pointers about the parisuddhi sila. I shall have > a closer look at it tomorrow. > Lars _______ Dear Lars, Sarakani was a monk who left the order, took to drink and became an alcoholic. He died with the smell of alcohol on his breath. However he also had confidence in Dhamma and went to listen to the monks and Buddha when he had time. He became a sotapanna just at the time he died - he could never have taken alcohol after becoming a sotapanna. RobertK 20346 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:32pm Subject: Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > I don't know anything about supramundane jhanas. I was just following > what Buddhaghosa wrote, I think. I haven't gotten to the end of it yet, > so maybe there will be something about these jhanas later. Also, I don't > recall the Buddha saying don't practice jhana or be careful of jhana. > The jhana that he was taught didn't go far enough. It needed that little > extra push of insight. In a way, perhaps we could say nibbana is > ultimate tranquility. If so, the progress of jhana from lesser to > greater tranquility would culminate in nibbana _if_ the appropriate > insight arose. That particular insight can't be practiced. It either > happens or it doesn't; but it does make some difference in one's life to > rehearse it. Also, tranquility can be practiced in most situations, and > that is very much to the point. Whether or not we can figure out a way > for householders to practice jhana is yet to be seen. More research is > needed. > > Larry Hi Larry, Some of the sentences of this post I don't understand. To me, they are somewhat ambiguous in meaning. However, your thoughts are probably not ambiguous and there is just a breakdown with this mode of communication. I will address those sentences which I believe I understand. The only ultimate authority on Buddhism is the Lord Buddha. While Buddhaghosa did a good job at clarifying some difficult points, he also put forth many inaccuracies and outright lies in his commentaries (I will not clarify further about this in this group). Please research from many other sources about the various aspects of meditation and then reach your conclusions. Buddhaghosa is not the ultimate authority on the meaning of Buddhism, which includes meditation. You are quite mistaken if you believe there are no dangerous practices of jhana; there are many different kinds of dangerous practices of jhana…for this life and rebirth. The Lord Buddha almost starved himself to death practicing the wrong forms of jhana (those which put him into continual states of bliss and suppressed his appetite and other bodily needs); and many of his contemporaries made themselves virtually insane with practices of the wrong forms…some believing they should behave like animals and/or remained continually unclothed. It was the Lord Buddha's accumulations that allowed him to finally see the folly of this form of jhana practice and to have not been permanently, mentally damaged by his years of incorrect practice. The difference was not a "little extra push of insight" as you describe, but an entirely different approach to meditation practice. It didn't take him years to perfect this new approach because he had already built up his strength of concentration and he had the benefit of his previous accumulations to help him out. It is neither necessary nor recommended to retrace his exact steps because that will result in much of the same folly that he encountered. You see, his karma was to encounter and practice the wrong path so that he could teach the correct path to others; it is not our karma to initially follow the wrong path as he did, but to learn and follow the right path from beginning to end. Am I making myself clear enough? Regarding this statement, "Whether or not we can figure out a way for householders to practice jhana is yet to be seen. More research is needed," I am not sure why you have reached this conclusion. Householders can practice jhana just the same as monks or as anyone. The only thing required is a mind and the dedication and knowledge to direct it toward the practice. Granted, some time needs to be taken away from daily activities for intense meditation retreats, but that is the same thing monks do. Monks, for the most part, are busy everyday with various activities and duties which don't allow for them to meditate for great lengths of time…and the same was true during the Buddha's age. If you follow the right path from the beginning to the end, you don't need as much time as the Buddha took anyway. That is what he wished and taught for everyone. Metta, James 20347 From: Dan D. Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:32pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Robert, Sarah, and Jon, I looked up the Vibhanga passage [PTS p. 2; U Thittila §6] that Rob's Sammohavinodani discussion refers to: "Therein what is superior material quality? That material quality which, for this or that being, is not contemptible, not despised, not worthless, not derisible, respected, superior, thought to be superior, considered to be superior, desirable [ittha], attractive, pleasant [manapo--pleasing, pleasant, charming, pretty], (i.e.) the visible, audible, odorous, sapid, tangible. This is called superior material quality. Superior material quality should be understood by comparing this material quality with that." VbhA's "disputatious speaker" contends: "There is no intrinsic agreeable and disagreeable. It is stated according to the likings of these or those." It is difficult to read the Vbh text as something other than that a superior material quality is sense data that is desirable to this or that being. However, there is still an intrinsic agreeable/disagreeable aspect to a sense object. The question, then, is what is a sense object? (i) The data processed by the mind through the sense door, or (ii) some object "out there"? Two very different views with two very different implications... (ii) If a sense object is some object "out there," then it can't really be experienced. Buddha cannot pass through the eye-door, and a piece of dogs--- does not pass through the body-door (even if one were to squeeze it very hard!). You can't very well call something that can't be experienced "pleasant" or "unpleasant". The mistake that the disputatious speaker is making is that he is misunderstanding the object as something real, lasting, to be experienced by me, you, and the next person as we pass the dogs--- down the line. This kind of abstract, conceptual object would certainly not carry an intrinsic "pleasant" or "unpleasant" label, and if Vbh were referring to that kind of object, the disputatious speaker would be right. (i) If a sense object is the data processed by the mind through the sense door, then it makes perfect sense for it to be agreeable or disgreeable; and, as Sammohavinodani goes on to say, "Only by way of [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable [as agreeable or disagreeable].... If the object is agreeable it is profitable result [kusala vipaka] that has arisen; if disagreeable, it is unprofitable that has arisen." And Vbh is clear on how superior material quality should be understood, viz. "by comparing this material quality with that." In other words, the nature of sense objects is to be understood through experience, not through consideration of whether the abstract category to which the hypothesized object "out there" belongs to the category of "superior" or "inferior". This is in marked contrast to what Sammohavinodani seems to be saying. The commentary here expresses some important insights that help elucidate the Vbh text (e.g. reaffirmation of intrinsic disagreeable/agreeable sense object as the distinguishing feature of kusala-vipaka vs. akusala-vipaka), but it does seem to be at variance with Vbh in some critical places. For example: (1) (p. 10-11) "`But there is the distinguishing of an object as intrinsically agreeable or disagreeable.' But according to whom is it distinguishable? By way of the average being. For this is not distinguishable according to the likes and dislikes of great emporers such as Mahasammata, Mahasudassana, Dhammasoka and so on. For to them even a divine object appears unpleasing. Nor is it distinguishable according to [the likes and dislikes of] the extreme unfortunates who find it hard to get food and drink. For to them lumps of broken rice- porridge and the taste of rotten meat seem as exceedingly sweet as ambrosia. But it is distinguishable according to what is found agreeable at one time and disagreeable at another time by average [men such as] accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants. For such are able to distinguish between the agreeable and disagreeable." By this measure, the Bach cantatas that I like so much are really intrinsically disagreeable, and the music of rapper Eminem is really intrinsically agreeable because that is the way the pop-culture evaluates it. Sammohavinodani then goes on to explain my problem, why I can't see the unpleasant music of Bach for what is really is: "It is through perversion of perception that that same object is agreeable for one and disagreeable for another." Some disputatious person might argue that Bach cantatas are pleasant, and it is really the music of Eninem that is unpleasant. Such a person should be sked: "Are you not aware that Eminem is at the top of the pop-music charts, and Bach is not agreeable to the average person?" Hmmm...I guess that settles it in the only rational way (given Sammohavinodani's tool for distinguishing the intrinsically pleasant from the intrinsically unpleasant). Absurd! People have different tastes, and it is non-sensical to parse those tastes into correct and incorrect -- and especially non-sensical to base the parsing on the opinions of the masses because they "are able to distinguish between the agreeable and the disagreeable." Thankfully, Vbh rejects this approach: "Inferior and superior material quality should be understood by comparing this material quality with that" -- not by comparing this person's tastes with that person's and then deciding the matter by a vote to find the opinion of the average man. This poses a difficult problem for Sammohavinodani because it just spent two or three pages saying just the opposite. In light of this new information, it tries a new tack (p. 12): "...here the above method should be disregarded"— It reads as if the commentator read the first few lines of Vbh, wrote a few pages, and then read another line that contradicted what had just been written: "Oops! Disregard that." Sammohavinodani tries to recover: "...inferiority and superiority should [really] be understood by comparison of this and that [rather than by comparison of this person's opinion with that person's]." (my parentheticals) — Whew! The commentary seems to be getting back on track now.......... But wait! What's this? "...the materiality of the dwellers in hell is called inferior at the [lower] extremity. Compared with that, among animals that of nagas and supannas is called superior. Their materiality is inferior. Compared with that, petas' materiality is called superior"... and so on and so forth. That's how we are to read the Vbh at PTS p. 2 (U Thittila §6)? That is quite a stretch! Lordy, what an excursion! In his introduction to the Ñm translation (p. x), Lance Cousins suggests that the Sammohavinodani is not very polished in comparison to Visuddhimagga: "[T]he material has been less carefully edited and is therefore closer to the original commentaries in Sinhala Prakrit. They thereby provide precious hints of an earlier stage in development." A rough draft, perhaps? Dan 20348 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 8:58pm Subject: Re: meditation Dear James, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: The Lord Buddha almost starved himself to death practicing the wrong forms of jhana (those which put him into continual states of bliss and suppressed his appetite and other bodily needs); KKT: The Buddha almost starved himself to death in practicing self-mortification and not by practicing jhana. Self-mortification was very in vogue among the ascetics in the time of the Buddha, especially among the Jains. KKT 20349 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:11pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Christine, I understand your concerns about the pending war and thank you for your references. --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > With the three roots/poisons of greed, hate and delusion so evident > in world events, may you gain some strength from the Blessed One's > words. ..... Do you understand the Blessed One’s words to be urging us to be concerned with the roots/poisons in ‘world events’ or in ‘our own’cittas arising at this moment, as the cause of present harm and suffering? ..... >Though spoken thousands of years ago in ordinary time, it is > just an eye-blink in the length of Samsara, our wandering-on: > > "The truth of the Truth-speaker's words > doesn't change." > > The Buddha's words on Non-violence: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/nonviolence.html ..... I’ve just looked at the first sutta quoted in this first link you give and include it here: [Sutta Nipata IV.15] Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s transl: “When embraced, the rod of violence breeds danger & fear: Look at people quarreling. I will tell of how I experienced dismay. Seeing people floundering like fish in small puddles, competing with one another -- as I saw this, fear came into me. The world was entirely without substance. All the directions were knocked out of line. Wanting a haven for myself, I saw nothing that wasn't laid claim to. Seeing nothing in the end but competition, I felt discontent. And then I saw an arrow here, so very hard to see, embedded in the heart. Overcome by this arrow you run in all directions. But simply on pulling it out you don't run, you don't sink... Whatever things are tied down in the world, you shouldn't be set on them. Having totally penetrated sensual pleasures, sensual passions, you should train for your own Unbinding. “ ***** Would this quick rough summary be correct do you think? ‘I was dismayed when I saw all those around me fighting and quarelling blindly. Then I realised the real thorn was the one in my heart, i.e the attachment within. With the removal of this thorn, the bonds and ties to the world are overcome.’ ..... Let me also quote some of the verses from Norman’s (PTS) transl to this sutta which he titles: ‘Embraced Violence’: ..... “.... But seeing (people) opposed (to one another) at the end, I was dissatisfied. Then I saw a barb here, hard to see, nestling in the heart. “Affected by this barb, one runs in all directions. Having pulled that barb out, one does not run, nor sink. “At that point the precepts are recited: Whatever fetters there are in the world, one should not be intent upon them. Having wholly pierced sensual pleasures one should train oneself for one’s own quenching. “One should be truthful, not impudent, without deception, rid of slander, without anger. A sage should cross over the evil of greed, and avarice. ...... “I call greed “the great flood”, I call desire “the current”. The objects of sense are the movement (of the tide) . Sensual pleasure is the mud which is hard to cross over. “Not deviating from truth, a sage, a brahman, stands on high ground. having given up everything, he indeed is called “calmed”. ...... “He who has passed beyond sensual pleasures here, the attachment which is hard to cross over in the world, does not grieve, (and) does not worry. he has cut across the stream, he is without bond. “Make what (existed) previously wither away. May there be nothing for you afterwards. If you do not grasp anything in between, you will wander calmed. “Of whom there is no cherishing at all in respect of name and form , and (who) does not grieve because of what does not exist, he truly does not suffer any loss in the world. ..... “Not harsh, not greedy, without lust, impartial in every respect; this is what I, when asked, call advantage for unshakable men.” ..... ***** I think the point I read is that ‘World Peace’ will only ever come about by understanding the 6 worlds appearing at this moment as discussed in this extract from ‘Abh in Daily Life’: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/12597 I seem to remember Nina and I also wrote articles on World Peace and Dhamma that were included at the start of one of the versions of Pilgrimage in Sri Lanka, but I don’t have a copy. As we’ve discussed before, none of this is to suggest one should or shouldn’t follow other actions according to one’s inclinations - rallies, petitions and so forth - but whilst following or not following these activities, understanding of present realities is always the ‘highest’ good or kusala which we are fortunate enough to be able to appreciate at moments of wise reflection. Thanks for the references, Chris. I’ll look at the others later if I have time. I’d be glad to hear your further comments on thes points. Metta, Sarah ===== 20350 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:15pm Subject: Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear James, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: > > > > The Lord Buddha almost > starved himself to death practicing the wrong forms of jhana (those > which put him into continual states of bliss and suppressed his > appetite and other bodily needs); > > > > KKT: The Buddha almost > starved himself to death > in practicing self-mortification > and not by practicing jhana. > > Self-mortification was very > in vogue among the ascetics > in the time of the Buddha, > especially among the Jains. > > > KKT Hi KKT, And how do you believe the desire for self-mortification arises? It is not a common, everyday phenomenon after all. The desire for self- mortification arises from the mind's over-fixation on a mental object (thought); diagnosed today as obsessive-compulsive disorder. Be it the Jains, St. Benedictine Monks, or anorexics, they all have the desire for self-mortification due to their fixation on a self- perpetuating mental thought(s). This fixation, in turn, suppresses normal mental functioning. It is not a conscious choice, as I believe you are suggesting. And I am posting far too much again; it is time for me to stop. Metta, James 20351 From: Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 9:48pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: meditation Hi James, The only sources I know of for detailed instructions on and analysis of jhana are Visuddhimagga, Vimuttimagga, Patisambhidamagga, and something called Yogavacara's Manual. Do you know of any others? As for the dangers of jhana, I've heard that from quite a few people but I don't see it in the suttas and I don't see how there can be an 8-fold path without jhana. Without the 8-fold path is it really Buddhism? I will admit though, there is practically no jhana meditation going on these days, even among recluses. B. Alan Wallace talks about this a little in his book "The Bridge of Quiescence" which is concerned with a Tibetan analysis of samatha but compares it to jhana as explained by Buddhaghosa. So, it appears there is no functional 8-fold path right now. What are we to do? Patch one together out of stuff we like or try to rediscover the old one? Larry 20352 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: meditation --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi James, > > The only sources I know of for detailed instructions on and analysis of > jhana are Visuddhimagga, Vimuttimagga, Patisambhidamagga, and something > called Yogavacara's Manual. Do you know of any others? Hi Larry, Perhaps you might enjoy reading this source, which analyses the various commentaries you list and how they align with the suttas and recognized meditation teachers (which Buddhaghosa is a Buddhist scholar, not a meditation teacher…big difference): http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel351.html As I said, the Eightfold Path does include jhana, but it includes supramundane jhana and not mundane jhana (refer to the above article). Each time someone sits to practice yogic (whose etymology means 'to yoke'…as in the mind to an object) meditation, they are attempting to attain jhana. Jhana is not some mystical, magical thing; jhana is simply concentrated, mental absorption. Granted, few practice it to perfection today because few have the power of concentration…due to our over stimulated society and over stimulated food. But that is no reason to throw in the towel or reinvent the wheel, to use some tired clichés ;-). We just need to focus on what we can do…and meditate. Metta, James 20353 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Hi Dan & All, Many thx for the very detailed post;-) ;-) (I hope you have scanner access..) (This is not really a reply as right now I’m on standby for updates of the funeral and proceedings in Adelaide and keeping an eye from here on the timing as Jon has flights to catch..... Apparently his eulogy in praise of his mother’s fine qualities (including her kind support for his way of life inc. many years ago when he gave up a successful law practice and she gave her permission for him to become a Buddhist monk instead) and quoting of ‘The Arrow” which I posted the other day, was very well-received in the Christian church and by the large, mostly Christian turnout.) Eminem vs Bach with regard to pleasant sound???? Not a popularity contest as I understand the Smv. The intrinsic nature is not according to perception. It is how it is actually heard by the middle-ranking or average men, not how they conceive and perceive it to be so. We have tickets for ten days’ time to go to a Rolling Stones concert here. It’s the kind of thing we do about once every 10 years. I know the sound will be far too loud to be intrinsically ‘pleasant’ and yet still there’s just about enough lobha to go and follow after the papanca, though it won’t bother me if it gets cancelled as happened last time;-) ..... > In his introduction to the Ñm translation (p. x), Lance Cousins > suggests that the Sammohavinodani is not very polished in comparison > to Visuddhimagga: "[T]he material has been less carefully edited > and > is therefore closer to the original commentaries in Sinhala Prakrit. > They thereby provide precious hints of an earlier stage in > development." A rough draft, perhaps? .... Vism XV11, 178f: “....It is a condition likewise for eight kinds of limited (-sphere) resultant consciousness in the course of existence, not in rebirth-linking, in the unhappy destinies in the sense-sphere becoming. For then it is a condition (for such profitable-resultant consciousness occurring) in hell encountering a desirable object (on such occasions) as the Elder Maha-Mogallana’s visits to hell, and so on. But among animals and powerful ghosts too a desirable object is obtained (through the same condition).......” S: “a desirable object is obtained” among dogs and ghosts....this will be regardless of how it is perceived or appreciated or not.....I’m sure they’d prefer to see their own equivalent of Eminem;-) ..... “.....In the fine-material becoming it is a condition likewise for four kinds of resultant consciousness in the course of an existence, not in rebirth-linking. Then it is a condition for (Brahmas’) seeing undesirable visible data and hearing undesirable sounds that are in the sense sphere; there are no undesirable visible data, etc, in the Brahma-world itself; and likewise in the divine world of the sense sphere.” ~Footnote: “Pm (comy to Vism) points out that this is generally but not always so, since deities see such potents of their death as the fading of their flowers, etc, which are undesirable visible data.~ ***** You may also wish to look at Vism XV11, 127 and XIV, 54f I may get back after reading your post with the due care it deserves. Hopefully Rob will add his comments too in the meantime. Metta, Sarah ====== 20354 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 10:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] --- Dear Dan, Let's try to establish what we agree on and disagree on. 1.You don't like the word pleasant or unpleasant to refer to sense objects. That's fine - agreeable/disagreeable or desirable/undesirable are probably better. 2. You say: "And Vbh is clear on how > superior material quality should be understood, viz. "by comparing this > material quality with that." In other words, the nature of sense > objects is to be understood through experience, not through > consideration of whether the abstract category to which the > hypothesized object "out there" belongs to the category of > "superior" > or "inferior". " _________ In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically disagreeable at all times. Take Nina's example of someone shouting in anger. The sound produced is inherently disagreeable but if we are not around to hear it then there is no sotavinnana and hence no vipaka for us. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Robert, Sarah, and Jon, > I looked up the Vibhanga passage [PTS p. 2; U Thittila §6] that > Rob's Sammohavinodani discussion refers to: > > "Therein what is superior material quality? That material quality > which, for this or that being, is not contemptible, not despised, not > worthless, not derisible, respected, superior, thought to be > superior, considered to be superior, desirable [ittha], attractive, > pleasant [manapo--pleasing, pleasant, charming, pretty], (i.e.) the > visible, audible, odorous, sapid, tangible. This is called superior > material quality. Superior material quality should be understood by > comparing this material quality with that." > > 20355 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 17, 2003 11:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Rituals (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, Thanks for joining us on DSG. You're asking very helpful questions for all of us to consider and I really appreciate your sincere and honest comments. --- dwlemen wrote: > Rob, > You know, I don't know what it is... I studied religion in school > (majored in it). I even went to Thailand for a summer semester > course. But, that was all years ago. Lately, I've struggled with > Christianity more and more and I had "created" my own religion, or at > least a theory good for dinner talks. But, somewhere I came across > something with Buddhism and it struck me some of the common points > (esp. Dependent Origination). So, perhaps it is another life > (although I don't actually believe in a literal reincarnation)! ..... I think this is how it has been for many of us. Something strikes a chord from what we read or hear in Buddhism, but we may continue with our traditional patterns and rituals whilst considering further. You reminded me of how since I was a small girl I had always said my prayers before going to bed. It continued for quite a while after I became interested in Buddhism (a bit like a just-in-case safety-net which stayed long after I'd given up going to Church, reading the Bible etc), but became more and more mechanical and eventually would just be forgotten. Whilst we cling to the idea of a 'self', of a 'me' and a 'you', there's bound to be the clinging to a 'God' or 'gods' as well. By understanding more about what it is that is taken for self and beings, we can begin to see that we live in a world of concepts which we take for ultimate truths or realities. Coming from another religion, as most of us do here, has one real advantage perhaps: every word or idea or ritual is questioned and challenged. This is healthy. Look forward to hearing plenty more of your qus and the replies from Rob m and all the others. With metta, Sarah P.S. I'm sure you're far better versed in the Teachings than you modestly suggest. If you need any directions to make your stay on DSG easier, just call for help! For example, there's a simple pali glossary which can be printed out at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms Weight Age Gender Female Male 20356 From: Star Kid Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:01am Subject: q's Dear James, It's me Hilary. You wouldn't believe it, i have some more questions looking for answers. 1. What is the holy book for the buddhist? 2.Anything such as priest, pope or bishop? 3. Did buddhism come out from another religion? Like Chrisitanity from Jewish. 4. Any speical cultures? Metta Hilary P.S- Could you try putting your answers in a poem? 20357 From: Vital Moors Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:22am Subject: I´m new and searching I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and how I can practize it in my life. My dream for already a long time is to become a monk in Thailand. But I think i´m not ready for it. So I´m also searching for a mentor who can give me advice and guide me.For more information about me you can check my homepage: www.vitalmoors.nl Vital E.H. Moors 20358 From: Vital Etienne Hélène Moors Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:49am Subject: I feel in my haert that I have to become a monk but I have to go a whole way and need some mentor who can guide me I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and how I can practize it in my life. Since the first time I was in Tahiland I feel in my haert that I have to go to a buddhist temple and become a monk. And everytime i come back there this strange feeling comes back. And also when I´m in Europe at home I feel the same need. But I think I am not ready for it. Since a few months I am reading some books about Buddhism. And more and more I see it is the way that I am acting and thinking right now. But I want now go further and search a mentor who can give me advice and guide me . For more information about me you can check my homepage: www.vitalmoors.nl Vital E.H. Moors http://www.vitalmoors.nl 20359 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Mike, This is a co-incidence, a person in my Pali class asked about the Pali word for 'love' - which started a discussion in the break on whether or not such an emotion was encouraged in Buddhism. Metta was mentioned, but a dictionary search also unearthed number of other words like:- mettaayati, da.lhapema, abhirati, pema, sineha; sneha; anuraaga. piyaayati; pema"m bandhati; mettaayati. piyaayita; baddhapema. (The consensus was that Buddhism didn't encourage 'love' in a personalised Christian, or worldly, sense.) You say: "To me the ultimate in friendliness or compassion is that which encourages detachment." I think detachment is one of those words like 'love' that has different meanings. 'Love' can mean anything from 'unconditional valuing' of someone to 'I love baked beans'. Detachment can be seen, as meaning a form of mental ill-health (as in someone who is 'detached emotionally from reality') or, apathy, or what I think you are also referring to, citta-viveka, the mental detachment from sensuous things. Nyanatiloka describes viveka-sukha as: 'happiness of detachment', or aloofness (s. prec). "Whoso is addicted to society and worldly bustle, he will not partake of the happiness of renunciation, detachment, peace and enlightenment" (A. VII, 86). It is one thing to agree intellectually with "So one who aspires to be stainless & sorrowless shouldn't make anything in the world dear anywhere", but really quite scary to imagine having nothing dear anywhere - at least, it is for me. Your posts always set me thinking Mike :-) Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: 20360 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:09am Subject: Re: no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, It is difficult to leave a faith based religion in which you have spent your whole life, and upon which your whole value system, spiritual life and much of your social life was based. Probably many of your close relatives, friends and work colleagues are Christians. Most western cultural festivals (Christmas and Easter) revolve around the Christ. And possibly not many people you know understand what Buddhism really is. I came to the Dhamma within the last five years, after growing up within the Anglican (Episcopalian?) church from Baptism, Sunday School, Youth Groups, Sunday School teacher, Confirmation, Communion, Marriage, and then repeating the cycle with my children. They were educated in Church schools before going to Uni. Initially, though my heart and head said Buddhism, occasionally my heart looked backwards for the familiar, though illusory, comfort of "Come unto me ye that are heavy laden and I will give you rest". I remember times of prayer, beautiful and well-loved hymns, familiar rituals and congregational meetings. There is no need to rush things. It's a bit like ending a love affair - one has sweet memories of what really never was true. Occasionally Buddhism seems rather arid and joyless, usually when I'm stressed and tired. But better to have Reality and Truth than a false dream. At these times I seek the support of others whom I consider further along the path than I, and who are untroubled and equanimous. You can only do what you can only do. :-) Don't be concerned if there are some areas you don't yet comprehend or agree with. As you study, test and prove the teachings of the Buddha, things settle into place (for me it was a growing understanding about 'conditionality' and 'no control', that helped me come to an acceptance of no-god, no- soul and, eventually, to understand the fact that the moments after death are no different to the moments before death). Some useful sites: http://www.saigon.com/~anson/ebud/ebidx.htm http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ http://www.abhidhamma.org/contents.htm http://www.vipassana.info/contents-vipassana.htm Glad you joined us, Dave, metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and I'll try to read > them tonight. > > In response to your request for clarification on my question #2, > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong religion! If it turns > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're all in for an > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, etc. Although, > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of Christians in trouble > for eating Ham every Easter! > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I believe in a Christian > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT believe... just in > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I was praying my > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my heart...") and I > realized that, although I say those words over and over, they carried > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have enough confidence > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, even though I see > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still stuck there right > now. > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who had gone through > this. I guess there is just years and years of programming that must > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the mind in a way > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20361 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Sarah, and All, I don't think I have much detachment at all, though a little more than years ago. I don't have a great understanding of the Blessed One's words - but I think, in general, they do urge us to be non- harming, to have compassion, and loving-kindness towards others. Nothing I know of in the Teachings tells us directly to prevent another from being violent, or to save those under threat. But didn't the Buddha intervene to prevent Angulimala from doing further harm? I agree (intellectually) that the Buddha meant us to uproot the defilements arising at this moment in 'our own cittas'. Does this mean we are not to care about others? Or we are to 'care' but do nothing? Surely one should, out of metta and karuna, attempt to protect those in danger, to the best of one's ability, and to influence or try to change the course of aggressive governments For me, in the present, that involves petitions, vigils, discussions and marches. (And on those lists that will allow it, mention of conditions, current events, war and peace from a buddhist perspective.) In the Dhammapada it seems that the Buddha clearly says that one can only purify oneself. v. 165 "By oneself, indeed, is evil done; by oneself is one defiled. By oneself is evil left undone; by oneself, indeed, is one purified. Purity and impurity depend on oneself. No one purifies another." metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: 20362 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Chris, --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Hi Sarah, and All, > > I don't think I have much detachment at all, though a little more > than years ago. ..... I think it takes some wisdom to appreciate how little detachment or equanimity there is in a day. I find the chapter Nina has written on Equanimity (tatramajjhatata cetasika) in her book ‘Cetasikas’ to be particularly helpful: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas32.html We read that “Ignorance is called the "near enemy" of equanimity, because one may think that there is equanimity when there is actually ignorance. Its far enemies are greed and resentment, When there is attachment or aversion there cannot be equanimity at the same time.” We also read that equanimity accompanies all wholesome cittas. There cannot be any state of kusala without this balance of mind or evenmindedness or detachment. So even moments of metta or compassion must be accompanied by tatramajjhatata (detachment) too. ..... “The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 153) states about equanimity : It has the characteristic of conveying citta and cetasikas evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks on with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly. The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 133) gives a similar definition. When there is equanimity there is neither elation nor depression. The object which is experienced is viewed with impartiality and neutrality, just as a charioteer treats with impartiality his well-trained horses. Equanimity effects the balance of the citta and the other cetasikas it arises together with. There is no balance of mind when akusala citta arises, when we are cross, greedy, avaricious or ignorant. Whereas when we are generous, observe morality (sila), develop calm or develop right understanding of nama and rupa, there is balance of mind.” ..... >I don't have a great understanding of the Blessed > One's words - but I think, in general, they do urge us to be non- > harming, to have compassion, and loving-kindness towards others. > Nothing I know of in the Teachings tells us directly to prevent > another from being violent, or to save those under threat. But didn't > the Buddha intervene to prevent Angulimala from doing further harm? > I agree (intellectually) that the Buddha meant us to uproot the > defilements arising at this moment in 'our own cittas'. Does this > mean we are not to care about others? Or we are to 'care' but do > nothing? ..... I’m inclined to think that the more we understand about present kusala and akusala states, the more we can honestly know at this moment whether the care is wholesome and the less we’ll be inclined to measure our own and others’ compassion or loving-kindness by actions taken or not taken. I believe this is an aspect of sacca-parami (sincerity) which we’re reading in the series on the Perfections. Sometimes we may be able to prevent some harm or try to do so, but sometimes it wasn’t possible even for the Buddha or the great disciples. I don’t think we can set any rules or ‘shoulds’. It’ll depend on conditions and our accumulated tendencies in what ways we respond at any time. To quote a little more from ‘Cetasikas’: “If one understands the characteristic of equanimity it can be developed in daily life and condition moments of calm. Sometimes people may be beyond any help, but when we remember that unpleasant results in life they receive are conditioned by kamma, that people are "heirs" to kamma, it will prevent us from being distressed. Sadness about other people's suffering is not helpful, neither for ourselves nor for others, whereas when there is equanimity we can be of comfort to others.” ..... >Surely one should, out of metta and karuna, attempt to > protect those in danger, to the best of one's ability, and to > influence or try to change the course of aggressive governments. ..... I like the translation of ‘friendliness’ for metta that Mike uses. For you and I , we’re surrounded by other people for much of the day. There are opportunites all the time for kindness and friendliness. We may speak or write to ‘aggressive governments’ and again it can be with friendliness or with dosa or with attachment. It just depends. Life is always just this very citta arising and experiencing its object. Is there any awareness? Is the thinking about those who may suffer tomorrow or next week with compassion or with aversion and anxiety? Is there any detachment? I just listened on the news to the details of those who have died or are sick here from the new strand of pneumonia without a cure. Mostly my reactions were of alarm and anxiety and concern for them and those I know...i.e attachment and aversion with little even-mindedness. These habitual tendencies and reactions arise so quickly. Another time, we may hear disturbing news but there may be equanimity and right understanding of phenomena. It might be considered as ‘doing nothing’ in a conventional sense, but in a Buddhist sense, it would be a very worthy kind of kusala and even kusala kamma-patha as we’ve been discussing. Let me add one more quote from ‘Cetasikas’ which I find helpful: “Understanding can be developed now, when there is an object presenting itself through one of the six doors. Sometimes the object is pleasant, sometimes unpleasant. When understanding has not been developed it is difficult to be "balanced", to "stay in the middle", without attachment, without aversion. we may tell ourselves time and again that life is only nama and rupa, conditioned realities which are beyond control, but we are still impatient and we are still disturbed by the events of life. However, when there is mindfulness, for example, of visible object, understanding can realize it as a rupa which appears through the eye-door, not a thing, not a person. When there is mindfulness of seeing, understanding can realize it as only an experience, a type of nama, no self who sees. When realities are clearly known as not a thing, not a person, thus, as anatta, there will be more even-mindedness and impartiality towards them. However, this cannot be realized in the beginning. The arahat has eradicated all defilements and thus he can have equanimity which has reached perfection. He is undisturbed, patient and always contented.” ..... I know it’s not easy and I apologise if any of my comments seem insensitive at this time. With metta, Sarah ===== 20363 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:09am Subject: Re: no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, Now I see what you mean. The Buddha did not deny the existence of divine beings/gods in blissful heavenly realms. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html These beings might enjoy very long life-span, power, and bliss; nevertheless, they are still subject to ageing and death. I think it might be useful to see the Christian God in the context of Buddhist cosmology. Have you heard of Brahma vihara? http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/wheels/wheel006.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and I'll try to read > them tonight. > > In response to your request for clarification on my question #2, > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong religion! If it turns > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're all in for an > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, etc. Although, > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of Christians in trouble > for eating Ham every Easter! > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I believe in a Christian > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT believe... just in > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I was praying my > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my heart...") and I > realized that, although I say those words over and over, they carried > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have enough confidence > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, even though I see > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still stuck there right > now. > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who had gone through > this. I guess there is just years and years of programming that must > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the mind in a way > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20364 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Hi Vital, Welcome to DSG and many thanks for your introductions and link to your website which I took a look at. I see you're Dutch and have a legal background like Jon. I think we all act as mentors to each other....we all learn and help as we can. Some of us even learn from the children (the Starkids) here - from their challenging questions and good cheer;-) I think you're wise to learn what you can before you move to Asia. Pls ask any questions on Buddhism and let us know how we can help further. You may like to look at some old posts under "New to the List....." at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Thanks for joining us and best wishes. Metta, Sarah ====== -- Vital Moors wrote: > > I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m > working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in > Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same > interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and > how I can practize it in my life. My dream for already a long time > is to become a monk in Thailand. But I think i´m not ready for it. > So I´m also searching for a mentor who can give me advice and guide > me.For more information about me you can check my homepage: > www.vitalmoors.nl 20365 From: Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:50am Subject: RE: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Sarah, I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set some real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find them? I was very catholic in the past. I have complete the education to become priest, but I stopped with it after 5 years, because there were a lot of other thing sin my live at that moment. I didn't know much about the world. I'm a gay man and hiv+, but I'm very healty with my mediciens. So you know that. I had a relation for over 9 years. That was ended last year. At that moment I quesioned all my life. And I came to the conclusion that I cannot be happy in a pure materialistic world. The materialistisc things are nice, but not important for me anymoere. The only important thing at the moment is the growth of my inner. Not my image or personality, but the one I realy am. Of course I have some exprience with medition etc. from my brother who is yogi and from my education at the episcopal seminary. I also have praktized NLP for a long time. But that is not the way for m any more. it can hepl me of course. But it is not the way that i want to grow. I my live the most beautifil moments are these of adoration. Adoration of the nature. Te see a flower of animal. Ethic is fo me not so an issue. Because I believe that all the experiences in my life have given me a strong ethical standard, with does not come from outside but what is incorporate. I don't steel; I don't say hard words; I don't make troubles.... Not because you don't may do that, but because it is a part of mine. I think a lot about life, about my experiences and about how I can grow. I can tell you a lot of course. And that is important because if you don't know my past you cannnot understatnd the manner I stay in life. I think I think and act as a buddhist, but I'm not a buddhist at the moment. My way of thinking and living has devollepd by my previous experiences in life. Now I see that I have to go further... and I realy think and know that Buddhisme can help me a lot by that. Why? It is a feeling. Because everytime I come in a buddhisttemple in Tahiland or Vietnam, I feel a great peace and happiness in myself. I would I had these feelings all the time. I hope you can give me some advice. Vital www.vitalmoors.nl -----Original Message----- From: "Sarah" Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 2:19 PM To: "dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com" Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Hi Vital, Welcome to DSG and many thanks for your introductions and link to your website which I took a look at. I see you're Dutch and have a legal background like Jon. I think we all act as mentors to each other....we all learn and help as we can. Some of us even learn from the children (the Starkids) here - from their challenging questions and good cheer;-) I think you're wise to learn what you can before you move to Asia. Pls ask any questions on Buddhism and let us know how we can help further. You may like to look at some old posts under "New to the List....." at this link: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts Thanks for joining us and best wishes. Metta, Sarah ====== -- Vital Moors wrote: > > I´m Vital E.H. Moors and I like asia and buddhisme very much. I´m > working at my philosophy. I hope to settle me in the near futher in > Asia (Vietnam or Thailand.) I am searching for people with the same > interests. Bit I alsoneed more information and about Buddhism and > how I can practize it in my life. My dream for already a long time > is to become a monk in Thailand. But I think i´m not ready for it. > So I´m also searching for a mentor who can give me advice and guide > me.For more information about me you can check my homepage: > www.vitalmoors.nl 20366 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:59am Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Sarah, I'm sorry to hear of Jon's mother's passing away. She must have been a fine woman indeed, judging by the quality of her son. Christians appreciating "The arrow"? This does not surprise me in the least. Thoughtful Christians have a great appreciation for Dhamma, which, after all, richly infuses the most important Christian doctrines (albeit in quite different language). > Sarah: Eminem vs Bach with regard to pleasant sound???? Not a popularity contest as I understand the Smv. The intrinsic nature is not according to perception. It is how it is actually heard by the middle-ranking or average men, not how they conceive and perceive it to be so. I think you may be ignoring the parts of the Smv that you don't like. The defining of ittha/anittha is via the "likes and dislikes (vaso-- desire, wish)" of the average men because "such are able to distinguish between the agreeable and the disagreeable". I have great difficulty reading this as "how it is actually heard" instead of how the sound is distinguished (i.e. perceived and conceived). In fact, Ñm adds a clarifying parenthetical immediately following the sentence quoted above: "[i.e. it is distinguishable according to the average man's impulsion]." By "impulsion", he means javana, not "how it is actually heard". In the following paragraph, a rival viewpoint is expressed: "But the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are distinguishable according to [kamma-] result only, not according to impulsion. but it is impulsion through perversion of perception only that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable, that lusts for the disagreeable and hates the same disagreeable. Only by way of [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable.'" The Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya's comments are launched with a "but" and put in quotes because they are fundamentally at odds with the previous comments. Who's right? The commentator or the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya? May your perception be perverted enough to enjoy the ear-shattering sounds of the Rolling Stones concert! That has an odd ring to it, don't you think? Dan 20367 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:24am Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] Dear Robert, Can you understand why I object to using "pleasant/unpleasant" to refer to BOTH vedana and sense object? > In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) > "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. > There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, > never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever > sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile > object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is > undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote Wonderful quote, Robert! I read this a few weeks ago, but it didn't strike me as very interesting then. Now it seems wondrously powerful. Isn't this just a restatement of the Noble Truth of suffering? "Contact's sixfold base" is a hell... Dukkha, Dukkha, Dukkha, and this is realized when the sixfold base of contact is seen and understood. > As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically > disagreeable at all times. Yes, and the Buddha's teachings lead to dispassion and revulsion for these hells and the consequent turning away from them. But they go very deep, all the way down to the realm of phassa. When sense contact is truly understood, it is recognized as dukkha. > Take Nina's example of someone shouting in anger. The sound produced is inherently disagreeable but if we are not around to hear it then there is no sotavinnana and hence no vipaka for us. I agree that the abstract category of angry shouts would be recognized by the average man as disagreeable, but ittha/anittha is to be understood through vipaka. If there is no sotavinyana, then there is no ittha/anittha. There is no sensing of the sound, and there is no sense object. With no sense object and no vipaka, there is no agreeable/disagreeable. Dan 20368 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set some real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find them? > Hi Vital, I will contact you off-list about these matters. While the majority of the members of this group are highly intelligent and mean well, such displays of raw honesty and emotion can highly disturb. Being empathic, I am used to it. Don't fret. All is not forsaken. Metta, James 20369 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 7:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Vital, Bhikkhu Bodhi, a great contemporary monk from U.S.A., has written a wonderful introduction to the eightfold noble path. You may find it at http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php. This is a good starting point. Dan 20370 From: htootintnaing Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Dan, I could not find the page.What do I have to do with that if I want to view that page describing Noble Eightfold Path? Yours sincerely, Htoo --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Vital, > Bhikkhu Bodhi, a great contemporary monk from U.S.A., has written a > wonderful introduction to the eightfold noble path. You may find it > at http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php. This is a good > starting point. > > Dan 20371 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 8:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Sorry about that. You might try the link without the last "." in it. http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php Dan --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "htootintnaing" wrote: > Dear Dan, > > I could not find the page.What do I have to do with that if I want to > view that page describing Noble > Eightfold Path? > > Yours sincerely, > > Htoo > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > > Dear Vital, > > Bhikkhu Bodhi, a great contemporary monk from U.S.A., has written a > > wonderful introduction to the eightfold noble path. You may find it > > at http://www.vipassana.com/resources/8fp0.php. This is a good > > starting point. > > > > Dan 20372 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:19am Subject: Re: Philip: Reply --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, and everyone: > > I have received your letter. Thanks for using your > time to write a letter to me. I think that my letter > was more like a test about Buddhism rather than a > letter. Hi Star Kid Philip! How are you? I hope you are doing fine. Hmmmm…so your questions were a test. That means that you already had in your mind what the correct answers should be, doesn't it? And when I didn't answer the way you thought I should, you got rather upset and defensive, didn't you? Philip, questions should be asked in a spirit of friendliness and openness. You should be open-minded and genuinely want to know my answers, not to ask questions just to put me to some kind of test. That will make me feel like I am on trial or something! ;-) And believe it or not, you will learn more by genuinely listening to other people rather than just thinking you know the answers already. But, to use a lesson from "Pooh's Little Instruction Book", "If the person you are talking to doesn't appear to be listening, be patient. It may simply be that he has a small piece of fluff in his ear." I am going to be patient and answer these other questions for you. Maybe you got that small piece of fluff out of your ear. ;-) Philip, you asked me what is unique about Buddhism and I told you: the teaching of non-self (anatta). This isn't personal opinion of mine, this is fact. Everything that Jesus taught is not unique; no matter what you list that he taught it was taught before him in various other religions. Even his crucifixion, which you consider unique, springs from previous pagan religions which believed in animal and human sacrifices. Actually, most of what the Buddha taught had also been taught before in various other religions. But the one thing that the Buddha taught, which cannot be found in any other religion in existence, is the teaching of non-self. I am sorry if you don't like this answer, but it is the truth. There is nothing inherently unique about Christianity, but there is something inherently unique about Buddhism: the teaching of non-self (anatta). Okay, now let me answer your other questions: 1. Why do the people who believe in the Buddha shave their heads and use a lighted thingy to poke six holes on their head? What is the point of that? (Answer: Only monks shave their heads, not everyone who practices Buddhism. Monks shave their heads for two reasons, which the Buddha taught: 1. To encourage the dropping of individual identity; 2. To separate the Buddha's monks, visually, from other monks of his time who grew long hair. I am not sure what you mean by a `lighted thingy that pokes six holes on their head'. I have never heard of that…and it sounds very painful. Monks, as a tradition, don't poke holes in their head.) 2. How did you first come in touch with Buddhism? (Answer: I chose Buddhism as my religion after studying many of the world's religions. It seemed to be the closest to what I already believed about the world…but it filled in some of the gaps in my knowledge. Basically, Buddhism answered my questions about life.) 3. Do you think that you have reached all the requirements that the Buddha required? (Answer: The Buddha didn't have any `requirements', like a boss or a leader, he had suggestions. As far as my own practice and my place on the Buddhist path, that is a private matter. I only discuss my Buddhist accomplishments with my meditation master, no one else. Other people have asked me this question, usually in the wrong spirit, and I refuse to answer.) 4. Why is Buddhism only popular in Asia, while Christianity is popular internationally? (Not to be offensive)? (Answer: Christianity is more popular and spreading because Christians believe in recruiting people to their religion, while Buddhists don't believe in that. Buddhists believe that it is up to each individual to decide and no one should be persuaded to believe one way or another.) 5. Can you tell me the names of some of the Buddhas? (like the smiling one). (Answer: I don't know all of the Buddhas to tell you their names. I believe the smiling Buddha you see is called "The Happy Buddha", but he is based on an actual Buddha who existed in China. My knowledge of this is somewhat foggy and is based on a book I read long ago. Maybe you should check out the library for books on the various Buddhas.) 6. Well, you said that there are many Buddhas. Then why when I ask you when is the Buddha born, you didn't ask me which Buddha did I mean? (Answer: I read your mind! Hehehe…just kidding. I assumed that was the Buddha you meant because he was the supreme Buddha who taught the Buddhism we know today.) As always, it was a pleasure writing to you again, Philip. Take care and work hard in school…and try to respect and obey your teachers. Believe it or not, they know a lot more than you do. Metta, James 20373 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 10:38am Subject: Shrine Room? Everyone, Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan gave another person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay Buddhist Practice" document (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) This doc starts right off with where your shrine should be, and how to give offerings to it, etc. Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? Peace, Dave 20374 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi, May I add something. I think it is: 1. human being, nowithstanding science & technological advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in terms of survivability and true understanding of phenomena. Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks say - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and on and new entries or old entries renew themselves and present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. That is and can be very scary, so human thought upon some kind of reliance and protection. One of them is God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in books or media. 2. over time it becomes very real and people old and new become like you said - programmed to think this way. 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other beings in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, Immortals, etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they also have their own limitations to assist us. We are what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own work or doing - past & present). Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe that is why they are called Immortals???) but they still have a life span meaning they were born and died eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and kid stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is why it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they are still going through the continuous rebirth cycle called - Samsara. 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic model with should I say "total true picture". With that understanding, a person can become more at ease and tranquil especially with insight gained through 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of Panna - I would think the closest equivalent term is 'wisdom'. Emotional stability is one of the good results. 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more realistic model is except for things not verifiable like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable seems click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and scrutiny. 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. Things "AS IS". Thanks. --- dwlemen wrote: > Victor, > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and > I'll try to read > them tonight. > > In response to your request for clarification on my > question #2, > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > religion! If it turns > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're > all in for an > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, > etc. Although, > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > Christians in trouble > for eating Ham every Easter! > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > believe in a Christian > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT > believe... just in > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I > was praying my > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my > heart...") and I > realized that, although I say those words over and > over, they carried > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have > enough confidence > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, > even though I see > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still > stuck there right > now. > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who > had gone through > this. I guess there is just years and years of > programming that must > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the > mind in a way > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > Peace, > > > Dave > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Dave, > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the > Buddha with which > one > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are > the five > precepts, > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > They are listed in > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > being "wrong". In > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and > observing the five > > precepts. > > > > I would also recommend the page > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > > for self-study. > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > > wrote: > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > find myself > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > transitioning my Western, > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > mindset > > (specifically > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > Here are a few of > my > > > specific woes: > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > find clear (or > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > structure one's > behavior > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > similar idea in > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > message 210 > ("Buddhist > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > got posted. > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > than I thought. > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > for violating the > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > confidence in the non- > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > of > being "wrong." > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > this fear? > > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in > Indiana. As such, > there > > is > > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > become a part > of. > > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > follow the > correct > > > path? > > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > It is very > > difficult > > > to move from one faith to another. Even though > I do truly want > to, > > I > > > just don't know how or where to start. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > Dave 20375 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) A good source: www.buddhanet.net --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > > May I add something. I think it is: > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > technological > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in > terms > of survivability and true understanding of > phenomena. > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks > say > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and on > and new entries or old entries renew themselves and > present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought upon > some kind of reliance and protection. One of them is > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in books > or media. > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old and > new become like you said - programmed to think this > way. > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other > beings > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > Immortals, > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they > also have their own limitations to assist us. We are > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own work > or doing - past & present). > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe > that > is why they are called Immortals???) but they still > have a life span meaning they were born and died > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and kid > stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is > why > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they > are > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > called - Samsara. > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic > model with should I say "total true picture". With > that understanding, a person can become more at ease > and tranquil especially with insight gained through > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of Panna > - > I would think the closest equivalent term is > 'wisdom'. > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > realistic model is except for things not verifiable > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable > seems > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and > scrutiny. > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. Things > "AS IS". > > Thanks. > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > Victor, > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and > > I'll try to read > > them tonight. > > > > In response to your request for clarification on > my > > question #2, > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > religion! If it turns > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then > we're > > all in for an > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting > Jesus, > > etc. Although, > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > Christians in trouble > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > believe in a Christian > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT > > believe... just in > > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I > > was praying my > > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my > > heart...") and I > > realized that, although I say those words over and > > over, they carried > > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet > have > > enough confidence > > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, > > even though I see > > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still > > stuck there right > > now. > > > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who > > had gone through > > this. I guess there is just years and years of > > programming that must > > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints > the > > mind in a way > > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > "yu_zhonghao" > > wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the > > Buddha with which > > one > > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules > are > > the five > > precepts, > > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > > They are listed in > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > > being "wrong". In > > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and > > observing the five > > > precepts. > > > > > > I would also recommend the page > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > > > for self-study. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "dwlemen" > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently > I > > find myself > > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > transitioning my Western, > > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, > Buddhist > > mindset > > > (specifically > > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > Here are a few of > > my > > > > specific woes: > > > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > find clear (or > > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > structure one's > > behavior > > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > similar idea in > > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > message 210 > > ("Buddhist > > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer > never > > got posted. > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > > than I thought. > > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > > for violating the > === message truncated === 20376 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Thanks for the insight. I am not really familiar with the "31 planes of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, etc. I thought that, along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say there is no such thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god or an immortal? Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, > > May I add something. I think it is: > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & technological > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in terms > of survivability and true understanding of phenomena. > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks say > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and on > and new entries or old entries renew themselves and > present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought upon > some kind of reliance and protection. One of them is > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in books > or media. > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old and > new become like you said - programmed to think this > way. > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other beings > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, Immortals, > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they > also have their own limitations to assist us. We are > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own work > or doing - past & present). > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe that > is why they are called Immortals???) but they still > have a life span meaning they were born and died > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and kid > stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is why > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they are > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > called - Samsara. > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic > model with should I say "total true picture". With > that understanding, a person can become more at ease > and tranquil especially with insight gained through > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of Panna - > I would think the closest equivalent term is 'wisdom'. > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > realistic model is except for things not verifiable > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable seems > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and > scrutiny. > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. Things > "AS IS". > > Thanks. > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > Victor, > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links and > > I'll try to read > > them tonight. > > > > In response to your request for clarification on my > > question #2, > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > religion! If it turns > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then we're > > all in for an > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting Jesus, > > etc. Although, > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > Christians in trouble > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > believe in a Christian > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do NOT > > believe... just in > > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, I > > was praying my > > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all my > > heart...") and I > > realized that, although I say those words over and > > over, they carried > > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet have > > enough confidence > > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. So, > > even though I see > > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm still > > stuck there right > > now. > > > > So, I was looking to see if there were others who > > had gone through > > this. I guess there is just years and years of > > programming that must > > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints the > > mind in a way > > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was asking. > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > "yu_zhonghao" > > wrote: > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of the > > Buddha with which > > one > > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules are > > the five > > precepts, > > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > > They are listed in > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > > being "wrong". In > > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity and > > observing the five > > > precepts. > > > > > > I would also recommend the page > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma.html > > > for self-study. > > > > > > Regards, > > > Victor > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > > > > > wrote: > > > > Dear Everyone, > > > > > > > > I am relatively new to Buddhism but currently I > > find myself > > > > struggling. My main hurdle seems to be > > transitioning my Western, > > > > Christian upbringing into the Eastern, Buddhist > > mindset > > > (specifically > > > > Theravada). Are there resources to help one? > > Here are a few of > > my > > > > specific woes: > > > > > > > > 1. The "rules." Christianity has scripture to > > find clear (or > > > > relatively clear) absolute rules. One can > > structure one's > > behavior > > > > according to these "commandments". Is there a > > similar idea in > > > > Buddhism? This may be the same question as > > message 210 > > ("Buddhist > > > > concept of good vs. evil") but the answer never > > got posted. > > > > > > > > 2. Giving up God. This one is harder for me > > than I thought. > > > > Christianity has some pretty clear punishments > > for violating the > > > > rules. So, while on one level, I have > > confidence in the non- > > > > existence of the Christian God, I have this fear > > of > > being "wrong." > > > > Are there any suggestions for "deprogramming" > > this fear? > > > > > > > > 3. The Sangha. I live in a small town in > > Indiana. As such, > > there > > > is > > > > no temple or group to help with my journey or to > > become a part > > of. > > > > Are there recommendations for isolated people to > > follow the > > correct > > > > path? > > > > > > > > Hopefully this isn't too much for one message. > > It is very > > > difficult > > > > to move from one faith to another. Even though > > I do truly want > > to, > > > I > > > > just don't know how or where to start. > > > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > > > > Dave 20377 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Robert, > Can you understand why I object to using "pleasant/unpleasant" to > refer to BOTH vedana and sense object? ____________ Dear Dan, Yes, you object because someone might confuse nama and rupa by using the same word for both. As I said either disagreeable or undesirable are fine. here are some pali words they use:anittham, amanapam, akanatum for 'disagreeable'. > > > > In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) > > "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. > > There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, > > never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever > > sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile > > object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is > > undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote > > Wonderful quote, Robert! I read this a few weeks ago, but it didn't > strike me as very interesting then. Now it seems wondrously powerful. > Isn't this just a restatement of the Noble Truth of > suffering? "Contact's sixfold base" is a hell... Dukkha, Dukkha, > Dukkha, and this is realized when the sixfold base of contact is seen > and understood. > > > As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically > > disagreeable at all times. > > Yes, and the Buddha's teachings lead to dispassion and revulsion for > these hells and the consequent turning away from them. But they go > very deep, all the way down to the realm of phassa. When sense > contact is truly understood, it is recognized as dukkha. _______________ Yes this is right. Although it should be noted that (from memory) the sutta or another nearby also notes that the Buddha has seen heavenly realms where "whatever form one sees with the eye is desirable, never undesirable; lovely, agreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour.."" As you indicate these agreeable sense objects are also dukkha. RobertK ------------------------- > > 20378 From: vital moors Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Tank you Sarah. I hope to recieve your mail very soon. My emailadrs is : vitalmoors@h... http://www.vitalmoors.nl ----- Oorspronkelijk bericht ----- Van: "buddhatrue" Aan: Verzonden: dinsdag 18 maart 2003 16:31 Onderwerp: Re: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, wrote: > > Dear Sarah, > > > > I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set > some real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find > them? > > > > Hi Vital, > > I will contact you off-list about these matters. While the majority > of the members of this group are highly intelligent and mean well, > such displays of raw honesty and emotion can highly disturb. Being > empathic, I am used to it. Don't fret. All is not forsaken. > > Metta, James 20379 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi, Dave, I am still a learning student in Buddhism. I think about "no-self" refers to the ego - 'I' and with 'correct' meditation one can eventually find we are nothing but a breathing and living ego or consciousness. I myself never actually know how to meditate but I heard it produce major change in consciousness or mind but not those bad frightening mind control or hallucination. Try to look in the good source: www.buddhanet.net. Look for vipassana meditation by Late U Ba Khin (a practical practitioner of that meditation). This vipassana is what made Last Buddha namely - Gotama became fully enlightened but he had that underlying accumulation of Parami or good stuff like meritorious deeds and wisdom over umpteen (billions or trillions of) rebirth cycles over many worlds (we currently are in one of that world). The world system is also going through some kind of or similar rebirth cycle. But the time scale is different from a person rebirth cycle. I hope I do not overhelm you with info. But do look for the website mentioned above and it takes time to learn, so be patient and you will realize your wish. To me all I want is the real or at close to real truth. I will not like settle for anything less. I know the concept of "no-self" is hard to grasp, even for me who had been analysing all these things for 5-7 years in my spare time. I still have a lot of skeptical questions about all these things and still have not got really good answers. For example, I asked who started all these rebirth cycles "Games". I was told there is no beginning or end. (That makes me more curious.) I do not know if this is true. Hope someone can tell me more satisfactorily. But I am still very impressed with Buddhism, which I do not like to call it a religion because I think of the negative connotation that can go with a religion. I see it a truth - revellation effort or like scientific stuff. --- dwlemen wrote: > Thanks for the insight. I am not really familiar > with the "31 planes > of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, etc. > I thought that, > along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say > there is no such > thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god or > an immortal? > > Peace, > > > Dave > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou > > wrote: > > Hi, > > > > May I add something. I think it is: > > > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > technological > > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in > terms > > of survivability and true understanding of > phenomena. > > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, attacks > say > > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and > on > > and new entries or old entries renew themselves > and > > present all kinds of threats - perceived or real. > > > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought > upon > > some kind of reliance and protection. One of them > is > > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in > books > > or media. > > > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old > and > > new become like you said - programmed to think > this > > way. > > > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other > beings > > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > Immortals, > > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, they > > also have their own limitations to assist us. We > are > > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own > work > > or doing - past & present). > > > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe > that > > is why they are called Immortals???) but they > still > > have a life span meaning they were born and died > > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and > kid > > stage and some have no or limited physical (rupa) > > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that is > why > > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, they > are > > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > > called - Samsara. > > > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more realistic > > model with should I say "total true picture". With > > that understanding, a person can become more at > ease > > and tranquil especially with insight gained > through > > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of > Panna - > > I would think the closest equivalent term is > 'wisdom'. > > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > > realistic model is except for things not > verifiable > > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable > seems > > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study and > > scrutiny. > > > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. > Things > > "AS IS". > > > > Thanks. > > > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > > Victor, > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links > and > > > I'll try to read > > > them tonight. > > > > > > In response to your request for clarification on > my > > > question #2, > > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > > religion! If it turns > > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then > we're > > > all in for an > > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting > Jesus, > > > etc. Although, > > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > > Christians in trouble > > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > > believe in a Christian > > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do > NOT > > > believe... just in > > > case. It's an odd feeling. I remember one day, > I > > > was praying my > > > little mantra ("I love the lord my god with all > my > > > heart...") and I > > > realized that, although I say those words over > and > > > over, they carried > > > no meaning for me. But, I suppose I don't yet > have > > > enough confidence > > > in "no-god" to be able to make a clean break. > So, > > > even though I see > > > my current predictament as hipocritical, I'm > still > > > stuck there right > > > now. > > > > > > So, I was looking to see if there were others > who > > > had gone through > > > this. I guess there is just years and years of > > > programming that must > > > get altered. Growing up in fear of GOD imprints > the > > > mind in a way > > > that makes erasing it, somewhat difficult. > > > > > > Anyway, hope that helps clarify what I was > asking. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > > "yu_zhonghao" > > > wrote: > > > > Hi Dave, > > > > > > > > I will try to respond to your questions. > > > > > > > > 1. Yes, there are rules in the teaching of > the > > > Buddha with which > > > one > > > > can structure one's behavior. The basic rules > are > > > the five > > > precepts, > > > > observed by practicing Buddhist lay followers. > > > > They are listed in > > > > > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/pancasila.html > > > > > > > > 2. I would like to make sure what you mean by > > > being "wrong". In > > > > particular, being wrong about what? > > > > > > > > 3. I would recommend practicing generosity > and > > > observing the five > > > > precepts. > > > > > === message truncated === 20380 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:31pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) One more thing the "no-self" maybe related to the wisdom of the ability to differentiate between 'rupa' - closest equivalent being physical or physique and 'nama' - closest equivalent being spirit or soul. This ability I heard is the key or one of the keys to be liberated from the rebirth cycle I told you before - Samsara and with the true final destination being Nirvana, where the truth of cause and effect no longer exists. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > Hi, Dave, > > I am still a learning student in Buddhism. I think > about "no-self" refers to the ego - 'I' and with > 'correct' meditation one can eventually find we are > nothing but a breathing and living ego or > consciousness. I myself never actually know how to > meditate but I heard it produce major change in > consciousness or mind but not those bad frightening > mind control or hallucination. Try to look in the > good > source: > www.buddhanet.net. Look for vipassana meditation by > Late U Ba Khin (a practical practitioner of that > meditation). This vipassana is what made Last Buddha > namely - Gotama became fully enlightened but he had > that underlying accumulation of Parami or good stuff > like meritorious deeds and wisdom over umpteen > (billions or trillions of) rebirth cycles over many > worlds (we currently are in one of that world). > > The world system is also going through some kind of > or > similar rebirth cycle. But the time scale is > different > from a person rebirth cycle. > > I hope I do not overhelm you with info. But do look > for the website mentioned above and it takes time to > learn, so be patient and you will realize your wish. > > > To me all I want is the real or at close to real > truth. I will not like settle for anything less. > > I know the concept of "no-self" is hard to grasp, > even > for me who had been analysing all these things for > 5-7 > years in my spare time. > > I still have a lot of skeptical questions about all > these things and still have not got really good > answers. > > For example, I asked who started all these rebirth > cycles "Games". I was told there is no beginning or > end. (That makes me more curious.) I do not know if > this is true. Hope someone can tell me more > satisfactorily. > > But I am still very impressed with Buddhism, which I > do not like to call it a religion because I think of > the negative connotation that can go with a > religion. > I see it a truth - revellation effort or like > scientific stuff. > --- dwlemen wrote: > > Thanks for the insight. I am not really familiar > > with the "31 planes > > of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, > etc. > > I thought that, > > along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say > > there is no such > > thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god or > > an immortal? > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie Lou > > > > wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > May I add something. I think it is: > > > > > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > > technological > > > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile in > > terms > > > of survivability and true understanding of > > phenomena. > > > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, > attacks > > say > > > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on and > > on > > > and new entries or old entries renew themselves > > and > > > present all kinds of threats - perceived or > real. > > > > > > That is and can be very scary, so human thought > > upon > > > some kind of reliance and protection. One of > them > > is > > > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in > > books > > > or media. > > > > > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people old > > and > > > new become like you said - programmed to think > > this > > > way. > > > > > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of other > > beings > > > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > > Immortals, > > > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, > they > > > also have their own limitations to assist us. We > > are > > > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma (own > > work > > > or doing - past & present). > > > > > > Also Gods and others may have longer life (maybe > > that > > > is why they are called Immortals???) but they > > still > > > have a life span meaning they were born and died > > > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were born > > > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants and > > kid > > > stage and some have no or limited physical > (rupa) > > > bodies at all - body means extra suffering that > is > > why > > > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, > they > > are > > > still going through the continuous rebirth cycle > > > called - Samsara. > > > > > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more > realistic > > > model with should I say "total true picture". > With > > > that understanding, a person can become more at > > ease > > > and tranquil especially with insight gained > > through > > > 'correct' meditation and thus accumulation of > > Panna - > > > I would think the closest equivalent term is > > 'wisdom'. > > > Emotional stability is one of the good results. > > > > > > 5. Another thing, why I say it represents more > > > realistic model is except for things not > > verifiable > > > like immortals mentioned above, those verifiable > > seems > > > click so well so far over 2,500 years of study > and > > > scrutiny. > > > > > > 6. Looking for REAL truth is very important. > > Things > > > "AS IS". > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > > > Victor, > > > > > > > > Thanks for your reply. I've printed the links > > and > > > > I'll try to read > > > > them tonight. > > > > > > > > In response to your request for clarification > on > > my > > > > question #2, > > > > by "wrong" I mean... well, picked the wrong > > > > religion! If it turns > > > > out that Christianity is the "right" one, then > > we're > > > > all in for an > > > > eternity of unpleasantness for not accepting > > Jesus, > > > > etc. Although, > > > > if Mohammad is right, then I know a bunch of > > > > Christians in trouble > > > > for eating Ham every Easter! > > > > > > > > I guess my point was that I don't think that I > > > > believe in a Christian > > > > god, but I can't bring myself to say that I do > > NOT > === message truncated === 20381 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Shrine Room? I think a true Buddhist (that is what Buddhas taught) should not be stepped in those rituals or rites, customs and tradition. In Kalama Sutta (I think is the scripture), Buddha said do not believe anything just because it is passed on from generations to generations and told by learned sages, etc. Check it out YOURSELF, if it makes sense and good for everyone then you can adopt it. But I am sure he is not asking us to be violent and rebellious because it (Buddhism) is so gentle and kind. It is more about mind self-control (see self-control). and doing good things actually Not good or not bad that is nuetral reaction to any stimuli is the right way to Nirvana, I learnt. Everyone please correct me if I am wrong. --- dwlemen wrote: > Everyone, > > Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan > gave another > person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay > Buddhist Practice" > document > (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) > > This doc starts right off with where your shrine > should be, and how > to give offerings to it, etc. > > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a > bit like > something that evolved later. Is it really > important to have a > shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20382 From: Eddie Lou Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 0:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) I have many one more thing. I will try to make it true this time because I really got to run back to my job - that "self" or I call it ego is the last thing or one of the last things to go on the way to Nirvana. I heard even Old or experienced or learned monks before that last stage (Arahat or pacceka Buddha) can be very ego-centric or egoistic. --- Eddie Lou wrote: > One more thing the "no-self" maybe related to the > wisdom of the ability to differentiate between > 'rupa' > - closest equivalent being physical or physique and > 'nama' - closest equivalent being spirit or soul. > > This ability I heard is the key or one of the keys > to > be liberated from the rebirth cycle I told you > before > - Samsara and with the true final destination being > Nirvana, where the truth of cause and effect no > longer > exists. > > --- Eddie Lou wrote: > > Hi, Dave, > > > > I am still a learning student in Buddhism. I think > > about "no-self" refers to the ego - 'I' and with > > 'correct' meditation one can eventually find we > are > > nothing but a breathing and living ego or > > consciousness. I myself never actually know how to > > meditate but I heard it produce major change in > > consciousness or mind but not those bad > frightening > > mind control or hallucination. Try to look in the > > good > > source: > > www.buddhanet.net. Look for vipassana meditation > by > > Late U Ba Khin (a practical practitioner of that > > meditation). This vipassana is what made Last > Buddha > > namely - Gotama became fully enlightened but he > had > > that underlying accumulation of Parami or good > stuff > > like meritorious deeds and wisdom over umpteen > > (billions or trillions of) rebirth cycles over > many > > worlds (we currently are in one of that world). > > > > The world system is also going through some kind > of > > or > > similar rebirth cycle. But the time scale is > > different > > from a person rebirth cycle. > > > > I hope I do not overhelm you with info. But do > look > > for the website mentioned above and it takes time > to > > learn, so be patient and you will realize your > wish. > > > > > > To me all I want is the real or at close to real > > truth. I will not like settle for anything less. > > > > I know the concept of "no-self" is hard to grasp, > > even > > for me who had been analysing all these things for > > 5-7 > > years in my spare time. > > > > I still have a lot of skeptical questions about > all > > these things and still have not got really good > > answers. > > > > For example, I asked who started all these > rebirth > > cycles "Games". I was told there is no beginning > or > > end. (That makes me more curious.) I do not know > if > > this is true. Hope someone can tell me more > > satisfactorily. > > > > But I am still very impressed with Buddhism, which > I > > do not like to call it a religion because I think > of > > the negative connotation that can go with a > > religion. > > I see it a truth - revellation effort or like > > scientific stuff. > > --- dwlemen wrote: > > > Thanks for the insight. I am not really > familiar > > > with the "31 planes > > > of existance" and the idea of Gods, Immortals, > > etc. > > > I thought that, > > > along with "no-god" was "no-self" so, if we say > > > there is no such > > > thing as me, how is there such a thing as a god > or > > > an immortal? > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Eddie > Lou > > > > > > wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > > > > > May I add something. I think it is: > > > > > > > > 1. human being, nowithstanding science & > > > technological > > > > advances, still is very vulnerable & fragile > in > > > terms > > > > of survivability and true understanding of > > > phenomena. > > > > Think of Hurricane, earthquake, accidents, > > attacks > > > say > > > > - sabotage, now - terrrorism, the list go on > and > > > on > > > > and new entries or old entries renew > themselves > > > and > > > > present all kinds of threats - perceived or > > real. > > > > > > > > That is and can be very scary, so human > thought > > > upon > > > > some kind of reliance and protection. One of > > them > > > is > > > > God. Actually, I learnt this from somewhere in > > > books > > > > or media. > > > > > > > > 2. over time it becomes very real and people > old > > > and > > > > new become like you said - programmed to think > > > this > > > > way. > > > > > > > > 3. Buddhism did not deny the existence of > other > > > beings > > > > in 31 planes of existence, including Gods, > > > Immortals, > > > > etc. But even though powerful compared to us, > > they > > > > also have their own limitations to assist us. > We > > > are > > > > what we did and currently doing ie - Karma > (own > > > work > > > > or doing - past & present). > > > > > > > > Also Gods and others may have longer life > (maybe > > > that > > > > is why they are called Immortals???) but they > > > still > > > > have a life span meaning they were born and > died > > > > eventually. (side track: I learnt some were > born > > > > straight to be an adult no inbetween infants > and > > > kid > > > > stage and some have no or limited physical > > (rupa) > > > > bodies at all - body means extra suffering > that > > is > > > why > > > > it is more blissful overthere.) And finally, > > they > > > are > > > > still going through the continuous rebirth > cycle > > > > called - Samsara. > > > > > > > > 4. Buddhism "seems" to represent a more > > realistic > > > > model with should I say "total true picture". > > With > > > > that understanding, a person can become more > at > > > ease > === message truncated === 20383 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 1:11pm Subject: Re: Love Dear Nina and Sarah, Thank you for your thoughtful responses. I appreciate your important reminders that we have to take one step at a time, understand the realities that are conditioned, not mine, not self. Also to remember that the arising of both realities and understanding should be natural - a critical, and oft-forgotten point. Further, that relinquishing everything is for a later stage of development i.e. for arahat. What you say is true. I was looking at things from a slightly different perspective. This analogy of a favorite endeavor may help. A gardener should understand that patience and step-by-step labor is required for seeds to grow into mature plants. Some plants may reach that stage in this season, some in his/her lifetime, some beyond. Slow, patient nurturing, understanding what is needed for survival/growth at each stage. Let this be representative of what you are saying. This same gardener also needs some mental construct of the potential final product, say the appearance or sensation of the garden. She/He requires some understanding of the utility of expending all that effort. And (pertinent to relinquishing attachment), as importantly, what must be given to, or given up, for the result he/she seeks. There have been several messages about doubt re: Abhidhamma, or disillusionment with other religions recently, which led me to wonder why intelligent people become disillusioned in the first place. The easy answer is that they were 'wrong' to begin with, and then saw the light. However, as usual, there may be more to it. Disillusionment is probably multifactorial, one aspect may poor understanding of what is to be achieved, and as important, what is to be relinquished. Giving up/relinquishing/surrendering (?), are common motifs of many faiths, yet I wonder how many actually understand the 'bargain' at the outset. Could the shock of finding out, be an important cause for these people's disillusionment and doubt? None of us wants to scare away newcomers by presenting seemingly difficult hurdles at any early stage. However, IMHO in the interest of 'informed consent' and to perhaps avoid later disillusionment, students/practitioners of any ~ ism, should pay some heed to what is required to be given up, even while being attracted to what is to be gained. Let us use the example of a legal contract (even social contracts, such as marriage may apply). At the outset, one would think there would never be a future problem. Unfortunately, we all know that disputes can arise too frequently. One reason is that the parties do not fully understand the implications of what they are signing up for at the outset. [There are many reasons for this, and I am neither an attorney nor a psychologist.] This sets the stage for disillusionment, leading to despair, anger, conflict etc. I suspect that true informed consent, with nothing assumed, could alleviate a lot of this sort of dukkha (small 'd'), don't you? Understanding not only what is to be gained, but what must be relinquished, may be vital to keep people on a chosen path. I would be very interested in both of your views (Mike and Christine's too) on what I realize is an unorthodox inquiry. u.w. dharam > The sorrows, lamentations, > the many kinds of suffering in the world, > exist dependent on something dear. > They don't exist > when there's nothing dear. > And thus blissful & sorrowless > are those for whom nothing > in the world is dear anywhere. > So one who aspires > to be stainless & sorrowless > shouldn't make anything > in the world dear > anywhere. 20384 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:26pm Subject: Re: Precepts (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, Sorry for the delay in replying. I was pleased to see that your post has generated a number of responses. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Two questions here. First, how does this "natural law" relate > to "Dependant origination?" Would these laws then be "absolutes" > that are to be regardless of time or any cultural "relativism" with > which one might apply? ===== When it comes to precepts, the "natural law" that I am referring to is the law of kamma. Here's how it works. Whenever there is a willed action, this creates a "seed". When conditions are right, this seed will develop. The nature of what develops depends on the type of seed (mango seeds can only develop into mango trees). If I do something "bad", this creates a "bad" seed and a "bad" effect will arise when conditions allow. "Do" includes willed actions performed by the body, through speech or through thought. "Bad" means a willed action motivated by desire, aversion or delusion. The law of kamma is a moral law and considered to be absolute; independent of time or cultural relativism. "Dependent Origination" is not really a "natural law", it is an explanation to the question, "What keeps us being reborn and how do we stop from being reborn?" Dependent Origin is one of the most complex aspects of Buddhism. There are twelve factors. Each factor is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the following factor to arise. As an analogy, if I see a tree, I know that there are multiple factors which arose to allow this tree to come into existence. Some of the factors include: - A seed - Rain - Fertile soil - Sun - Seasons Each of these factors contributed in their own way to the arising of the tree. One could say that the "seed" is the "root factor" because the nature of the seed determines the nature of the tree, but we know that a seed is not a sufficient condition for a tree to arise. So we can see that the law of kamma focuses on moral retribution whereas dependent origination focuses on salvation from continued rebirth. ===== > > Second, are these 5 further defined or refined anywhere? For > example "sexual misconduct" is pretty vague. Is there anything that > further defines it? Is it just adultry, or are premarital sex, > homosexuality, prostitution, etc. (again... just picking this one as > an example for clarification ===== Yes, the kammic impact of these are very well defined. Let's explore the first one (avoid killing) as an example. Every willed action creates a kammic seed, but the constituent factors necessary for killing to arise are: 1. There must be life 2. There must be knowldege of life 3. There must be intention to kill 4. There must be effort to kill 5. There must be consequent death Comments: 1. Life is defined as "that which breathes"; therefore it includes animals. 2. If you unknowingly step on an ant, that is not killing. 3. If you brush away a mosquito and by doing so inadvertently cause its death, then this is not killing as the intention was not to kill but rather to brush away 4. Killing is classified under actions performed through the body, but killing can also be performed through speech (such as ordering the execution of a person) It is interesting to note that if you go to a "live seafood restaurant" and select which fish you want to eat, then this is considered killing. However, if you order from a menu or pick up an already dead fish from the supermarket, then this is not considered killing. The strength of the seed (kammic weight) of killing depends on a number of factors. Killing a large animal is more serious than killing a smaller animal, because of the amount of effort required is correspondingly greater. Killing a human is more serious than killing an animal because a human has greater potential than an animal. Killing a more virtuous human is more serious than killing a less virtuous human. The kammic weight also depends on the cruelty involved in the act of killing. I could go on for many pages, but I suspect that there is lots of material here to stimulate further thinking. Looking forward to your response. Metta, Rob M :-) 20385 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 3:55pm Subject: Re: Rituals (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Dave, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > I think I do struggle with the "rites and rituals" part, although I > never really thought about them before with Christianity. But, to > say grace before eating is good, the Lord's Prayer 3x a day, church > 1x a week, communion, etc. Doing these "rituals" helps one feel like > they are on the right path, so to speak. I think I wonder about > myself and Buddhism because there isn't anything like that. So, it > seems like one should meditate, but when, how long, in what way, etc. > and there isn't much in the way of answers to those (I suppose to > avoid it become ritualistic). ===== At the age of 13, I took "confirmation classes" at the church. I still remember the first class. The said, "Let's examine the Lord's Prayer. The first phrase, 'Our father', is significant. It means that all men are brothers (we share a common father). Let's talk about the relationship and responsibilities between a father and a son..." This class had a huge impact on me. I had memorized the Lord's prayer (and virtually all of the Sunday morning service), yet I was reciting without any understanding. If there was a God up there watching me, I wasn't fooling Him at all. I decided to stop reciting and start listening to try and understand. The same applies in Buddhism. "Empty" rites and rituals are of no value. Actions performed repeatedly with understanding develop into habits (accumulations). Meditation, when done properly with the right understanding, can very good. If you have a habit of saying grace before meals, you can also use that time to think with loving-kindness about those whose efforts allowed the food to be available to you. You don't have to bow down in front of a Buddha to think about the qualities that the Buddha exemplified, but for some people (such as myself), it helps those kinds of thoughts arise. On a related note, there is no concept of "worship" in Buddhism. The purpose of prostrating oneself in front of a stone statue is to condition the mind to remember the qualities of the Buddha. ===== > I studied religion in school > (majored in it). I even went to Thailand for a summer semester > course. But, that was all years ago. Lately, I've struggled with > Christianity more and more and I had "created" my own religion, or at > least a theory good for dinner talks. But, somewhere I came across > something with Buddhism and it struck me some of the common points > (esp. Dependent Origination). So, perhaps it is another life > (although I don't actually believe in a literal reincarnation)! Dave, we have a lot in common. I mentioned my experience during confirmation classes. That is what started me to explore religion and philosophy. After a few years, I because disillusioned and decided to "create my own religion". I was about 20 and had a girlfriend whose father was a minister. One night, while out camping with her family, her father asked me about my religious views. For two hours, I explained what I had been developing in my own mind as "my own religion". Her father listened carefully, asked a few clarifying questions and at the end told me that what I had described was Buddhism (though the terminology was obviously different). I was shocked. I had never read anything about Buddhism and had a hard time believing that I had independently come up with ideas which paralleled one of the world's major religions. I started reading about Buddhism and realized that it was true. Now I understand that in a previous life, I had studied Buddhism, so I had a "natural inclination" to think in that manner. Like you, I had a hard time accepting reincarnation. The thing that helped me to accept reincarnation is asking myself, "why do I have a unique set of talents and tendencies which appear to be "inborn"; where did they come from? Lots more material for discussion, so I will sign off here. Metta, Rob M :-) 20386 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 4:23pm Subject: Precepts Hi Dave, I teach Buddhist Theory (Abhidhamma) for beginners each Sunday morning, so my tendency is to give explanations in layman's terms without a lot of references (i.e. a non-scholarly approach). However, if you would like some background reading on precepts, I can recommend the following by Bhikkhu Bodhi: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/going_for_refuge_taking_the_prec.h tm Don't be put off by technical terms or words in Pali. Let me know if I can help your understanding. Metta, Rob M :-) 20387 From: Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:06pm Subject: Way 64, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2 Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 82 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html [Tika] The passage beginning with the words: Within, it is said, there certainly is no self or soul is stated to explain that looking straight on or looking away from the front is, to be sure, just a variety of occurrence of even bare phenomena and that therefore clear comprehension of non-delusion is the knowing of that fact as it really is [yasma pana alokitadi nama dhamma mattasseva pavatti viseso tasma tassa yathavato jananam asammoha sampajaññanti dassetum abhantareti adi vuttam]. [T] Accurate knowledge of the root [mula pariñña] = comprehension of the fundamental reason of impulsion at the mind-door [mano dvarika javanassa mula karana parijananam]. [T] Through the casual state [agantuka bhava]: through the state of one coming as a stranger [abbhagata bhava]. Through the temporary state [tavakalika bhava]: through the state of proceeding only at a certain moment (tam khana matta pavattakassa bhava]. [T] Fulfilling the function of a (main) factor of the rebirth-process means: accomplishing the principal work of a link; what is stated by that is this: having become substance. The life-continum is, indeed, the principal factor and the principal basis because of similarity to the relinking mind. Therefore, it is called the principal factor and basis or it is called so owing to its fulfilling of the function of a ground or reason by way of the causal condition of unbroken procedure [patthana bhutam anga kiccam nipphadentam asariram hutvati vuttam hoti, bhavangam hi patisandhi sadisatta patthanam angam patthanañca sariranti vuccati, avicchedappavatti hetu bhavena va karana kiccam sadhayamananti attho]. [T] The expression: After the turning round of that has been stated by way of general reference to the life-continum, threefold as regards procedure: past thought-unit of the life-continum, movement of the life-continum and stoppage of the life-continum. At this place turning round refers just to the stoppage of the life-continum [tam avattetvati bhavanga samañña vasena vuttam pavattakara visesa vasena pana atitadina tibbidham tattha ca bhavangupacchedasseva avattanam]. [T] From the cessation of that (tannirodha) = Owing to the dissolution of that [tassa nirujjhanato] -- expressions of reason by way of proximity-condition [anantara paccaya vasena hetu vacanam]. [T] Even in the first impulsion and so forth ending with the seventh impulsion. This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition. Or even all beginning with the mental state of the life-continum can be taken as the root of mind-door impulsion. Thus accurate knowledge of the root has been stated by way of the root-reason of mind-door impulsion. The casual state and the temporary state (are) indeed (stated) on account of the newness of just impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors of sense and on account of the brevity of the same impulsion [pathama javanepi... pe... sattama javanepiti idam pañca dvarika vithiyam ayam itthi ayam purisoti rajjana dussana muyhananam abhavam sandhaya vuttam tattha hi avajjana vatthabbananam puretaram pavatta yoniso manasikara vasena ayoniso avajjana votthabbanakarena pavattanto itthe itthi rupadimhi lobha sahagata mattam javanam uppajati anitthe ca dosa sahagata mattam na pana ekanta rajjana dussanadi hoti tassa pana mano dvarikassa rajjana dussanadino pañca dvarika javanam mulam yatha vuttam va sabbampi bhavangadi evam mano dvarikassa javanassa mula karana vasena mulapariñña vutta. Agantuka tavakalikata pana pañca dvarika javanasseva apubba bhava vasena ittarata vasena ca]. [T] After breaking up gradually are fallen, one atop of another, on account of the turning round -- changing, moving -- early and later or before and after or below and above, in the form of the arising of the mental state of the life-continum [hettha ca upari ca parivattamana vasena aparaparam bhavanguppatti vasena]. [T] Likewise indeed (is indicated) the falling after breaking down of the (other) mental states on account of the arising of the mental state of the life-continum (tatha bhavanguppada vasena hi tesam bhijjitva patanam]. [T] By this indeed the commentator shows, by way of the gradual arising of the earlier and the later mental state of the life-continum, the arising of the impulsion of the mind-door course of cognition which is different to the impulsion of the course of cognition at the five doors of sense [imina pana hetthimassa uparimassa ca bhavangassa aparaparuppatti vasena pañca dvarika javanato visadisassa mano dvarika javanassa uppadam dasseti]. [T] Because of the proceeding of lust and the like by just the way of mind-door impulsion, the commentator said even thus: There takes place looking straight on or looking away from the front, by way of lust, hatred and ignorance. 20388 From: Dan D. Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 5:34pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] Hello, Robert K, > > Dan: Can you understand why I object to using "pleasant/unpleasant" to refer to BOTH vedana and sense object? > Robert: Yes, you object because someone might confuse nama and rupa by using the same word for both. Dan: Yes, that's certainly a part of it. But also, it can be helpful to contemplate what it means for an object to be 'pleasant' vs. what it means for vedana to be 'pleasant', i.e. contemplate the distinction between ittha and sukha (or somanassa) -- a nice meditation. Dan 20389 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 6:34pm Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave, Welcome to dsg. You asked: --------------- > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > -------------- Whenever a Buddhist clings to religious rite and ritual, he is being afraid to accept the teaching he professes. But his fear is misplaced; rightly understood, the teaching does not take away something precious -- our belief in an eternal soul or self -- without giving something infinitely more valuable in return -- insight into absolute reality. The doctrine of not-self (anatta), is all-encompassing and unyielding; it cannot be put to one side for the sake of convenience. In other words, it does not allow the possibility of a temporary self which heroically practises Right Mindfulness in order to realise its own non-existence. In this way, anatta is so profound and so difficult to grasp that it is mostly rejected as unworkable, even by the majority of Buddhists. The result, I'm sorry to say, is that the Buddha's unique, incomparable teaching, is widely portrayed as a mere religion. The illusion of a self who meditates and follows precepts is no different from the illusion of a self who prays and obeys commandments. Opting for the comfortable, religious alternative would be understandable had not the Buddha offered a wholly satisfactory explanation in its place. That is, the teaching of ultimate realities (paramattha dhammas), as spelt out specifically in the Abhidhamma and at least implicitly, in every other word of the Pali Canon. Whenever there is right understanding of conditioned paramattha dhammas, there is no interest in the wrong questions; "Is there a self? Is there not a self? Will I be reborn? Will I not be reborn?" To the contrary, one is delighted to find that the question of self does not arise. Which way will we go; will we settle for the 'self you have when you're not having a self,' or will we accept anatta in its entirety?' Only conditions will decide. Good luck with your giving up of the old ways; let's hope you don't install another religion in their place. :-) Kind regards, Ken H 20390 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 9:49pm Subject: RE: [dsg] I´m_new_and_searching Dear Vital, Thank you for sharing your background and interest in Buddhism with us. A little more in context below: --- vitalmoors@h... wrote: > Dear Sarah, > > I understand your mail very well. But it is difficult for me to set some > real steps. What are good introductionbooks ? Where can i find them? ..... I think you’ve taken a great step (or several steps) by joining us here, showing your interest and difficulties and asking questions. I’m not sure that it’s an introduction book, but I think you will be able to appreciate Nina Van Gorkom’s “Buddhism in Daily Life”. The English version can be found at: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ If you find it useful, later you can obtain a hard copy as well. Of more interest still might be the German version and there may well be a Dutch one too. Nina will let you know if this would be easier. You will come across many Pali terms and I suggest that if you’re reading on line or printing out that you keep this glossary printed out by your side: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms ..... > I was very catholic in the past. I have complete the education to become > priest, but I stopped with it after 5 years, because there were a lot of > other thing sin my live at that moment. I didn't know much about the > world. > > I'm a gay man and hiv+, but I'm very healty with my mediciens. So you > know that. I had a relation for over 9 years. That was ended last year. > At that moment I quesioned all my life. ..... Thank you for sharing all of this with us and I sincerely hope you stay healthy and continue questioning and considering what life is and what is in life. ..... >And I came to the conclusion > that I cannot be happy in a pure materialistic world. The materialistisc > things are nice, but not important for me anymoere. The only important > thing at the moment is the growth of my inner. Not my image or > personality, but the one I realy am. ..... I agree that it is the inner growth that is important and that attachment to the ‘materialistic things’ will never bring any lasting happiness. Sometimes people interpret this to mean that all possessions should be thrown out, but of course, attachment cannot be measured by the outer appearance. ..... > Of course I have some exprience with medition etc. from my brother who > is yogi and from my education at the episcopal seminary. I also have > praktized NLP for a long time. But that is not the way for m any more. > it can hepl me of course. But it is not the way that i want to grow. ...... I hope this isn’t too stupid, but I can’t think what NLP is for now??? ..... > I my live the most beautifil moments are these of adoration. Adoration > of the nature. Te see a flower of animal. ..... I understand your comments here and I also enjoy hiking and looking at insects and flowers and so on. We had a friend who died last year and in his last months he was talking a lot about the beauty of nature and sunsets and being present in the moment. This is quite different from the Buddhist perspective of understanding present realities and developing detachment, rather than attachment or adoration. ..... > Ethic is fo me not so an issue. Because I believe that all the > experiences in my life have given me a strong ethical standard, with > does not come from outside but what is incorporate. I don't steel; I > don't say hard words; I don't make troubles.... Not because you don't > may do that, but because it is a part of mine. ..... I’m glad to hear about your ethical standards. I find it helpful to consider these areas more and more closely and to develop more and more confidence in their value and importance. ..... > I think a lot about life, about my experiences and about how I can grow. > I can tell you a lot of course. And that is important because if you > don't know my past you cannnot understatnd the manner I stay in life. I > think I think and act as a buddhist, but I'm not a buddhist at the > moment. ..... Vital, I don’t think the label ‘Buddhist’ is of any great importance. I wrote a short article on this quite some time back and as it’s in simple language, I may post it for your interest. Knowing details about a person’s past as you’ve kindly shared can help us to know what may be useful/useless to discuss. In the end, however, we all share the same problems, the same ignorance, attachment and aversion and really there’s no ‘me’ or ‘you’, merely conditioned phenomena, arising and falling away. ..... >My way of thinking and living has devollepd by my previous > experiences in life. Now I see that I have to go further... and I realy > think and know that Buddhisme can help me a lot by that. Why? It is a > feeling. Because everytime I come in a buddhisttemple in Tahiland or > Vietnam, I feel a great peace and happiness in myself. I would I had > these feelings all the time. > > I hope you can give me some advice. ..... It’s great to hear of your keen interest and I fully agree with you when you mention about the developed (or accumulated) ‘way of thinking and living’. As you say, there is always further to delve and more understanding to develop. Thanks again and please let us know how you find the book. Metta, Sarah ===== 20391 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 18, 2003 11:42pm Subject: Moderator bulletin Hi All, Just a couple of reminders. Trimming When replying to another member’s post, please remember to delete any part of the other post that is not necessary for your reply. This will be welcomed by everyone, and also helps conserve archive space. Salutation etc Also, we encourage members to use a salutation at the beginning of each post, and to sign off with their name at the end. Thanks for your co-operation. Jon and Sarah PS As usual, any comments or questions on this reminder should be sent to us off-list only. Thanks. 20392 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Dan, --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I'm sorry to hear of Jon's mother's passing away. She must have been > a fine woman indeed, judging by the quality of her son. ..... Thank you. 3 sons - all very different..;-) ..... > Christians appreciating "The arrow"? This does not surprise me in the > least. Thoughtful Christians have a great appreciation for Dhamma, > which, after all, richly infuses the most important Christian > doctrines (albeit in quite different language). ..... Jon tells me he shortened it and ‘adjusted’ the language a little.... ..... > I think you may be ignoring the parts of the Smv that you don't like. ..... I thought I liked it all........ there are some parts we may be understanding differently, however..... ..... > The defining of ittha/anittha is via the "likes and dislikes (vaso-- > desire, wish)" of the average men because "such are able to > distinguish between the agreeable and the disagreeable". I have great > difficulty reading this as "how it is actually heard" instead of how > the sound is distinguished (i.e. perceived and conceived). In fact, > Ñm adds a clarifying parenthetical immediately following the sentence > quoted above: "[i.e. it is distinguishable according to the average > man's impulsion]." By "impulsion", he means javana, not "how it is > actually heard". ..... Yes, by “how it is actually heard”, I meant, how the sense door cittas experience the object as opposed to how it is perceived and conceived, liked and disliked by later mind door processes to be more exact. I may be wrong - impulsion maybe referring to later processes here. (The visible object remains the same for the 17 moments it is experienced in the process. As we know, there can be attachment to what is unpleasant and aversion to what is pleasant. In the quote I added about doors (dvara), I think it clarifies that when it says ‘distinguishable by kamma result’, it is referring to the vipaka cittas and other cittas experiencing the same object through a sense doorway.) ..... > In the following paragraph, a rival viewpoint is expressed: "But the > Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya said: 'The agreeable and disagreeable are > distinguishable according to [kamma-] result only, not according to > impulsion. but it is impulsion through perversion of perception only > that lusts for the agreeable and hates the same agreeable, that lusts > for the disagreeable and hates the same disagreeable. Only by way of > [kamma-] result, however, is it rightly distinguishable.'" > > The Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya's comments are launched with a "but" > and put in quotes because they are fundamentally at odds with the > previous comments. Who's right? The commentator or the Elder Tipitika > Cula-Abhaya? ..... I don’t pretend to have all the answers here, Dan;-) I don’t understand this Elder to be giving a ‘rival viewpoint’. I assume this is the same Elder Abhaya referred to in other places (eg Sv 1307) and clearly an arahant, often referred to in the commentaries with Tissadatta Thera. I may be wrong as this longer name is used here and Tissadatta’s name isn’t (???). I understood his comments here to be a fine-tuning, rather like adding an abhidhamma gloss to a sutta, such as we’re reading in the commentay to the Satipatthana Sutta at the moment in the Way corner. It is a way to add detail (of what would have already been apparent to the listeners) to prevent misunderstanding. In other words, whilst the ‘average man’ experiences and usually at some level knows that what he experiences is inherently ‘pleasant’ or ‘unpleasant’, because of significant room for error (esp. amongst Eminem fans;-)) because of sanna vipallassa, to be precise, we can only say that what is inherently A or B is according to what the vipaka cittas experience and not according to subsequent javana processes, even for ‘average man’. This is why we end up with the quote I added about pleasant and unpleasant experiences through different senses which clarifies that perceptions cannot be relied on. It’s impossible for us to know what is inherently pleasant and unpleasant even when visible object or sound is the object of awareness. It’s also not the goal, but I think it is important to know that kusala vipaka cittas (eg seeing consciousness as a result of ‘good’ kamma) only sees pleasant visible objects and vice versa. Remember also that the rupa arises first and conditions the vipaka citta. It’ll depend on further conditions with further implications as to what stage of the rupa the vipaka citta arises. For example, this will play a part in determining whether there are subsequent mind door processes. Very tricky and detailed for me. There is a lot of detail on related points in the Way corner at the moment. I know this probably still leaves a few untidy threads. Rob, Jon or Nina may add more. When I read anything that isn’t clear to me (very often), my inclination is to question my own understanding first, the translation second and the text itself last of all. I appreciate that for others it may be the reverse;-) ..... > May your perception be perverted enough to enjoy the ear-shattering > sounds of the Rolling Stones concert! That has an odd ring to it, > don't you think? ..... I read today that the odds are about 50-50 given the War situation and the pneumonia outbreak here. The closer the concert the more 50-50 I am about attending fortunately (as long as I get my money back if it’s cancelled;-)) Metta, Sarah ===== 20393 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 3:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Dear Dan, There were a few more points from your earlier post which I’ve only now read through more carefully: --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Robert, Sarah, and Jon, > I looked up the Vibhanga passage [PTS p. 2; U Thittila §6] that > Rob's Sammohavinodani discussion refers to: > > "Therein what is superior material quality? That material quality > which, for this or that being, is not contemptible, not despised, not > worthless, not derisible, respected, superior, .... > > VbhA's "disputatious speaker" contends: "There is no > intrinsic agreeable and disagreeable. It is stated according to the > likings of these or those." It is difficult to read the Vbh text > as something other than that a superior material quality is sense > data that is desirable to this or that being. However, there is still > an intrinsic agreeable/disagreeable aspect to a sense object. The > question, then, is what is a sense object? (i) The data processed by > the mind through the sense door, or (ii) some object "out > there"? Two > very different views with two very different implications... ..... As I understand, sense object and sense data are the same. The rupa has its intrinsic nature and arises and passes away regardless. Depending on kamma supported by other conditions, there may be the arising of vipaka cittas (seeing and so on) to experience it in a sense door process, possibly followed by a mind door process. The “disputatious speaker” doesn’t accept this. “for this or that being....” means according to the experiencing of the rupa for A or B. ..... > > (ii) If a sense object is some object "out there," then it > can't > really be experienced. ..... Why not? There are kalapas (groups) of rupas arising and falling away all the time. Of course, as Rob M & Howard always point out, the concern of the Teachings is with what is experienced and what can be known. ..... >Buddha cannot pass through the eye-door, and a > piece of dogs--- does not pass through the body-door (even if one > were to squeeze it very hard!). You can't very well call something > that can't be experienced "pleasant" or "unpleasant". ..... I’m not sure of your meaning here. As we’ve all clarified, when there are references to seeing the Buddha, holding any object, hearing waterfalls or thunder, naturally the realities experienced are visible objects, hardness, softness, sound and so on. We use conventional language here for clarification only of the distinctions. The nature of the sound is so, regardless of whether it is experienced or not. It will depend on kamma condition which sound is heard. eg VismX1V, 55 “Sound has the characteristic of impinging on the ear. Its function is to be the object of ear-consciousness. It is manifested as the resort of that too. it is of various kinds as ‘drum sound, tabor sound’ (Dhs621) and so on.” ..... >The mistake > that the disputatious speaker is making is that he is > misunderstanding the object as something real, lasting, to be > experienced by me, you, and the next person as we pass the dogs--- > down the line. This kind of abstract, conceptual object would > certainly not carry an intrinsic "pleasant" or "unpleasant" label, > and if Vbh were referring to that kind of object, the disputatious > speaker would be right. ..... I think the mistake the disputatious speaker is making is to suggest rupas experienced are not inherently pleasant or unpleasant. Your comment is right about conceptual objects, but visible object, hardness and so on are not “abstract, conceptual object” in this context. ..... > (i) If a sense object is the data processed by the mind through the > sense door, ..... Sorry, not clear on what this means....Mind door cittas cannot process anything through the sense door.....only sense door cittas....Visible object or data is the same. ..... In summary and just in brief looking at a few more of your comments: Seeing a visible object is either kusala or akusala vipaka and a pleasant or unpleasant object will be seen accordingly. It’s not important to know whether it is a pleasant or unpleasant object that is experienced and useless to try to work it out. Awareness is aware of the characteristic of visible object, but I’m not sure that it’s ever possible to know these precise details just as we cannot know the precise workings of kamma. You mention correctly that we all have different tastes in music and we cannot say which are ‘correct’ and ‘incorrect’. This is true, but not the point that regardless of our limited knowledge, certain truths hold. Just as we read that all realities experienced are inherently anicca or dukkha. This is true whether there is any knowledge of it or not. I don’t understand either the Vbh or Sv to be comparing tastes “and then deciding the matter by a vote to find the opinion of the average man” or a few other comments you make. See my other post. It’s not straight forward, I agree;-) I hope the other quotes Rob K gave and the ones from the Vism have also helped clarify. I think these are really good points to raise, Dan and I now understand better why you had objections/difficulties before with related comments in ADL. It’s always a pleasurable challenge writing to you;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20394 From: Dan D. Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:00am Subject: Re: Questions [Sarah] Dear Sarah, I don't disagree with most of what you say about desirable/undesirable sense object. However, the first 1/3 of the Smv explanation contradicts both us and the second 1/3. I wouldn't be so quick to say there is a contradiction in the text if it weren't structured explicitly to point out the dispute, which seems to read like: "I think that ittha/anittha can be understood via the predilections of the average man because he (unlike rulers and peasants) can properly distinguish between agreeable and disagreeable. But the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya disagrees. He thinks the ittha/anittha aspect can only be understood by how, say, the sound is actually heard (vipaka) rather than how it is perceived and conceived (javana/impulsion)." This "But so-and-so said" construction is not uncommon in the commentaries. Isn't its function to point out where there is disagreement about interpretation? Otherwise, why "but"? The distinction between the two interpretations is stark and important. In the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya's interpretation, the distinction is ONLY by way of vipaka, and NOT by javana. The implications are that methods of distinguishing via likes and dislikes (i.e. how the object is interpreted in javana) are mistaken. Those methods would include distinguishing ittha/anitta via the likes and dislikes of the average man. For example, it is non-sensical to say that the music of Bach is intrinsically anittha (or ittha) or that the screaming of a spoiled child is intrinsically ittha because the distinction is made only at the moment of vipaka and only when the sense object actually becomes an object of a sense, neither before nor after nor according to the javana (likes and dislikes). In other words, the question of ittha/anittha is answered moment by moment, vipaka by vipaka, not by secondary categories derived from likes and dislikes (e.g. screaming kid, beautiful harmonies). Dan 20395 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 16, 2003 9:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parameters Hi Dharam, Still catching up on old flagged messages--please pardon the delay. ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Saturday, February 08, 2003 8:43 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters > MN: I don't know of any other teachings that address the four noble > truths (or two, as above). It's my guarded opinion that these are > unique to Buddhadhamma. > > D: Mike, thank you for your lightning quick response, with > information that I found very appropriate. It seems that other > teachings also have suffering and its resolution/salvation as > important endeavors. No doubt there are other teachings that attempt to address these issues. I'm not aware of one, though, that contains even one of even the most conventional expressions of the eight path factors--much less all eight of them or the incredible elucidation of them in the Tipitaka. > Also, addressing the unsatisfactoriness of > this existence is presumably one reason for the popularity of so many > (all?) religious teachings. I agree. People in general I think tend to have a sense that 'something's wrong'--and religions do try to address this sense (and more often exploit it, I'm afraid). And not only religions try to isolate the origin of suffering. For communists, it's capitalism; for feminists, it's patriarchy; for atheists, it's religion; for anarchists, it's government; for capitalists, it's regulation, and so on and on. Where else, though, is it identified as ta.nhaa? What an amazing and unique insight. > However, if this unsatisfactory state > of affairs is only defined as in the four noble truths, then > implicitly they are unique to Buddhadhama. Actually, unsatisfacoriness (dukkha) is, I think, the only of the four noble truths that fits in fairly well with the understanding of suffering to be found in other teachings (well--minus the five aggregates bit): dukkha(m): Stress; suffering; pain; distress; discontent. "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." SN LVI.11 The other three noble truths I would agree are unique to Buddhadhamma, but not implicitly (if by that you mean sort of tautologically)--I mean I really don't think any of them are to be found elsewhere (except where borrowed from Buddhadhamma). > So, I think it is again > an issue of terminology, view, parameters, and ultimately ... > belief. Here we disagree. The uniqueness of the four noble truths is not a matter of 'terminology, view, parameters and ultimately ... belief.'--they are unique quite outside these considerations. As for belief, for my part, I don't 'believe' in the Buddhadhamma. I accept it as a working hypothesis because it explains more, more satsifactorily, than anything else I've discovered so far. If by belief you mean something like 'blind faith', the Buddha discouraged this sort of thing as I understand it. For example, "So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, "This contemplative is our teacher." When you know for yourselves that, "These qualities are unskillful; these qualities are blameworthy; these qualities are criticized by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to harm & to suffering" -- then you should abandon them.' Thus was it said. And in reference to this was it said...When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them..." Anguttara Nikaya III.65 Kalama Sutta To the Kalamas > I guess what I am looking for is a view about other > teachings not overly restricted by the parameters of one's own > dominant belief. Perhaps even this is not easily possible, let > alone true objectivity. I don't see (my perception of) the absence of the four noble truths from other teachings as being an overly restricted view, or as being restricted at all. I do see this as the distinction between Buddhadhamma and religions and other teachings, though. I think this is quite a valid distinction. > [Somehow, I am reminded of Gothic Queen Tamora's remarkable response > after Roman sacrificial rites supercede her appeal for the life of > her first-born in Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus. I have to admit I don't think I ever read Titus Andronicus. > "Cruel, irreligious piety!" A very nice line! And so often true of religions--never of Buddhadhamma properly understood though, in my opinion. > What struck me there was that mutually > exclusive beliefs of both parties, provided no bridge to aid > understanding. > Needless to say both thought they were right. > What therefore follows is a showcase for kilesa and kamma! If you're suggesting that the absence of a 'bridge to aid understanding (between the parties?) is the source of the following evil, I think this is an error (no offense). People who understand each other perfectly well (in the conventional meaning of 'understanding') are capable of the of the greatest horrors. I think, for example, that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein understand each other perfectly well, speaking conventionally. Understanding in the sense of pa~n~naa is something entirely different, of course. > BTW > this play also reveals many aspects of Dukkha i.e. dukkha-dukkha, > change and unsatisfactoriness that those interested may want to > review it. Personal dukkha-dukkha's fade in comparison!] > > MN: Personally, I don't find religions or philosophies either > complimentary to Buddhadhamma or 'wrong' per se (well, some seem > wrong to me in various ways). However, I haven't found one that I > think is relevant to the four noble truths. > > D: I understand this then to mean that the four noble truths are the > only focus of your endeavor. I wouldn't say this; every day I endeavour to have fun, to 'be good', to make a living, to stay well etc. I also try to understand (in a conventional way) what's happening in the world socio-economically and even a little about physics and so on. It's true that I have no interest in religion, though. In fact, I quite dislike religion (akusala, I know!). By religion I mean, roughly, superstitious belief in the possibility of influencing events by means of the supernatural (or the petitioning of supernatural beings). > Therefore the other teachings are > irrelevant, rather than either complimentary or wrong. Please let > me know if I understand you correctly, Mike. I think that all manner of teachings can be more or less relevant to lots of different things--I just don't know of one that I find relevant to the four noble truths and conditioned origination. > I enjoyed reading your quote from the Simsappa Sutta. It just > reinforced my impression that the Buddha was concentrating on one > aspect of reality - Dukkha, and he knew it, and even explicitly > declared it. It is that very aspect of supra-mundane reality (non- > Dukkha - if there is such a thing) that I want to get at here. Nibbaana? Do you think that nibbaana exists outside the four noble truths? > MN: I think this finally gets into the meaning of 'reality'. A big > can of worms, as can be seen in the archives...! > > D: I had to stop counting the number of messages with the > word 'reality' in the dsg search!! I assume that if everything is > encompassed in Anicca, Anatta and Dukkha, there is no *need* for > consideration of an unconditioned "............", (apart from > Nibbana?). Yet, that is the preoccupation of so many (billions) of > other humans, and I wonder whether this anomaly can be reconciled? To me, one of the most striking (and delightful) aspects of Buddhadhamma is the way that it illustrates that the preoccupations of everyone, everywhere are unsatisfactory, impermanent and empty. I've deliberately equivocated 'proliferation' (papa~nca) with preoccupation here--hope I'm not twisting your meaning: "Dependent on the eye and forms, eye consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a condition there is feeling. What one feels, that one perceives. What one perceives, that one thinks about. What one thinks about, that one mentally proliferates. With what one has mentally proliferated as the source, perceptions and notions tinged by mental proliferation beset a man with respect to past, future and present forms cognizable though the eye." Honeyball Sutta Mn18 > Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs? Not quite sure what you mean here. It's a real pleasure corresponding with you, Dharam. I hope this belated reply clarifies my very limited understanding, for what it's worth. mike 20396 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 9:55am Subject: Re: Precepts Rob, Don't worry about any delays. I need to keep myself focused on work more anyway! > ROB WROTE: > When it comes to precepts, the "natural law" that I am referring to > is the law of kamma. Here's how it works. Whenever there is a willed > action, this creates a "seed". When conditions are right, this seed > will develop. The nature of what develops depends on the type of > seed (mango seeds can only develop into mango trees). If I do > something "bad", this creates a "bad" seed and a "bad" effect will > arise when conditions allow. "Do" includes willed actions performed > by the body, through speech or through thought. "Bad" means a willed > action motivated by desire, aversion or delusion. The law of kamma > is a moral law and considered to be absolute; independent of time or > cultural relativism. > > "Dependent Origination" is not really a "natural law", it is an > explanation to the question, "What keeps us being reborn and how do > we stop from being reborn?" Dependent Origin is one of the most > complex aspects of Buddhism. There are twelve factors. Each factor > is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the following factor > to arise. As an analogy, if I see a tree, I know that there are > multiple factors which arose to allow this tree to come into > existence. Some of the factors include: > - A seed > - Rain > - Fertile soil > - Sun > - Seasons > > Each of these factors contributed in their own way to the arising of > the tree. One could say that the "seed" is the "root factor" because > the nature of the seed determines the nature of the tree, but we > know that a seed is not a sufficient condition for a tree to arise. > > So we can see that the law of kamma focuses on moral retribution > whereas dependent origination focuses on salvation from continued > rebirth. > > ===== DAVE REPLY: I think that in my mind, I've perhaps combined these 2 concepts, and I think I still have difficulty seperating them. I've always thought of the world as operating on probabilities. And, our actions cause probability levels to rise in different ways. It's like dropping stones into a pond. You get ripples. Sometimes a small stone causes a small ripple that just dissapates. Other times, the ripples merge to form waves. But, while the direct effects of the stone may not be felt (I have a hard time accepting that we all are getting what we "deserve"), we may feel the effects of those merges, or even our children or grandchildren may be impacted. Anyway, morality involves doing those things that cause good ripples. I hope that makes sense... OK, enough of "Davism" (or would it be Dave-ianity?). So far as Buddhism is concerned, how do I separate the concepts of Kamma (is this the same as "Karma?") and Dependent Origination? Is there a way to diferentiate them, to say "this causes Kamma" or "that causes D.O."? I will look up these 12 factors. I do not know what they are; perhaps they will shed light on this. > ROB WROTE: > Yes, the kammic impact of these are very well defined. Let's explore > the first one (avoid killing) as an example. > > Every willed action creates a kammic seed, but the constituent > factors necessary for killing to arise are: > 1. There must be life > 2. There must be knowldege of life > 3. There must be intention to kill > 4. There must be effort to kill > 5. There must be consequent death > DAVE REPLY: This may be a huge rationalization, but, since my favorite past time is fishing, and I only practice catch-and-release, I think I am OK! I try not to kill the fish, but only annoy it for a while. :-) Here again, I will look for places that further define the precepts. Even Christianity has a lot of trouble agreeing on what the "rules" are. I suppose that there is the same spectrum in the Buddhist circles as well. Peace, Dave 20397 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:03am Subject: Re: Precepts Rob, Actually, I think I could use the "layman's terms." The writing style of the Buddhist texts is different and somewhat difficult to discern. I was reading one I printed last night. I don't remember the title, but it had to do with some king asking Buddha about rewards of the contemplative life. Anyway, the king said this teacher said this, and that one said that and at the end, the king and Buddha had an understanding that was unfortunately, completely lost on me! Anyway, point being, by way of introduction, I would personally prefer a more matter of fact approach. Once I get a good foundation of the core beliefs and practices there, then I can probably make better sense of the texts (I hope so!) Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I teach Buddhist Theory (Abhidhamma) for beginners each Sunday > morning, so my tendency is to give explanations in layman's terms > without a lot of references (i.e. a non-scholarly approach). > > However, if you would like some background reading on precepts, I > can recommend the following by Bhikkhu Bodhi: > > http://www.buddhistinformation.com/going_for_refuge_taking_the_prec.h > tm > > Don't be put off by technical terms or words in Pali. Let me know if > I can help your understanding. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) 20398 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:04am Subject: sila, samadhi, panna, no 2. Dear Lars, Now follows more from my "In Asoka's Footsteps". Note also what I wrote about citta, concentration and higher concentration, adhicitta. You will see in the Co (to which we return later on) that with this kind of siila the lokuttara samaadhi is reached. Thus, it really is far-reaching. Nina 20399 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:04am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 6 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 6 We read further on: By the word arahattå the Commentator refers to the fulfilment of the aditthåna dhammas (dhammas that are foundations) of upasama (calm or peace) and paññå, by showing the attainment of the calming of all sankhåra dhammas (conditioned realities) and by showing the attainment of the awakening wisdom. We read about the importance of truthfulness as follows: Therefore, the aditthåna dhamma of sacca is the perfection developed by the Buddha when he was still a Bodhisatta and made the aspiration (abhinihåra) for the fulfilment of the highest good which is supramundane. An aspiration, abhinihåra, is a weighty cause of receiving a weighty result, and this is the attainment of Buddhahood. We read: For this reason he accumulated each perfection in accordance with his vow and this was inspired by his great compassion. He fulfilled the aditthåna dhamma of relinquishment as a perfection because he relinquished what was an enemy [4] . Studying the Dhamma and applying it, and knowing the importance of the truth is the way leading to the realization of the noble Truths. In the ³Verses of Uplift² (Udåna), Ch 1, no. 9, Matted Hair (Jatila) it has been explained that if one does not accumulate sati-sampajañña, one will become deluded. We read: Thus have I heard: On a certain occasion the Exalted One was staying near Gayå, on Gayå Head. Now on that occasion a great number of ascetics, on the cold winter nights between the eighths [5] in time of snowfall, were plunging up and down (in the water) and sprinkling and burning sacrifice, thinking: This way comes purity. Now the Exalted One saw that great number of ascetics so doing, and at that time, seeing the meaning of it, gave utterance to this verse of uplift: ³Not by water is one pure, tho¹ many folk bathe here. In whom is truth and dhamma, he is pure and he¹s a bråhmin.² Footnotes: 4. Defilements are like enemies. He has relinquished all defilements. 5. The eighth day before and after the full moon of Mågha, January, and Phagguna, February. 20400 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear James op 18-03-2003 05:32 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > While > Buddhaghosa did a good job at clarifying some difficult points, he > also put forth many inaccuracies and outright lies in his > commentaries (I will not clarify further about this in this group) N: I think you should speak freely about these points. There may be misunderstandings about Buddhaghosa, and when we talk about this, there is an opportunity to straighten things out. If you have a long list, why don't you bring it forward point by point, so that different people can look at it quietly. We may have to compare different texts and see where the points are that are difficult to understand. And sure enough, I will not be able to answer all questions on controversial points. Nina. 20401 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 0:41pm Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave, I would think having a shrine room is not part of the core Buddhism. However, I think it is a way of expressing one's reverence to the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Sangha. It is the attitude and expression of reverence that is wholesome and essential, and having a shrine room, I think, can be very conducive in reinforcing such attitude and expression, thus making it a wholesome practice. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan gave another > person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay Buddhist Practice" > document > (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) > > This doc starts right off with where your shrine should be, and how > to give offerings to it, etc. > > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like > something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a > shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20402 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 0:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James > op 18-03-2003 05:32 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > > While > > Buddhaghosa did a good job at clarifying some difficult points, he > > also put forth many inaccuracies and outright lies in his > > commentaries (I will not clarify further about this in this group) > N: I think you should speak freely about these points. There may be > misunderstandings about Buddhaghosa, and when we talk about this, there is > an opportunity to straighten things out. > If you have a long list, why don't you bring it forward point by point, so > that different people can look at it quietly. We may have to compare > different texts and see where the points are that are difficult to > understand. And sure enough, I will not be able to answer all questions on > controversial points. > Nina. Hi Nina, That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's nest...I have learned. I wrote a lot more in this post and then deleted it. No point. Let us both just believe what we want regarding this issue. Metta, James 20403 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:24pm Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Victor, I see your point. And, don't get me wrong, I was not implying any "unwholesomeness" to having a shrine. email is so hard to read subtext sometimes! That said, would there not be a fear, or even a tendency to refocus reverence into worship thereby making the shrine another attachment? And, even more importantly, and practically, is having such a shrine really an important first (or second or third) step for a person such as myself, struggling to understand Buddhism and the expectations of it. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I would think having a shrine room is not part of the core > Buddhism. However, I think it is a way of expressing one's > reverence to the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Sangha. It is the > attitude and expression of reverence that is wholesome and > essential, and having a shrine room, I think, can be very conducive > in reinforcing such attitude and expression, thus making it a > wholesome practice. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > wrote: > > Everyone, > > > > Another quick question... I had followed a link Dan gave another > > person and, elsewhere in that site, I found a "Lay Buddhist > Practice" > > document > > (http://www.vipassana.com/resources/lay_buddhist_practice.php) > > > > This doc starts right off with where your shrine should be, and > how > > to give offerings to it, etc. > > > > Is this actually part of core Buddhism? It looks a bit like > > something that evolved later. Is it really important to have a > > shrine and make offerings as this doc suggests? > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave 20404 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 1:44pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] Hi Sarah, ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:44 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K, Sarah, Jon] > We have tickets for ten days' time to go to a Rolling Stones concert here. > It's the kind of thing we do about once every 10 years. I know the sound > will be far too loud to be intrinsically 'pleasant' and yet still there's > just about enough lobha to go and follow after the papanca, though it > won't bother me if it gets cancelled as happened last time;-) Even if they show, these old wrinkle-rockers should at least be a good reminder of impermance(!). mike 20405 From: antony272b2 Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:03pm Subject: Free Visuddhimagga in Sydney I want to give away my Visuddhimagga by Buddhaghosa. It can be picked up from me in Sydney (expensive to post). If you are interested in this large volume contact me offlist at antony272b at hotmail.com metta / Antony. 20406 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:07pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] Dear Robert and Dan, Outstanding, Robert. Also applies to my recent question to Jon re. rebirth in deva realms etc., maybe? Must reread this discourse. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Dan D. To: Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 7:24 AM Subject: [dsg] Re: Questions [Robert K] > > In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation) > > "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. > > There whatever form one sees with the eye is undedesirable, > > never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever > > sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile > > object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is > > undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote > > Wonderful quote, Robert! I read this a few weeks ago, but it didn't > strike me as very interesting then. Now it seems wondrously powerful. > Isn't this just a restatement of the Noble Truth of > suffering? "Contact's sixfold base" is a hell... Dukkha, Dukkha, > Dukkha, and this is realized when the sixfold base of contact is seen > and understood. > > > As I understand it the forms seen in hell would be intrinsically > > disagreeable at all times. > > Yes, and the Buddha's teachings lead to dispassion and revulsion for > these hells and the consequent turning away from them. But they go > very deep, all the way down to the realm of phassa. When sense > contact is truly understood, it is recognized as dukkha. 20407 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Great Stuff, Sarah, Where does the Atthasalini quotation begin and end? (I see a closing quotation at the end of this paragraph. Looking at it now, it sounds more like KS or NVG, at least at the end--who speaks where? Thanks in advance. mike The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 133) gives a similar definition. When there is equanimity there is neither elation nor depression. The object which is experienced is viewed with impartiality and neutrality, just as a charioteer treats with impartiality his well-trained horses. Equanimity effects the balance of the citta and the other cetasikas it arises together with. There is no balance of mind when akusala citta arises, when we are cross, greedy, avaricious or ignorant. Whereas when we are generous, observe morality (sila), develop calm or develop right understanding of nama and rupa, there is balance of mind." 20408 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 2:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Nina, ----- Original Message ----- From: nina van gorkom To: Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 10:30 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love > Dear Mike and Dharam, > This is the end of a long development up to arahatship. I think what we're talking about is 'jahanta' in Pali. I haven't had time to research this yet but suspect it occurs incompletely many times before vimokkha, when conditions (i.e. hearing or reflecting on Dhamma) dictate. Could be wrong, I'd like to know more about this. > Let us not skip what > has to be known first: all daily realities, including our attachments. Of course we can't skip these even if we wanted to. Insight into them (whether theoretical or profound) tends to condition relinquishing though, I think. > No > forcing not to have them, but understanding them as conditioned relaities > when they naturally arise. Of course it's understanding (pa~n~naa) that conditions the relinquishing--not the idea, 'I relinquish' (or 'I should relinquish'). > They have to be understood as not mine, not self > first. The development of understanding should be very natural. Yes, it always is as it must be. mike 20409 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Re: Precepts Hi Dave, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > I think that in my mind, I've perhaps combined these 2 concepts, and > I think I still have difficulty seperating them. I've always thought > of the world as operating on probabilities. And, our actions cause > probability levels to rise in different ways. It's like dropping > stones into a pond. You get ripples. Sometimes a small stone causes > a small ripple that just dissapates. Other times, the ripples merge > to form waves. But, while the direct effects of the stone may not be > felt (I have a hard time accepting that we all are getting what > we "deserve"), we may feel the effects of those merges, or even our > children or grandchildren may be impacted. Anyway, morality involves > doing those things that cause good ripples. I hope that makes > sense... ===== I like your analogy. ===== > > OK, enough of "Davism" (or would it be Dave-ianity?). So far as > Buddhism is concerned, how do I separate the concepts of Kamma (is > this the same as "Karma?") and Dependent Origination? Is there a way > to diferentiate them, to say "this causes Kamma" or "that causes > D.O."? I will look up these 12 factors. I do not know what they are; > perhaps they will shed light on this. ===== For some time, I have been meaning to write a magazine article explaining dependent origination in layman's terms. Thanks for your prompting... please give me a couple of days to put a draft together. ===== > This may be a huge rationalization, but, since my favorite past time > is fishing, and I only practice catch-and-release, I think I am OK! > I try not to kill the fish, but only annoy it for a while. :-) > > Here again, I will look for places that further define the precepts. > Even Christianity has a lot of trouble agreeing on what the "rules" > are. I suppose that there is the same spectrum in the Buddhist > circles as well. ===== Sorry to "pun"ish you, but it looks as though you are off the hook when it comes to killing :-) Of course, all willed actions (including annoying fish) will create kamma (which you may have to pay for later). If you want a clearer definition for the precepts, I suggest that you read Bhikkhu Bodhi's article (it is a good one): http://www.buddhistinformation.com/going_for_refuge_taking_the_prec.h tm The canonical text which goes into some detail on this is the Atthasalini, Book I, Part III, Section V "Discourse on Courses of Immoral Actions". Unfortunately, it is not on-line. I want to stress that "precepts" are not "rules". "Precepts" are factors of training that you choose to apply to yourself whereas "rules" are defined by somebody else. There hasn't been much debate in Buddhist Circles (that I am aware of) regarding the interpretation of precepts. The five point checklist that I gave on killing makes things pretty clear (similar checklists are available for the other four precepts as well). A second reason for the lack of arguments regarding precepts is that precepts are a personal factor of training. Whether you keep the precepts or not, the law of kamma still operates (As you sow, so shall you reap). Dave, I will be back to you in a couple of days with a layman's version of Dependent Origination. Metta, Rob M :-) 20410 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 8:53pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Hi Mike, --- "m. nease" wrote: > Great Stuff, Sarah, > > Where does the Atthasalini quotation begin and end? (I see a closing > quotation at the end of this paragraph. Looking at it now, it sounds > more > like KS or NVG, at least at the end--who speaks where? ..... Apologies for not making it clearer. The following was all a quote from ‘Cetasikas’ and the opening quotation was before “The Visuddhimagga....”. I’ll add single quotes for the Vism ref this time (I was just coying and pasting before). From: http://www.vipassana.info/cetasikas32.html ..... (Nina:) “The Visuddhimagga (XIV, 153) states about equanimity : ‘It has the characteristic of conveying citta and cetasikas evenly. Its function is to prevent deficiency and excess, or its function is to inhibit partiality. It is manifested as neutrality. It should be regarded as like a conductor (driver) who looks on with equanimity on thoroughbreds progressing evenly.’ The Atthasalini (I, Book I, Part IV, Chapter I, 133) gives a similar definition. When there is equanimity there is neither elation nor depression. The object which is experienced is viewed with impartiality and neutrality, just as a charioteer treats with impartiality his well-trained horses. Equanimity effects the balance of the citta and the other cetasikas it arises together with. There is no balance of mind when akusala citta arises, when we are cross, greedy, avaricious or ignorant. Whereas when we are generous, observe morality (sila), develop calm or develop right understanding of nama and rupa, there is balance of mind.” ..... While I’m here, let me add the quote itself from Atthasalini which, as Nina, says, is almost indentical, but it’s always interesting to look at different translations anyway. From the transl of Atthasalini (The Expositor, PTS): “ ‘Equanimity’ (or balance of mind) is neutrality regarding various states. It has the characteristic of carrying on consciousness and mental properties equally, the function of checking deficiency and excess, or of cutting off partisanship; it has the manifestation of neutrality. By virtue of its indifference regarding consciousnes and mental properties it should be regarded as a charioteer who treats with impartiality the well-trained horses he is driving.” ..... Hope this makes it clear. It’s a wonderful reminder, isn’t it? I always find it helpful to reflect and understand more about this state and to be reminded that there cannot be any wholesome cittas without it. Metta, Sarah Mike: “Even if they show, these old wrinkle-rockers should at least be a good reminder of impermance(!).” Sarah: But will these old wrinkle-rocker fans notice??? Last time I saw these guys live, I was a 16 year old school-girl hanging out in the local Crypt cafe when they came in for a coffee. 20411 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam, Thank you for your thoughtful post. I am just thinking of one aspect, one reason for disillusionment: it takes a long time of development and when people do not see any result they become impatient. Where is the result? The Dhamma is so subtle and difficult to understand, and our clinging to self and our ignorance covers up the truth. In that way we begin already with the wrong development, full of the idea of, I do it. One should be clear about this: what is dhamma, reality, and how and when does it appear. Maybe we should discuss first: . A. Sujin greatly stressed this point when we were in Bgk last time, Nina. op 18-03-2003 22:11 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > There have been several messages about doubt re: Abhidhamma, or > disillusionment with other religions recently, which led me to wonder > why intelligent people become disillusioned in the first place. > The easy answer is that they were 'wrong' to begin with, and then saw > the light. However, as usual, there may be more to it. 20412 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas Hi Andrew, I’m glad that Ken H is nudging you to ask your questions and hope you can pass on the nudge to any others in your group;-). Good to read of your careful study and consideration. ..... --- Andrew wrote: > Dear Group > In ADL, Nina says (in the context of a sense-door process) that the > bhavanga-cittas do not experience the rupa. ..... Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense door and mind door processes (like in deep sleep), experiencing their own object which is the same object that was experienced by the rebirth consciousness and not the rupa experienced in the sense-door process or the object in mind-door processes. ..... >In "Realities and > Concepts", Sujin B says (in the context of a mind-door process) that > the arrest-bhavanga is "the mind-door through which the cittas of the > mind-door process will experience the object" (p 63). > Question: in a mind-door process, do the bhavanga-cittas experience > the mind-object? What do they experience? ..... They arise in between the sense-door and mind-door processes and never experience the mind-object. As I just mentioned, they experience the same object as the patisandhi citta (rebirth consciousness) and this is the same object taken by the javana cittas (kusala or akusala cittas) in the last process before the cuti citta (death consciousness) in the previous life. This particular object can never be known. ..... > Sujin also seems to say (p 24) that pannatti can be "included in" a > mind-door-object. > Question: what is an example of mind-door-object that is not pannatti? ..... Any reality - e.g a rupa just experienced in a sense-door process, a citta, a mental factor or nibbana! If these realities weren’t experienced in the mind door process, it would be impossible for sati (awareness) to be aware of them or panna (understanding) to know them in the mind-door process. These are good questions. I’m sure my responses just raise more questions. Let me know if I (or anyone else) can help further. Metta, Sarah ===== 20413 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 10:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave (& Ken H), I'm greatly appreciating your discussions with Rob M and others. I've never had a shrine room or felt a need for one, but fully appreciate that for others it may be a condition for wise reflection as Rob M pointed out. There was so much in this post of Ken H's that was clearly and beautifully presented, imho, that I can't resist requoting parts with a few token comments in between;-): --- kenhowardau wrote: > The doctrine of not-self (anatta), is all-encompassing > and unyielding; it cannot be put to one side for the sake > of convenience. In other words, it does not allow the > possibility of a temporary self which heroically > practises Right Mindfulness in order to realise its own > non-existence. In this way, anatta is so profound and so > difficult to grasp that it is mostly rejected as > unworkable, even by the majority of Buddhists. > > The result, I'm sorry to say, is that the Buddha's > unique, incomparable teaching, is widely portrayed as a > mere religion. The illusion of a self who meditates and > follows precepts is no different from the illusion of a > self who prays and obeys commandments. ..... So profound (i.e. mirrors my sentiments exactly;-)) ..... > Whenever there is right understanding of conditioned > paramattha dhammas, there is no interest in the wrong > questions; "Is there a self? Is there not a self? Will I > be reborn? Will I not be reborn?" To the contrary, one > is delighted to find that the question of self does not > arise. ..... Exactly so.... ..... > Which way will we go; will we settle for the 'self you > have when you're not having a self,' or will we accept > anatta in its entirety?' Only conditions will decide. > > Good luck with your giving up of the old ways; let's > hope you don't install another religion in their place. > :-) ..... Dave, with all the good friends you're talking to here, you can't go wrong;-) Metta and a nudge to continue your discussions with Ken H, Rob M, Victor and all, Sarah ===== 20414 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Dharam, (Sukin & Connie at the end), --- bodhi342 wrote: > Dear Nina and Sarah, > > Thank you for your thoughtful responses. ..... .....and all your thoughtful questions and reflections. I’m especially appreciating your dialogue with Mike. ..... > This same gardener also needs some mental construct of the potential > final product, say the appearance or sensation of the garden. > She/He requires some understanding of the utility of expending all > that effort. And (pertinent to relinquishing attachment), as > importantly, what must be given to, or given up, for the result > he/she seeks. ..... Just to follow this analogy a little further.....Let’s say the gardener is completely blind and has been since birth but as he gardens it is a condition for his eye-sight to be slowly and gradually restored at the same time. In the beginning, no matter how anyone describes flowers in bloom and other features of the garden, he merely has a quite unrealistic idea of what is being said and it’s of very limited value. He starts to plant the seeds, however, and there is the smallest glimmer of sight, though not enough confidence that it really is the planting of seeds that is conditioning this sight. With encouragement, he continues and at times the sight becomes a little clearer, but of course with many dark spells and doubts about the right cause and best approach in between. It may seem to him at times that the price and the effort are too great because of his lack of confidence in the rewards. However, as the connection becomes more apparent and the eyesight becomes more firmly established, there is less and less doubt or misapprehension and the price becomes clearly effortless and not a factor to be considered. ..... > There have been several messages about doubt re: Abhidhamma, or > disillusionment with other religions recently, which led me to wonder > why intelligent people become disillusioned in the first place. > The easy answer is that they were 'wrong' to begin with, and then saw > the light. However, as usual, there may be more to it. ..... Expectations and attachment?? Clinging to self as in the idea of “relinquishing attachment”?? ..... > Disillusionment is probably multifactorial, one aspect may poor > understanding of what is to be achieved, and as important, > what is to be relinquished. Giving up/relinquishing/surrendering > (?), are common motifs of many faiths, yet I wonder how many actually > understand the 'bargain' at the outset. Could the shock of finding > out, be an important cause for these people's disillusionment and > doubt? ..... I think it’s only at a conceptual level that there’s any bargain, giving up and so on. At moments of awareness there is no idea like this and no concern for any self. ..... > None of us wants to scare away newcomers by presenting seemingly > difficult hurdles at any early stage. However, IMHO in the > interest of 'informed consent' and to perhaps avoid later > disillusionment, students/practitioners of any ~ ism, should pay some > heed to what is required to be given up, even while being attracted > to what is to be gained. ..... To me this is merely thinking, like describing the garden to the blind gardener. ..... > Let us use the example of a legal contract (even social contracts, > such as marriage may apply). At the outset, one would think there > would never be a future problem. Unfortunately, we all know that > disputes can arise too frequently. One reason is that the parties > do not fully understand the implications of what they are signing up > for at the outset. [There are many reasons for this, and I am > neither an attorney nor a psychologist.] This sets the stage for > disillusionment, leading to despair, anger, conflict etc. I suspect > that true informed consent, with nothing assumed, could alleviate a > lot of this sort of dukkha (small 'd'), don't you? ..... Ideally we’d all start out without any expectations at all;-) I’ve always been of the “the bigger the wedding, the bigger the crash” school;-) I’ve also read studies about arranged marriages having a higher success rate, but I’m veering off-course here. When it comes to the development of understanding of the Buddha’s Teachings, there is no self that can control the process, no one to sign a deal with and no consent to be given. As people have been discussing, most of us come from different religious and cultural backgrounds and are here discussing the Dhamma in spite of other intentions, agreements and in spite of periods of disillusionment, despair and so on. Christine presented this beautifully in a recent post “There is no need to rush things. It's a bit like ending a love affair - one has sweet memories of what really never was true. Occasionally Buddhism seems rather arid and joyless, usually when I'm stressed and tired. But better to have Reality and Truth than a false dream.” ..... > Understanding not only what is to be gained, but what must be > relinquished, may be vital to keep people on a chosen path. ..... I think both ‘gaining’ and ‘relinquishing’ show a clinging to self. ..... > I would be very interested in both of your views (Mike and > Christine's too) on what I realize is an unorthodox inquiry. ..... I’ll be glad to hear other views too. I, for one, love your ‘unorthodox inquiry’ approach and your very eloquent style. Metta, Sarah p.s And what’s happened to your friend Sukin and Connie and their unorthodox and stimulation discussion......hint, hint...... ============================================ 20415 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 19, 2003 11:34pm Subject: Re: [dsg] no-god (was From Christ to Buddha) Hi Eddie, You've been making some good points: --- Eddie Lou wrote: > One more thing the "no-self" maybe related to the > wisdom of the ability to differentiate between 'rupa' > - closest equivalent being physical or physique and > 'nama' - closest equivalent being spirit or soul. ..... This is exactly as I understand it and as described in the first stage of insight. Until there is the clear distingusishing of namas and rupas from each other and from concepts which are usually taken for being truths, there cannot be any detachment from the idea of self. Nothing is relinquished because there is no self in the first place to be relinquished. Only wrong views.... ..... > This ability I heard is the key or one of the keys to > be liberated from the rebirth cycle I told you before > - Samsara and with the true final destination being > Nirvana, where the truth of cause and effect no longer > exists. ..... Thank you for giving these explanations in your own words. Metta, Sarah ======= Weight Age Gender Female Male 20416 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > I'm understanding this to say clear comprehension of resort is keeping > the object (sign?) of meditation constantly in mind and cear > comprehension of nondelusion is understanding the consciousness process > in the moment. ..... I understand resort (gocara) as one of the 4 clear comprehensions and in the context of satipatthana to refer to any reality which is the object of mindfulness. I was reminded of your question when I quoted from Vism to Dan. Sound is the resort or object of hearing: VismX1V, 55 “Sound has the characteristic of impinging on the ear. Its function is to be the object of ear-consciousness. It is manifested as the RESORT of that too. it is of various kinds as ‘drum sound, tabor sound’ (Dhs621) and so on.” ***** Earlier in the Way corner, Nina and Jim were discussing more about the meaning of gocara: Nina wrote: “I am also thinking of the Sutta on the falcon and the warning that the monk should keep to his own range: the four satipatthanas. In the dict. PTS, gocara: pasture, range and also object, sense object. Like visaya: locality, realm, range, and also object.” Much more has been written by Rob K and others on this topic and perhaps some of it will be reposted if you are interested. (Rob, I think you wrote on this quite recently but couldn’t find your post by keying in ‘gocara’ on escribe...) In the recent extracts from the Way, we read some serious Abhidhamma;-) It’s not easy as there is a lot of detail about the processes, the various conditions and so forth. I think we can see how closely integrated the sutta, the commentaries and the Abhidhamma are and how it’s very difficult to understand any of these parts of the Teachings in isolation. It helps to understand the conditionality and anattaness of phenomena arising now. For example,from Way 61: “[T] ......While the conscious state arisen earlier, in ceasing, it ceases in just the form of proximity-condition and so forth, to another conscious state arising after it [yam hi purimuppannam cittam tam nirujjhantam aññassa paccha uppajjamanassa anantaradi paccaya bhaveneva nirujjhati]. Then another conscious state which has just obtained a condition, arises [yathaladdha paccayameva aññampi uppajjate cittam]. And here (mind is) in a different state by reason of the difference of occasion [avattha visesato cettha aññatha].” Rob M and others were discussing proximity condition recently and earlier in this extract it also discussed pre-nascence and post-nascence conditions which also related to the details Nina has been translating and writing on the characteristics and stages of rupa which lasts for the time of 17 cittas as also discussed in this Way extract. Lots of detail and not easy to fully comprehend even intellectually. But like a jigsaw puzzle, slowly the pieces fit into place, usually at unexpected times of not-trying to comprehend;-) Let us know if you have further comments/questions on gocara (resort) or the other Clear Comprehensions. Nothing easy. Metta, Sarah ======= 20417 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:23am Subject: Re: Shrine Room? Hi Dave, I don't think having a shrine room is really important first step for a person struggling to understanding Buddhism and the expectations of it. I do think it is very important to distinguish what the teaching of the Buddha is and what it is not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Victor, > > I see your point. And, don't get me wrong, I was not implying > any "unwholesomeness" to having a shrine. email is so hard to read > subtext sometimes! > > That said, would there not be a fear, or even a tendency to refocus > reverence into worship thereby making the shrine another attachment? > > And, even more importantly, and practically, is having such a shrine > really an important first (or second or third) step for a person such > as myself, struggling to understand Buddhism and the expectations of > it. > > Peace, > > > Dave 20418 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - correction Hi Andrew & All, The first part of the sentence below is carelessly written and can be misleading, I think. Let me re-write it here: Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense-door and mind-door processes now. In deep sleep (when there is no dreaming), they arise continuously, as there is no sense-door or mind-door activity as I understand. They experience their own object etc.... --- Sarah wrote: > Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense door and mind > door processes (like in deep sleep), experiencing their own object which > is the same object that was experienced by the rebirth consciousness and > not the rupa experienced in the sense-door process or the object in > mind-door processes. 20419 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:15am Subject: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - correction) Hi, Sarah (and Andrew and all) - In a message dated 3/20/03 7:34:22 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi Andrew &All, > > The first part of the sentence below is carelessly written and can be > misleading, I think. Let me re-write it here: > > Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense-door and > mind-door processes now. In deep sleep (when there is no dreaming), they > arise continuously, as there is no sense-door or mind-door activity as I > understand. They experience their own object etc.... > > --- Sarah wrote: > >Bhavanga cittas arise and fall away in between the sense door and mind > >door processes (like in deep sleep), experiencing their own object which > >is the same object that was experienced by the rebirth consciousness and > >not the rupa experienced in the sense-door process or the object in > >mind-door processes. > > ============================== Formulations aside, I'd like to pursue a bit the object of bhavanga cittas, said to be the object of rebirth consciousness. Exactly what sort of "object" is this which, even when experienced by the cittas in a lengthy process of bhavanga cittas, is unobserved? What sort of object of consciousness is it that one is not conscious of? It strikes me that if there is any validity to this notion, then bhavanga cittas must correspond to what Psychology since Jung and Freud has called "subconscious". If this is so, it occurs to me that there might be a relation between this topic and that of groups of co-occurring rupas, or "kalapas". In her article on Rupas, Nina included the following: *************************************************************** The four Great Elements of solidity, cohesion, temperature and motion are always present wherever there is materiality. Apart from these four elements there are other rupas, namely twentyfour “derived rupasâ€? (in Pali: upada rupas). The “Atthasaliniâ€? (II, Book II, Ch III, 305) explains about them: > “... grasping the great essentials (great elements), not letting go, such > (derived rupas) proceed in dependance upon them.â€? Thus, the derived rupas > could not arise without the four Great Elements. But not all kinds of derived rupas arise with every group of rupas. However, four among the derived rupas always arise together with the four Great Elements in every group of rupas and are thus present wherever there is materiality, no matter whether rupas of the body or materiality outside the body. These four rupas are the following: > visible object (or colour) > odour > flavour > nutrition The four Great elements and these four derived rupas which always arise together are called the “inseparable rupasâ€? (in Pali: avinibbhoga rupas). Wherever there is solidity, there also have to be cohesion, temperature, motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. As regards visible object or colour, this is a rupa arising with every kind of materiality. It is that which is experienced through the eye-door. It is not a thing or a person. Visible object is the only rupa which can be seen. **************************************************** Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the discernment of a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the occasion of a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - the discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all but one are subliminal? I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our experience doesn't seem to bear that out. (If we close our nostrils, so that there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is being claimed here. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20420 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War Dear Sarah, Thanks for the clarifications--all pure gold. Love the 'tatra-majjhattataa' (that is, I'm totally indifferent to it, of course). Will definitely be adding these passages to my toolbox. mike ----- Original Message ----- From: Sarah To: Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2003 8:53 PM Subject: Re: [dsg] Non-violence and War > From the transl of Atthasalini (The Expositor, PTS): > > " 'Equanimity' (or balance of mind) 'there-middleness> is neutrality regarding various states. It has the > characteristic of carrying on consciousness and mental properties equally, > the function of checking deficiency and excess, or of cutting off > partisanship; it has the manifestation of neutrality. By virtue of its > indifference regarding consciousnes and mental properties it should be > regarded as a charioteer who treats with impartiality the well-trained > horses he is driving." > ..... > Hope this makes it clear. It's a wonderful reminder, isn't it? I always > find it helpful to reflect and understand more about this state and to be > reminded that there cannot be any wholesome cittas without it. I don't think the implications of the latter can be overstated--thanks again for this great stuff. > Metta, > > Sarah Upekkhaa (0nce In A While), mike > Mike: "Even if they show, these old wrinkle-rockers should at least be a > good reminder of impermance(!)." > Sarah: But will these old wrinkle-rocker fans notice??? > Last time I saw these guys live, I was a 16 year old school-girl hanging > out in the local Crypt cafe when they came in for a coffee. Wow--what a thrill for a teenie-bopper--really! 20421 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:18am Subject: Re: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Hi again - In a message dated 3/20/03 8:16:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas > in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our > experience doesn't seem to bear that out. (If we close our nostrils, so > that > there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is > being claimed here. > > =========================== I think that, perhaps, I have the answer to my own question: Maybe the answer is that the odor does arise together with the color, but that the conditions are not in place for the odor to be consciously detected - specifically, in the scenario I put forward, the conditions that correspond to what we conventionally call "the nostrils being open" are not present, so throughout an entire rupic process (or chain of processes) the odor does co-occur with the color, but it is always subliminal. But if, on the other hand, "the nostrils were not closed," then what would happen would be that seeing and smelling would alternatively occur consciously. What do you think? 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) 20422 From: abhidhammika Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 6:25am Subject: Separatining Kamma From Dependent Origination: To Dave Dear Dave How are you? Welcome to the universe of the Buddha's Teachings! You asked Robert M the following. "So far as Buddhism is concerned, how do I separate the concepts of Kamma (is this the same as "Karma?") and Dependent Origination? Is there a way to diferentiate them, to say "this causes Kamma" or "that causes D.O."? I will look up these 12 factors. I do not know what they are; perhaps they will shed light on this." I have written something that answers your question somewhere else. While we are waiting for Robert M's writing on Dependent Origination, I reproduced part of my say posted to another list here. I hope Robert would not mind my intrusion here. :) _________________ _ _ _ ________________ SEPARATION OF KAMMA FROM DEPENDENT ORIGINATION Dependent Origination (Pa.ticcasammuppaado) is a standard elaborate system of causation found in Suttanta Pi.taka. The system has twelve causational links as follows. "Through unwiseness, actions happen; because of actions, consciousness arises; due to consciousness, the mental and physical organism appears; because of the mental and physical organism, contact happens; through contact, feeling arises; due to feeling, attachment happens; by attachment, obsession arises; because of obsession, live action occurs; through live action, life renewal happens; due to life renewal, aging and death, worry, grief, pain, displeasure, and exhaustion take place." There are two exposed areas of kamma in the links of Dependent Origination. They are sankhaarapaccayaa (because of actions in the past) and bhavapaccayaa (through live action in the present life). The term "bhava" in the bhavapaccayaa can mean kammabhavo as one of the meanings of bhavo. 1. Kamma as sankhaarapaccayaa happened in the past, so we can't do anything about it now in this life (have no choice). 2. Kamma as bhavapaccayaa happens in this life, so we can do something about it (have a choice). The above explanation was based on the equivalent terms of kamma as contained in the twelve links of Dependent Origination. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org 20423 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:17am Subject: Re: Religion and non-self --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi, every body, > > I'm Tom Lee. I was born in Korea, and I go to > Korean Internation School (KIS). I'm a 13years old > school boy and I saw all of you guy's writing, > talking, replying and discussing about Buddhism and I > think I'm getting interested in Buddhism. Is there > something special about Buddha? I mean if you see the > statue in the temple they all look like they are made > out of gold, are they really? > > I found the most interesting information that Buddhism > is a religion and it's teaching of non-self. Then how > did Buddhism became a religion if there is no self? > > I hope you guys get friendly with me. > Bye. > > From Tom Hi Star Kid Kom, How are you doing? I hope you are fine. I am glad that you are getting interested in Buddhism. It will be helpful for you in your life. About your first question, there is something special about the Buddha because he discovered the truth about life. He discovered the reason we are all here and what we all need to do to be happy and peaceful. And rather than keep this information to himself and avoid the headache/hassle of trying to teach it to people who would have a hard time understanding, he sacrificed his time and energy for the benefit of everyone by teaching for 45 years. During those 45 years he had to encounter, while remaining peaceful, people who wanted to worship him, people who hated him, people who tried to kill him, and, thankfully, some people who understood him. He did this of his own free will, from his compassion, for the benefit of the world. That was a very nice thing to do wasn't it? For that reason, even if you don't agree with him or understand him, you should still respect him for the good things that he did. About the Buddha statues, they are overwhelming just painted gold, they aren't really solid gold (Though you can find some small statues which are solid gold...like jewelery.). You can find Buddha statues made out of rock, metal, glass, and plastic. It doesn't matter what they are made out of, what matters is what they remind you of. They are to remind you of the Buddha and what he did with his life. It is interesting that you ask this question about gold Buddha statues because it relates to a sad story of something that happened at my temple about 11 years ago. At my temple, Wat Promkunaram, some high school boys went to the temple to rob the monks of their donation money and to steal the main, large Buddha statue because they thought it was made out of solid gold. When they checked out the statue up close, they found out that it wasn't made of gold, it was just painted gold. They also discovered that the monks didn't have any donation money; what little money they had which had been donated was put in the bank already (to pay for food, electricity, etc. for the temple). These boys were upset and angry when they discovered this, and afraid that they would get caught, so they made all of the monks, nuns, and a few laypeople at the temple at that time lay down on the floor of a room, and the boys killed them all with guns. Greed can make people do many horrible things. But this didn't stop the temple from continuing on and doing what the Buddha taught; some more monks came from Thailand to live at the temple and continue the teachings… just like the Buddha did in his life. Hatred and ignorance aren't reasons to stop being peaceful and loving, they are reasons to continue. Tom, Buddhism can be a religion even if there is no self. First, as a side note, some people argue if Buddhism is a religion or a philosophy, but not me. I don't care which people think it is. I think it is a religion but some people think it is a philosophy, which is fine. What is more important is that Buddhism is the Truth; what each person labels it is of little importance. Second, just because there is no self doesn't mean that Buddhism can't be a religion (or philosophy) because everyone thinks that there is a self and doesn't want there to be no self. Your question is like asking, "Why do we eat if there is no self?", "Why do we go to school if there is no self?", "Why do I have to do my homework if there is no self?" That would be a good try Tom, but you still have to do your homework! ;-) Just because we have no self that doesn't release us from daily responsibilities or the need to discover who we truly are. Buddhism helps us to do this. Actually, we have Buddhism because we have no self, and Buddhism helps us to see this. Take care Tom and I hope you do well in school and study more about Buddhism. Metta, James 20424 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 7:48am Subject: Re: Religion and non-self --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > Hi Star Kid Kom, > Dear Kom, Oops! LOL! My apologies Kom! I didn't even notice this until after I sent off this letter. Must have been from habit of writing your name and reading it so often. Look on the bright side... you could see this as an offering of a 'Fountain of Youth'. Now you have youth and wisdom! ;-). Metta, James 20425 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 9:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Precepts Dave, > Actually, I think I could use the "layman's terms." > The writing > style of the Buddhist texts is different and > somewhat difficult to > discern. I sure wish those texts (some and I think are more like direct translation with possible fear of loss of context and meaning) can be more reader/user-friendly. I am always wondering the wisdom of reculcation/repetition (is that your discerning issue). Maybe it is serving some purpose - memorizing? > unfortunately, completely > lost on me! Completely agree, I got lost But I put myself back on track - just need patience (part of the self-control/discipline as Buddhism called for). If there is a will there is a way - to unravel the great Truth. Metta. Eddie 20426 From: Eddie Lou Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Precepts Dave, > I think that in my mind, I've perhaps combined these > 2 concepts, and > I think I still have difficulty seperating them. > I've always thought > of the world as operating on probabilities. And, > our actions cause > probability levels to rise in different ways. I think probability may be is the closest approximation current human can discern a phenomenum. This statement is close to what one scientist said, I forget who - Einstein? Maybe that is why Einstein said God is not rolling a dice, in reference to Quantum Mechanics. Einstein I heard was quite supportive of Buddhism. > like dropping > stones into a pond. You get ripples. Sometimes a > small stone causes > a small ripple that just dissapates. Other times, > the ripples merge > to form waves. I think that is a good empirical example, a stone big and small will make a difference. So will the drop location can, due to different, relevant, aggregate property in that location. > But, while the direct effects of the > stone may not be > felt (I have a hard time accepting that we all are > getting what > we "deserve"), we may feel the effects of those > merges, or even our > children or grandchildren may be impacted. That is possible also. Karma Law works funny to us but is "precise mechanism" just like laws of Physics - say law of conservation of energy. > Anyway, > morality involves > doing those things that cause good ripples. I hope > that makes > sense... Metta. Eddie 20427 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:48am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear James and all friends, op 19-03-2003 21:49 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's > nest. That is OK, James. I do not see it as a hornet's nest, more like a study with knotty points. Look, the nest is empty, hornets gone. You only thought there were hornets. Asking questions is useful, it is one of the conditions for enlightenment. Sorry, I did not want to cause you any uneasy feeling. Would others then speak about difficult, controversial points of Buddhaghosa? I am sure more people here may have them. Often it is not necessary to feel uneasy about such points, it is more a matter of comparing texts, seeing them from a different angle. Or someone may just fall over certain terms, and an additional problem: the Pali language. I do understand how complicated all this may seem. Nina 20428 From: Lars Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Would others then speak about difficult, controversial points of > Buddhaghosa? I am sure more people here may have them. Hi Nina and all the others, one thing is, that Buddhaghosa according to his own words never had an enlightenment experience, and like Nanavira Thera puts it correctly: "Nobody, after all, who has not reached the path can afford to assume that he is right about the Buddha's Teaching." But being a puthujjana myself I rather keep a quiet profile too and would like to point you to an interesting article by Vimalo Kulbarz (if your German is good enough): http://www.dhamma- dana.de/buecher/theravada/vimalo_kulbarz- die_buddhalehre_und_ihre_ueberlieferung_in_der_theravada- tradition.htm 20429 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:47pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lars" wrote: > ---> Hi Nina and all the others, > > one thing is, that Buddhaghosa according to his own words never had > an enlightenment experience, and like Nanavira Thera puts it > correctly: "Nobody, after all, who has not reached the path can > afford to assume that he is right about the Buddha's Teaching." > ________ Dear Lars, Could you give the refernce which you think indicates Buddhaghosa is not enlightened? Thanks Robert 20430 From: Lars Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 0:50pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Could you give the refernce which you think indicates Buddhaghosa is > not enlightened? > Thanks > Robert Hi Robert, I don't have the reference, it is stated in the article I pointed to. But apparently he wrote it in one of his commentaries. I could ask the author. Lars 20431 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James and all friends, > op 19-03-2003 21:49 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > > That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's > > nest. > That is OK, James. I do not see it as a hornet's nest, more like a study > with knotty points. Hi Nina, I am going to try to explain something to you about me. I don't use the same criteria you do for determining if something is true or not. When it comes to these difficult issues, these matters that are `sublime' and `hard to grasp', I use my instincts to determine the truth or reliability of an issue or the speaker of an issue. I have had the ability, since a young boy, to know when someone is lying or not, to know when someone is wise or not, to know when someone is `faking it' or not. I can determine this strongest through a person's writing because, to me, the writing connects directly to the person, and, more importantly, the craving/desire/emotion of the person when he/she was writing it or speaking it. Even if the person who wrote the material is dead, that doesn't matter because this instinct isn't limited by time or space. I connect with how the person was when it was written or spoken, no matter where or when it was written or spoken. For these reasons, I know when something is right or wrong…I can just feel it. Later, using analysis and evidence to support my feelings, I can sometimes back this up…sometimes I can't. When it comes to these higher matters that the Buddha taught, sometimes you just have to feel it… there is no way to support it with reasoning, arguments, or evidence. Much of what I read from Buddhaghosa feels wrong to me… written in Pali or not. He was attempting to explain, with logic, things beyond him and, actually, matters beyond language. He knew this but kept going anyway. You may find comfort and meaning in his writings, but I don't. They make me uncomfortable to the extreme. Like I said previously, let us each just believe what we want. Take care. Metta, James ps. Of course others may speak for or against Buddhaghosa, and that is fine. But this will be the last I have to say about it. 20432 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- Dear Lars, Thanks for the quick reply. I have studied Buddhaghosa and haven't seen any reference like this. I do remember reading a different article that said the same thing but when I checked the writer had misunderstood a note added by a copyist. In the final page of the Visuddhimagga there is a note that says "by this merit may I see metteya buddha and ..realise the dispensations highest fruit." (thus attaining enligtenment in a future age). This endpiece was added by someone who carefully copied out the Visuddhimagga on to palm leaf- a major undertaking in itself. It occurs in the sri lankan editions but not the Burmese. It might be that the article you read also misunderstood this point. Robert In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Lars" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > > Could you give the refernce which you think indicates Buddhaghosa > is > > not enlightened? > > Thanks > > Robert > > Hi Robert, > I don't have the reference, it is stated in the article I pointed > to. But apparently he wrote it in one of his commentaries. I could > ask the author. > > Lars 20433 From: dwlemen Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 1:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa James, I don't mean butt into your conversation, and I hope it is neither unwelcomed nor too late, but I have a question... Who exactly is Buddhaghosa and what is his relationship to Buddhism? I did a web search for him and came up with some info on someone who wrote "commentaries" on texts back around 400C.E. Is this the guy? If so, he seems to be held in "high regard" so I, as someone very new to Buddhism, wonder if he is considered controversial or if others (even a known minority) share your insights and concerns? Since I've never heard of him, I have not read anything by him so I could not discuss/debate the accuracy of your insights. But, with the vast volumes of literature out there, I am relying somewhat on all of you here in DSG to show me where to go and where to avoid. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom > wrote: > > Dear James and all friends, > > op 19-03-2003 21:49 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > > > > That's okay, nevermind. I know better than to kick the hornet's > > > nest. > > That is OK, James. I do not see it as a hornet's nest, more like a > study > > with knotty points. > > Hi Nina, > > I am going to try to explain something to you about me. I don't use > the same criteria you do for determining if something is true or > not. When it comes to these difficult issues, these matters that > are `sublime' and `hard to grasp', I use my instincts to determine > the truth or reliability of an issue or the speaker of an issue. I > have had the ability, since a young boy, to know when someone is > lying or not, to know when someone is wise or not, to know when > someone is `faking it' or not. I can determine this strongest > through a person's writing because, to me, the writing connects > directly to the person, and, more importantly, the > craving/desire/emotion of the person when he/she was writing it or > speaking it. Even if the person who wrote the material is dead, that > doesn't matter because this instinct isn't limited by time or space. > I connect with how the person was when it was written or spoken, no > matter where or when it was written or spoken. For these reasons, I > know when something is right or wrong…I can just feel it. Later, > using analysis and evidence to support my feelings, I can sometimes > back this up…sometimes I can't. When it comes to these higher > matters that the Buddha taught, sometimes you just have to feel it… > there is no way to support it with reasoning, arguments, or > evidence. Much of what I read from Buddhaghosa feels wrong to me… > written in Pali or not. He was attempting to explain, with logic, > things beyond him and, actually, matters beyond language. He knew > this but kept going anyway. You may find comfort and meaning in his > writings, but I don't. They make me uncomfortable to the extreme. > Like I said previously, let us each just believe what we want. Take > care. > > Metta, James > > ps. Of course others may speak for or against Buddhaghosa, and that > is fine. But this will be the last I have to say about it. 20434 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > James, > > I don't mean butt into your conversation, and I hope it is neither > unwelcomed nor too late, but I have a question... Who exactly is > Buddhaghosa and what is his relationship to Buddhism? Hi Dave, Here is scholarly information about Buddhaghosa: "BUDDHAGHOSA, ~ celebrated Buddhist writer. He was a Brahmin by birth and was born near the great Bodhi tree at Budh Gaya in north India about A.D. 390, his father's name being Kesi. His teacher, Revata, induced him to go to Ceylon, where the commentaries on the scriptures had been preserved in the Sinhalese language, with the object of translating them into Pãli. He went accordingly to Anuradhapura, studied there under Sanghapala, and asked leave of the fraternity there to translate the commentaries. With their consent he then did so, having first shown his ability by writing the work Visud-dhi Magga (the Path of Purity, a kind of summary of Buddhist doctrine). When he had completed his many years' labours he returned to the neighbourhood of the Bodhi tree in north India. Before he came to Ceylon he had already written a book entitled Nanodaya (the Rise of Knowledge), and had commenced a commentary on the principal psychological manual contained in the Pitakas. This latter work he afterwards rewrote in Ceylon, as the present text (now published by the Pall Text Society) shows. One volume of the Suman gala Vilãsin~ (a portion of the commentaries mentioned above) has been edited, and extracts from his comment on the Buddhist canon law. This last work has been discovered in a nearly comtemporaneous Chinese translation (an edition in Pali is based on a comparison with that translation). The works here mentioned form, however, only a small portion of what Buddhaghosa wrote. His industry must have been prodigious. He is known to have written books that would fill about 20 octavo volumes of about 400 pages each; and there are other writings ascribed to him which may or may not be really his work. It is too early therefore to attempt a criticism of it. But it is already clear that, when made acceptable, it will be of the greatest value for the history of Indian literature and of Indian ideas. So much is uncertain at present in that history for want of definite dates that the voluminous writings of an author whose date is approximately certain will afford a standard by which the age of other writings can be tested. And as the original commentaries in Sinhalese are now lost his works are the only evidence we have of the traditions then handed down in the Buddhist community. The main source of our information about Buddhaghosa is the Mahävamsa, written in Anuradhapura about fifty years after he was working there. But there are numerous references to him in Pali books on Pãli literature; and a Burmese author of unknown date, but possibly of the I5th century, has compiled a biography of him, the Buddhaghos' Uppaui, of little value and no critical judgment." http://74.1911encyclopedia.org/B/BU/BUDDHAGHOSA.htm As far as believing my `insights', I am not asking anyone to do that. This was a matter between Nina and me and I wouldn't have revealed this information, which I haven't done previously, except that I hope it will put to bed some issues and confusions surrounding me and my posts. You believe what you want and discover for yourself the truth. You should not look toward any of the members of this group, myself included, for that. Metta, James 20435 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 2:17pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Religion and non-self Hi James, > -----Original Message----- > From: buddhatrue [mailto:buddhatrue@y...] > Dear Kom, > > Oops! LOL! My apologies Kom! I didn't even notice this until after > I sent off this letter. Must have been from habit of writing your > name and reading it so often. No problem. One of my highschool teachers called me Tom for mostly the entire time that I knew her. > Look on the bright side... you could > see this as an offering of a 'Fountain of Youth'. Now you have youth > and wisdom! ;-). > Those who teach the dhamma offer the undeath! kom 20437 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 3:59pm Subject: Way 65, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 84 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html On an object falling within reach of consciousness at the eye-door, impulsion arises right at the very end when from the movement of the life-continum onwards, the states of adverting, seeing, receiving, considering and determining, having arisen, have ceased. That impulsion is like a visitor, at the eyedoor which is comparable to a house belonging to the states of adverting and the rest mentioned above born there before the arising of impulsion. As it is not fit for a visitor who has arrived at a strange house for the purpose of getting some assistance from the owners of the house to do any kind of ordering when the owners themselves are silent, so it is unfit for impulsion to be involved in lust, hate and ignorance, at the eyedoor house of adverting and the other states of mind, when those states of mind are themselves not lusting, hating or bound up with ignorance. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should thus be known by way of the casual state. At the eye-door, the mental states that close with the state of determining arise and break up together with associated phenomena, at just those places on which they arise. They do not see each other. Therefore the mental states that close with determining are brief and temporary. There, as in a house of the dead, where here is one more to die just at that very instant, it is not proper for that one who is to die to be given to delight in dancing and singing and the like, even so, at a sense-door, when the states of adverting and the rest with associated phenomena have died just where they arose, it is not fit for the remaining impulsion that is to die shortly to take delight in anything by way of lust and the like. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood thus by way of the temporary state. [Tika] Like a visitor = Like someone come specially, a stranger [agantuka puriso viya]. [T] Visitors are of two kinds, by way of a guest, that is, a person who comes and goes, a person who does not stay permanently in a place, and by way of someone who comes specially to a place, a stranger. In this connection, one who is an acquaintance, or one who is known, is a guest. One who is not an acquaintance and is unknown, is a stranger. According to the context here a stranger is meant. [T] Since to these mental states there is just that duration limited to the process of rise-and-fall of mental phenomena, these states of mind are called temporary. And further this clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood, by way of the reflection on the aggregates, bases, processes and conditions. To be sure, here, eye and visible object are materiality-aggregate; seeing is consciousness-aggregate; feeling that is associated with seeing is feeling-aggregate; perceiving is perception-aggregate, and those beginning with sense-impression are formation-aggregate. Thus looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these five aggregates. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? [T] Seeing = Eye-consciousness [cakkhuviññanam]. By reason of knowing the acts of looking straight on and of looking away from the front in that way only as "eye-consciousness", adverting and the rest are left out, as bare seeing only is in "eye-consciousness" [tassa vaseneva alokana vilokana paññayananto avajjanadinam agahanam]. [T] Separate from that fivefold aggregate, who, singly, looks straight on? Who, singly, looks away from the front? None, singly, only by oneself indeed, looks straight on, and none, singly, only by oneself, looks away from the front -- this reply is intended to be given to the questions. 20438 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:15pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Sarah, You make a good point about clear comprehension of resort. I hadn't picked up on it being gocara. I agree cc of resort would be whatever the object of mindfulness is but I wonder what is it not if it is whatever happens to be in your mind? These guys seemed to be very strict about not straying from the object. Would it be better to say not straying from satipatthana? Larry 20439 From: Darcy Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 4:52pm Subject: Hi... Greetings to all, My name is Darcy, and I just wanted to introduce myself to the group. I'm a non-traditional university student studying history and languages. I enjoy all of your posts immensely, they are wise and compassionate. I'm a beginner, but I've learned a great deal, both from posts here and on a few other groups I joined. Thank you. :-) Metta, Darcy 20440 From: Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 5:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Hi Dharam and Nina, Your discussion reminds me of something I just read. Another reason for disillusionment is insight. In anapanasati there is contemplation of relinquishment: Visuddhimagga VIII 236: Contemplating relinquishment is of two kinds, that is to say, relinquishment as giving up, and relnquishment as entering into. Relinquishment itself as [a way of] contemplation is 'contemplation of relinquishment'. For insight is called both 'relinquishment as giving up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' since [firstly] through substitution of opposite qualities it gives up defilements with their aggregate-producing kamma formations, and [secondly], through seeing the wretchedness of what is formed, it also enters into nibbana by inclining towards nibbana, which is the opposite of the formed. Also the path is called both 'relinquishment as giving up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' since it gives up defilements with their aggregate-producing kamma-formations by cutting them off, and it enters into nibbana by making it its object. Also, Visuddhimagga I,12: Likewise the means for surmounting the states of loss is shown by "Virtue"; the means for surmounting the element of sense desires by "Concentration"; and the means for surmounting all becoming by "Understanding". And the abandoning of the defilements by substitution of opposites is shown by "Virtue"; that by suppression is shown by "Concentration"; and that by cutting off is shown by "Understanding". Larry 20442 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 63, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Larry, --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > You make a good point about clear comprehension of resort. I hadn't > picked up on it being gocara. ..... See another note from Nina written last month below on this for more details. ..... >I agree cc of resort would be whatever the > object of mindfulness is but I wonder what is it not if it is whatever > happens to be in your mind? ..... It must be a reality which is the object of satipatthana at that moment. It is not a concept (eg whilst day-dreaming or proliferating in thought),nor is it a reality that is unknown - eg a sound or visible object of which there is no awareness. ..... >These guys seemed to be very strict about > not straying from the object. Would it be better to say not straying > from satipatthana? ..... Often that would be so. There are also many references to samatha and in those instances the gocara (field, resort, object) is the concept usually and object of samatha. So one has to check the context carefully. I don't have the text for the reference you raised in front of me now. I think this is a good topic to pursue and relevant to daily life. Let me know how it sounds to date, Larry. Metta, Sarah ===== Nina’s earlier post: > "The Way of Mindfulness" by Soma Thera, Commentary, The Section on the > Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension, p. 61 > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html > There are these four kinds of comprehension: clear comprehension of > purpose [satthaka sampajañña], of suitability [sappaya > sampajañña], of resort [gocara sampajañña], and of non-delusion > [asammoha sampajañña]. > The clear comprehension of the (mental) > resort which is called the subject of meditation that is unrelinquished, > in going backwards and forwards on the alms resort and elsewhere, is the > clear comprehension of resort. Nina: gocara sampajañña, gocara is the object of right understanding. Any object appearing through the six doors, this is the kammatthana. As we read:< the subject of meditation that is unrelinquished,in going backwards and forwards>. Here, in this case, the monk does not sit, closes his eyes and concentrates. The monk is going about. We study the Co so that we have more understanding of what is implied in the sutta. I think we should not forget the sutta text when studying thecommentary and frequently go back to it. I am inclined to forget this. ================================================ 20443 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 10:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Mike & Dharam (and others), > -----Original Message----- > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:12 AM > > > D: It seems that other > > teachings also have suffering and its > resolution/salvation as > > important endeavors. > > D: Also, addressing the unsatisfactoriness of > > this existence is presumably one reason for the > popularity of so many > > (all?) religious teachings. > > > D: However, if this unsatisfactory state > > of affairs is only defined as in the four noble > truths, then > > implicitly they are unique to Buddhadhama. > > Actually, unsatisfacoriness (dukkha) is, I think, > the only of the four noble > truths that fits in fairly well with the > understanding of suffering to be > found in other teachings (well--minus the five > aggregates bit): > From the text, we learn that the first two noble truths are hard to know, because they are profound. Don't you find this statement to be interesting? What's so hard to know about death being suffering, illness being suffering, parting with the beloved is suffering, or that attachment brings sufferings? I think most people in this group would agree to this without discussions. What's hard? What's profound? The truth of suffering, as taught by the Buddha, is profound beyond the conventional suffering that we understand, and what other wise people may have noticed. This is a truth taught only by a Sammasam-buddha, the Enlightened one, the Perfected one. Right now, the truth of suffering is going on all around us, do we know them as they truly are? Seeing is suffering. Do we know it, truly, that seeing is suffering? Happiness is suffering. How is that a suffering? Hey, we all learn and understand that seeing doesn't last, which is why it is suffering. But the understanding at the thinking level alone doesn't bring us closer to nibbana. We must know the truth as it truly is. But what is this truth? When we study the teaching of the Buddha, we are studying sacca dhamma, the ultimate, absolute truth. The truth is ultimate for it is indisputable, by way of having its own distinct characteristic. Anger is anger is anger, and never kindness or righteousness. We are studying what is real, what cannot be denied. What kind of "truth" can be denied? What kind of truth cannot? For example, I live in America, therefore, I am a free man (this example often brings me sniggering...). Is being this free man a truth that cannot be denied? An anarchist probably would laugh at this statement. How can I be free with all the constraints placed on me by the laws? (And what part of this 5 aggregates that I call a man anyway?) The truth as taught by the Buddha is not subjective like this truth. Not only the Buddha's truth cannot be denied, it absolutely exists in nature. This is not like logical truth or mathematical truth. We may learn to accept unquestionably that 1+1=2, but this kind of truth is not the profound truth taught by the Buddha. The Buddha taught about the absolute truths that appear to us everyday, yet we don't know what they are, making the truth of suffering (and its cause) very profound. What is absolute truth? The 5 kandhas, the sense bases (ayatana), and the elements (dhatus) are. When we begin to understand what the Buddha teaches, how subtle they are, and how very little we really know about them, then we begin to appreciate why the truth of suffering is profound and unique to the Buddha's teachings. kom 20444 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 20, 2003 11:14pm Subject: Re: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Hi Howard, Good to see you around again;-) --- upasaka@a... wrote:> > Formulations aside, I'd like to pursue a bit the object of > bhavanga > cittas, said to be the object of rebirth consciousness. > Exactly what sort of "object" is this which, even when > experienced by > the cittas in a lengthy process of bhavanga cittas, is unobserved? What > sort > of object of consciousness is it that one is not conscious of? ..... Of course, the bhavanga cittas are ‘conscious’ of the object, but as I understand, it is never taken as object of sati except of course for the Buddha and I’ve no idea whether anyone else. Someone may know. Details of the different kinds of object are given in the texts - I can add more detail later if you’re interested or Rob M may. ..... It > strikes me > that if there is any validity to this notion, then bhavanga cittas must > correspond to what Psychology since Jung and Freud has called > "subconscious". ..... I don’t think so. Bhavanga cittas are not “subconscious” and don’t last or arise at the same time or under the surface of other cittas. A stream of cittas that is interrupted by a sense-door or mind-door process is a way they are often presented. ..... > If this is so, it occurs to me that there might be a relation between > this > topic and that of groups of co-occurring rupas, or "kalapas". ..... This is another topic again. Rupas are only experienced during the sense-door and mind-door processes so are not experienced by the bhavanga cittas. There are always relations or interconnectedness, i.e reasons for the exact sequence and arising of various cittas and rupas experienced, but not the kind of relationship you’re implying as far as I know. > **************************************************** > Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the > discernment of > a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > > single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the > occasion of > a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - > the > discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all > but > one are subliminal? ..... I wouldn’t put it this way. Like with the tree outside your window when there is no looking, one cannot say the rupas are subliminal. Simply, there are no conditions for seeing to see that visible object, or body consciousness to feel the hardness of the tree and so on. In the same way, rupas arising are supported by other rupas in a kalapa, but it depends on conditions what is experienced at any given moment. In the Way corner recently we read about the predominance of certain rupas whilst walking- eg predominance of earth element whilst lowering the foot and air element while lifting it. It just depends whether there is any awareness of what ‘appears’, but the rupas arise and fall regardless. You ask some other detailed qus on odour and colour, but I need to check your other post first and get back later (unless someone else like ~KOM~ can help out in the meantime) because I’m out of time til the beginning of next week. Howard, I’m delighted to see your keen consideration of this important but complex points. I’m afraid this is a bit rushed as I have students due any minute. Pls let us know how this sounds so far anyway. Hope you and Rita are not missing baby Sarah too much if you’re back in NY;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20445 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:02am Subject: Madhura and Ghotamukha Suttas Dear Group, I wondered when I read the Madhura sutta MN 84 and the Ghotamukha Sutta MN 94 how they came to be included in the Majjhima Nikaya if they were composed after the Buddha's passing? Are there others like this? They both begin with the words "(Evam me suttam) Thus have I heard ..." which was, I thought, an authentication of the text and signified suttas heard from the lips of the Blessed One. Am I on the wrong track? metta, Christine 20446 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:03am Subject: Re: New poll for dhammastudygroup Hi, The poll is deleted upon moderators' request. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dsgmods" wrote: > Victor > > Polls such as this are off-topic for DSG. Grateful if you would > delete it. Thanks. > > This thread is now closed. Any comments off-list only, please. > > Jon & Sarah 20447 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:18am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I find your message interesting and wonder if you can clarify the following points: 1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? 2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Mike & Dharam (and others), > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: m. nease [mailto:mlnease@z...] > > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 9:12 AM > > > > > D: It seems that other > > > teachings also have suffering and its > > resolution/salvation as > > > important endeavors. > > > > D: Also, addressing the unsatisfactoriness of > > > this existence is presumably one reason for the > > popularity of so many > > > (all?) religious teachings. > > > > > > D: However, if this unsatisfactory state > > > of affairs is only defined as in the four noble > > truths, then > > > implicitly they are unique to Buddhadhama. > > > > Actually, unsatisfacoriness (dukkha) is, I think, > > the only of the four noble > > truths that fits in fairly well with the > > understanding of suffering to be > > found in other teachings (well--minus the five > > aggregates bit): > > > > From the text, we learn that the first two noble truths are > hard to know, because they are profound. Don't you find > this statement to be interesting? What's so hard to know > about death being suffering, illness being suffering, > parting with the beloved is suffering, or that attachment > brings sufferings? I think most people in this group would > agree to this without discussions. What's hard? What's > profound? > > The truth of suffering, as taught by the Buddha, is profound > beyond the conventional suffering that we understand, and > what other wise people may have noticed. This is a truth > taught only by a Sammasam-buddha, the Enlightened one, the > Perfected one. > > Right now, the truth of suffering is going on all around us, > do we know them as they truly are? Seeing is suffering. Do > we know it, truly, that seeing is suffering? Happiness is > suffering. How is that a suffering? Hey, we all learn and > understand that seeing doesn't last, which is why it is > suffering. But the understanding at the thinking level > alone doesn't bring us closer to nibbana. We must know the > truth as it truly is. But what is this truth? > > When we study the teaching of the Buddha, we are studying > sacca dhamma, the ultimate, absolute truth. The truth is > ultimate for it is indisputable, by way of having its own > distinct characteristic. Anger is anger is anger, and never > kindness or righteousness. We are studying what is real, > what cannot be denied. > > What kind of "truth" can be denied? What kind of truth > cannot? For example, I live in America, therefore, I am a > free man (this example often brings me sniggering...). Is > being this free man a truth that cannot be denied? An > anarchist probably would laugh at this statement. How can I > be free with all the constraints placed on me by the laws? > (And what part of this 5 aggregates that I call a man > anyway?) The truth as taught by the Buddha is not > subjective like this truth. > > Not only the Buddha's truth cannot be denied, it absolutely > exists in nature. This is not like logical truth or > mathematical truth. We may learn to accept unquestionably > that 1+1=2, but this kind of truth is not the profound truth > taught by the Buddha. The Buddha taught about the absolute > truths that appear to us everyday, yet we don't know what > they are, making the truth of suffering (and its cause) very > profound. What is absolute truth? The 5 kandhas, the sense > bases (ayatana), and the elements (dhatus) are. When we > begin to understand what the Buddha teaches, how subtle they > are, and how very little we really know about them, then we > begin to appreciate why the truth of suffering is profound > and unique to the Buddha's teachings. > > kom 20448 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: A Reply --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > This letter (No:20206) explains better, but what do > you mean by writing too fast? Also you write "just a > bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but > will be something else later on." Please explain this. > > Janet Hi Star Kid Janet! I am glad that you understand better from my other letter; but I see now you are going to put me to a big test! I was hoping that you wouldn't ask me to explain the phrase, "just a bundle of conditions that appears to be a person but will be something else later on," and I am not sure if I will be able to in a way you will understand, but I will try. This is a very difficult thing to explain using simple words. Regarding your first question, about me writing quickly, if I write very quickly I use big words that have a lot of meaning for each word. This is just being lazy on my part because it allows me to use fewer words and to not have to explain things in fine detail. I can assume that the reader's mind will put together what I haven't bothered to explain. This works great with adults because they blame themselves if they don't understand the message ;-), but it doesn't work with kids because they blame the writer for not being specific enough…which is where the blame really belongs. I forgot this and wrote too fast in a few of the letters to the Star Kids. I will stop doing that. However, sometimes an idea or concept is so complicated and hard to understand that it is very difficult to explain using simple words. This concept that you ask about is like that, but I will try my best to only use simple words. Janet, I am sure that you have learned that our solar system has different planets in it. You could probably even tell me the nine planets by name. And I hope that you also know that the only planet with living creatures and plants on it is Earth. Do you know why it is the only planet with life on it? Because it is the only planet that has all of the right conditions for life: not too close or too far from the sun, oxygen, and water. All of these things are the conditions that allow for life to be on this planet. If you took one of those conditions away, there would be no more life on this planet. But the story doesn't end there because there are also conditions that allow for each individual person, plant, and animal to exist. You can kind of think of yourself, your parents, and your friends just like they are individual planets, planets that can think and feel, but still planets that exist because of certain conditions. Now, do you know why there are planets? There are planets because energy comes together, in the form of matter (like dirt), and it creates gravity. This gravity attracts other energy in the form of matter, more and more, and it will eventually create a whole planet. Well, according to Buddhism, what forms people (and plants and animals) is ignorance. What happens is that energy comes together and it is a special type of energy that has awareness. When it has this awareness it may perceive of itself that it isn't energy that came together at all, it sees itself as a complete and lasting thing which shouldn't end. It doesn't want to end. This is the ignorance of that energy. This ignorance will attract other energy that forms the body, mind and feelings. According to Buddhism, this ignorance will create five things that made up the person: form (body), feeling, perception, fabrications (thoughts), and consciousness. But, just as planets don't last forever, but gravity does if given the right conditions, our bodies don't last forever, but the ignorance that created them can continue on. This ignorance will create body after body until it finally sees itself for what it truly is…and what it truly is is `no self' (anatta). When it sees this, the ignorance that formed body after body stops, and the awareness of this energy knows Nibbana (enlightenment) and will then be aware of everything in the universe. Okay, this is quite a bit of information I realize. What the Buddha taught is that this cannot be really known with the ignorant mind, it has to be seen directly with pure awareness. That is the only way to stop the ignorance and become free. I am not sure if you are going to understand this explanation, but if you don't that is okay. Maybe one day you will. Take care and study hard in school. Love, James 20449 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 7:37am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:18 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > I find your message interesting and wonder if you > can clarify the > following points: > > 1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? > > 2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? > > Regards, > Victor > The original message already has my understanding on the two questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding the conventional truth of suffering would be: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I think most people, regardless of what belief they have, would agree to these statements. kom 20450 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Nina, I would be delighted to learn more about 'what is dhamma?'. You correctly sense that I learn best from basics precepts, partly because the fundamentals show through the clearest, at least to my slow mind. However, I hope it is not too tedious for you, and others on dsg. I don't want to hold others back, or cause frustration. N: I am just thinking of one aspect, one reason for disillusionment: it takes a long time of development and when people do not see any result they become impatient. D: Impatience may indeed be an important cause of disillusionment. Perhaps those who feel this can chime in with what they think is operating. Nina, I ought to clarify that I myself have not felt disillusionment or impatience, with any of the different understandings, including the Dhamma, that I have been fortunate to come across. It occurs that dis-illusion-ment is itself actually an important precept of all the religions arising from advanced Indian minds. All of them emphasize the necessity of shedding illusions of samsara! They do use different approaches. Some observers emphasize the differences, some the similarities. [Perhaps the words disgruntlement or disappointment are better than disillusionment in the context of my earlier observation about recent messages on dsg? Sorry for the nomenclatural clumsiness!] With respect, u.w. dharam 20451 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:06am Subject: Re: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Hi, Sarah - In a message dated 3/21/03 2:15:31 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > Howard, I’m delighted to see your keen consideration of this important but > complex points. I’m afraid this is a bit rushed as I have students due any > minute. Pls let us know how this sounds so far anyway. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand and appreciate your reply. It points out to me a possible area in which the Abhidhamma "position" might not be a phenomenalist one, which is, of course, a fact that is interesting to me. ------------------------------------------------ > > Hope you and Rita are not missing baby Sarah too much if you’re back in > NY;-) > ========================= We ARE missing her. (But we'll manage! ;-) 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) 20452 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:07am Subject: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Sarah, Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful response. I agree that gaining and relinquishing demonstrate a preoccupation with self. That is the correct diagnosis, but clinging is probably present in most people trying to make their way in various religions. The pity is that their not fully understanding this factor may prevent them from going the 'full distance', and therefore prematurely jump ship. I like the extension of the gardener analogy to diminishing blindness - it helpfully further develops the model. I think it is a useful representation of the journey fo understanding. I think I hold more utility for describing structure to the blind than you may, particularly if it tries to represent 'reality' and therefore prevent the blind person from bumping, tripping or slamming into some of those 'realities'. S: When it comes to the development of understanding of the Buddha's Teachings, there is no self that can control the process, no one to sign a deal with and no consent to be given. As people have been discussing, most of us come from different religious and cultural backgrounds and are here discussing the Dhamma in spite of other intentions, agreements and in spite of periods of disillusionment, despair and so on. D: I (think I)understand what you say about Anatta here. However, how many really pursue the Buddha's Teachings with that clearly in perspective all along? I do not mean to underestimate others, but ask this question honestly and humbly. There is a necessary distance between theory and practice until the later stages. It is during these earlier stages, where the risk for disgruntlement may arise. I have not found the Buddha's teachings dry or joyless, so it is a little difficult for me to comment accurately why others may feel this, although I would be interested to find out their views. It may be that many people approach religions (this and others) looking for refuge. My point is just that, they risk disgruntlement, if there is not some degree of understanding about the necessary changes in mentality in seeking that refuge. Sarah, thanks for a very stimulating and instructive conversation. metta u.w. dharam 20453 From: bodhi342 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:20am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Hi Larry, Perfect!! Thank you very, very much for these passages. This is crystal clear and just right. It clarifies relinquishing, in the final sense, but also the prior contemplation of it. Great. u.w. dharam --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Dharam and Nina, > > Your discussion reminds me of something I just read. Another reason for > disillusionment is insight. In anapanasati there is contemplation of > relinquishment: > > Visuddhimagga VIII 236: Contemplating relinquishment is of two kinds, > that is to say, relinquishment as giving up, and relnquishment as > entering into. Relinquishment itself as [a way of] contemplation is > 'contemplation of relinquishment'. For insight is called both > 'relinquishment as giving up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' > since [firstly] through substitution of opposite qualities it gives up > defilements with their aggregate-producing kamma formations, and > [secondly], through seeing the wretchedness of what is formed, it also > enters into nibbana by inclining towards nibbana, which is the opposite > of the formed. Also the path is called both 'relinquishment as giving > up' and 'relinquishment as entering into' since it gives up defilements > with their aggregate-producing kamma-formations by cutting them off, and > it enters into nibbana by making it its object. > > Also, > > Visuddhimagga I,12: Likewise the means for surmounting the states of > loss is shown by "Virtue"; the means for surmounting the element of > sense desires by "Concentration"; and the means for surmounting all > becoming by "Understanding". > > And the abandoning of the defilements by substitution of opposites is > shown by "Virtue"; that by suppression is shown by "Concentration"; and > that by cutting off is shown by "Understanding". > > Larry 20454 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi, Kom (and Victor) - In a message dated 3/21/03 10:40:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > > Dear Victor, > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > >Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:18 AM > >To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > >Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > > > >Hi Kom, > > > >I find your message interesting and wonder if you > >can clarify the > >following points: > > > >1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? > > > >2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? > > > >Regards, > >Victor > > > > The original message already has my understanding on the two > questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out > what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, > or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding > the conventional truth of suffering would be: > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, > pain, grief, &despair are dukkha; association with the > unbeloved is dukkha; > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is > wanted is dukkha. > > These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I > think most people, regardless of what belief they have, > would agree to these statements. > > kom > > > ============================= It occurs to me that there is something a bit unclear in the the use of the terms 'conventional truth' and 'conventional speech'. The reason is that *all* speech is conventional. Every language and all language usage is a convention or set of conventions. And any "truth" is a declarative statement in a language that, in some sense, is understood, by convention, by common agreement, to accord with "the way things are". So, I think that the notions of conventional speech and conventional truth need to be pursued and clarified a bit. It does seem that one can make a distinction, though some will doubt this, between merely imagined phenomena that are the intended referents of well grounded but mind-constructed notions such as trees, cars, people, houses, systems of philosophy, religions, and, in fact, all the supposed entities that we seem to experience and think about all the time, on the one hand, and actually and directly experienced phenomena such as images, sounds, textures, feelings, etc out of which the mind constructs the aforementioned entity-ideas, on the other hand. If one agrees to this, then it makes sense to speak of sammuti-dhammas (the well grounded but not-actually existent phenomena that make up out world! ;-), versus the paramattha-dhammas that are actual and direct elements of experience. Now we can and do have concepts and words for "objects" of both types. Perhaps we can then define conventional speech (sammuti-sacca) to be speech making use of sammuti-dhamma terms, and conventional truths to be conventional-speech statements that are true. The trouble with this, however, is that it seems that *all* of our speech will involve at least *some* talk of sammuti-dhammas, and, thus, all speech and all truth, as defined here, is at least in part conventional. 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) 20455 From: Frank Kuan Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:46am Subject: Re: [Pali] sanna, perception, aperception, consciousness cognizing I re-discovered a great passage in the M today: M43 mahavedalla (greater series of q & a) p. 389 b.bodhi version: "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between then. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is impossible to separate each of these states from the others in order to describe the difference between them." also, on p. 388, on the section of consciousness: "what does it cognize? It cognizes 'this is pleasant'; it cognizes: 'this is painful'; it cognizes: 'this is neither painful nor pleasant' commnent: Seems like the sutta is implying the primary function of vinnana is to differentiate the 3 types of feeling, rather than just a bare awareness of the 6 types of external media coming into contact with the 6 internal sense organs. 20456 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 7 Perfections Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 7 We read in the ³Paramatthadípaní², the Commentary to the ³Verses of Uplift² (Udåna), Khuddaka Nikåya, the following explanation of this Sutta [6] : ... Or else there is no one who is clean, no being said to be purified from the stain of evil, through the aforementioned water. Why? Or abundant folk would bathe here. For were there that which is known as purity from evil through submersion in the water and so on as aforementioned, abundant folk would bathe here in the water, just as there would be purity from evil for them all- for the one performing evil acts such as matricide and so on, as well as for any other (creature) upwards from and including fish and tortoises even, such as cows and buffaloes and so forth; but this is not the case. Why? On account of bathing not being an opponent of the root-causes of evil. For surely (something can only be said to be) an opponent of that which it destroys, as is light that of darkness, and knowledge that of ignorance- bathing being no such (opponent) of evil. Therefore the conclusion has to be reached that ³There is no being clean through water². He then says ³In whom there be truth² and so on to indicate the means by which there is, rather, being clean. Herein, In whom (yamhi): in the person in whom. There be truth (saccam): there be both telling the truth and truth as abstinence (from lying speech). Or alternatively there be that which is true (saccam): there be both that which is true in the form of knowledge and that which is true in its highest sense [7] . Dhamma (dhammo): Dhamma in the form of the ariyan paths and Dhamma in the form of their fruitions; in the person in whom all of this is discovered- that is the one who is clean and that is the one who is the brahmin (so suci so ca bråhmano): that ariyapuggala, especially the one in whom the åsavas have been destroyed, is the one who, by way of a purity that is perpetual, clean and the brahmin. But why, in this connection, is truth included separately from Dhamma? On account of the fact of truth being of great service. For instance, the virtues of truth are made manifest in countless sutta passages. The Commentary then refers to different sutta passages, such as: ³Truth is indeed the Deathless word²; ³Truth is, for sure, the sweetest of flavours²; ³In truth, and in the goal and in the Dhamma, are the good established²; and ³Whilst brahmin recluses stationed in the truth² and so on; whilst that which is the converse of the truth is made manifest by way of ³For the person who has transgressed, who is of lying speech, who gets not (even) one thing right² and ³The one who speaks of what did not take place goes to hell² and so forth. The perfection of truthfulness should be developed together with paññå so that the noble Truths can be realized. We need courage so that we are diligent and turn away immediately from akusala. If we are too slow in turning away from akusala, it will later on become more difficult or even too late to do so, as must have happened life after life. Footnotes: 6. This is the Commentary of Achåriya Dhammapala, translated by P. Masefield. Dhammapala is the author of several Commentaries and Subcommentaries, including those to the Commentaries of Buddhaghosa. 7. Truth of paññå, ñåna saccam, and paramattha saccam, ultimate truth. 20457 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear James, newcomers and other friends, James, I appreciate the info you gave about Buddhaghosa. It is very nice you did that although you are not a fan of Buddhaghosa. It is useful for the newcomers. You wrote:< I hope it will put to bed some issues and confusions surrounding me and my posts.> I would like you to feel confortable and at ease on this list. Do not think of hornels anymore. I want you to feel safe. I just have an observation. You wrote: I think you refer to English editions here, not to Pali. Because I have the whole Sumangala Vilaasinii in Pali here at hand. I have several other co in Pali and quite a number in Thai. He wrote or rather compiled, commentaries to the whole of the Suttanta, the Vinaya, and to the Abhidhamma pitaka. I wholeheartedly agree with what you say: you have to check for yourself what you learn from the scriptures and commentaries. More important than any historical argument. For me the outcome is the opposite to what you experience, but that does not matter. ______________________ This may be of some interest to the newcomers: The more I study the more benefit I get also from the commentaries. I did not know this before, but now with my Pali study I read more and more commentary. For me personally it is an enormous help and reminder for awareness of the elements, the khandhas, the aayatanas, and these are in fact only mental phenomena, nama, and physical phenomena, rupa. So often a sutta passage is very short and may not be clear. I take up the Co and it is clarified. As I said before: surprises every day. Sutta reading is not easy, they are impressive but very compact. I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the Abhidhamma and without the development of vipassana, even if it is only a beginning. And without the commentaries, I see them all in conformity with each other, more and more. At first I did not read commentaries, but in Thailand the suttas are edited each followed by its commentary. I started to buy them every time I was in Thailand. Acharn Sujin, my good friend in the Dhamma in Thailand, also quoted a lot from Co and subco, and gradually I saw their benefit. I did not mean to get so involved with my Pali study and the Pali yahoo list, but it just happened by conditions. Does not everything we think and do proceed according to conditions? And we never know the future. _______________________ James, as I said before, I like very much the way you explain to the Starkids what Buddhism is all about. I am thinking of the newcomers here who might be overwhelmed by Pali terms we use. What you say is very basic. With appreciation, Nina. op 20-03-2003 22:02 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > > I am going to try to explain something to you about me. I don't use > the same criteria you do for determining if something is true or > not. When it comes to these difficult issues, these matters that > are `sublime' and `hard to grasp', I use my instincts to determine > the truth or reliability of an issue or the speaker of an issue. I > have had the ability, since a young boy, to know when someone is > lying or not, to know when someone is wise or not, to know when > someone is `faking it' or not. I can determine this strongest > through a person's writing because, to me, the writing connects > directly to the person, and, more importantly, the > craving/desire/emotion of the person when he/she was writing it or > speaking it. Even if the person who wrote the material is dead, that > doesn't matter because this instinct isn't limited by time or space. > I connect with how the person was when it was written or spoken, no > matter where or when it was written or spoken. For these reasons, I > know when something is right or wrong…I can just feel it. Later, > using analysis and evidence to support my feelings, I can sometimes > back this up…sometimes I can't. When it comes to these higher > matters that the Buddha taught, sometimes you just have to feel it… > there is no way to support it with reasoning, arguments, or > evidence. Much of what I read from Buddhaghosa feels wrong to me… > written in Pali or not. He was attempting to explain, with logic, > things beyond him and, actually, matters beyond language. He knew > this but kept going anyway. You may find comfort and meaning in his > writings, but I don't. They make me uncomfortable to the extreme. > Like I said previously, let us each just believe what we want. Take > care. > > Metta, James > > ps. Of course others may speak for or against Buddhaghosa, and that > is fine. But this will be the last I have to say about it. 20458 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: groups of rupa Dear Howard, I appreciate it that you study rupas thoroughly. See below. op 20-03-2003 14:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > The four Great elements and these four derived rupas which always arise > together are called the ³inseparable rupas² (in Pali: avinibbhoga rupas). > Wherever there is solidity, there also have to be cohesion, temperature, > motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. As regards visible > object or colour, this is a rupa arising with every kind of materiality. It > is that which is experienced through the eye-door. It is not a thing or a > person. Visible object is the only rupa which can be seen. > **************************************************** > Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the discernment of > a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the occasion of > a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - the > discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all but > one are subliminal? N: Right, only one rupa at a time is object. Rupas do not float in the air, they do not arise singly. Colour for instance needs the support of the four great elements and other rupas. For example solidity is needed as the foundation of colour. The other rupas in that group are not experienced. I would not use the word subliminal. They are by conditions not objects. It is amazing that certain conditions concur so that a particular object is experienced. For the experience of colour there has to be the coming together of colour and eyesense at the right moment. That is, eyesense rupa must have only just arisen before and still lasting for several moments before it falls away. The same for colour. By conditions these come together and then there is seeing. And the rupas that coarise with colour are not experienced, although they are in one group. H: I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas > in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our > experience doesn't seem to bear that out. (If we close our nostrils, so that > there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is > being claimed here. N: We should reduce the qu to: why are there these particular rupas in one kalapa. It has helped me to think in the conventional term of table, this is just an illustration. Table consists of many groups of rupa. When touched, there is the right condition for tangible object: three of the four great elements: solidity, temperature and motion. When I lick the table there is flavour, when smelling, there is odour. There is nutrition: woodworms can eat it. There is colour: the colour can be seen. There is cohesion: it holds the rupas of the table together. Eight kinds of rupas. In the body there are also groups consisting of more than eight. Eyesense is produced by kamma, and it has more than eight. But as I said, only one of them can be experienced at a time. Each citta can experience one object. Either odor, or visible object, or hardness, it all depends on conditions. It is not possible to know all the reasons for what is happening. Kamma conditions you to have this or that experience through one of the senses. it may not be the right time for seeing, but it may be time for hearing. Nina. 20459 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Lars, op 20-03-2003 21:23 schreef Lars op khandha5@g...: > > one thing is, that Buddhaghosa according to his own words never had > an enlightenment experience, N: I understood this also. Still, I find Buddhaghosa's compilations of old material most helpful, as I wrote. You can see the Co to Rahulovaadasutta I trnls. bit by bit, and next week about sila, samadhi, panna. Nina. 20460 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Larry, op 21-03-2003 02:23 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > Your discussion reminds me of something I just read. Another reason for > disillusionment is insight. In anapanasati there is contemplation of > relinquishment: N: these are the highest insight knowledges, result of a long, long development. Shall we not rather keep it simple: what is dhamma in our life now? If we do not overreach no reason for disillusionment. Nina 20461 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:32am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I think what you stated is the Noble Truth of suffering. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 5:18 AM > > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > > > > Hi Kom, > > > > I find your message interesting and wonder if you > > can clarify the > > following points: > > > > 1. What does it mean by conventional suffering? > > > > 2. In what ways is the truth of suffering profound? > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > > The original message already has my understanding on the two > questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out > what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, > or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding > the conventional truth of suffering would be: > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, > pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the > unbeloved is dukkha; > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is > wanted is dukkha. > > These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I > think most people, regardless of what belief they have, > would agree to these statements. > > kom 20462 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 5:39am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: [Pali] sanna, perception, aperception, consciousness cognizing Hi, Frank - In a message dated 3/21/03 12:47:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, fcckuan@y... writes: > I re-discovered a great passage in the M today: > > M43 mahavedalla (greater series of q &a) > > p. 389 b.bodhi version: > > "Feeling, perception, and consciousness, friend - > these states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > then. For what one feels, that one perceives; and what > one perceives, that one cognizes. That is why these > states are conjoined, not disjoined, and it is > impossible to separate each of these states from the > others in order to describe the difference between > them." > > also, on p. 388, on the section of consciousness: > "what does it cognize? It cognizes 'this is pleasant'; > it cognizes: 'this is painful'; it cognizes: 'this is > neither painful nor pleasant' > > commnent: > Seems like the sutta is implying the primary function > of vinnana is to differentiate the 3 types of feeling, > rather than just a bare awareness of the 6 types of > external media coming into contact with the 6 internal > sense organs. > ============================ I'm not so sure about this. In dependent arising, we have the following: vi~n~nana -> namarupa -> salayatana -> phassa -> vedana Also, elsewhere, in the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, we have vi~n~nana and namarupa being mutually dependent; so vi~n~nana would be the discernment of any materiality or mentality, and not just feelings. Actually, vi~n~nana emerges and reemerges multiple times within a short span of time, now discerning sights, now sounds, and now feelings, thoughts, inclinations and other objects through the mind door. Also, from the Honeyball Sutta, there is the following: "Dependent on eye & forms, eye-consciousness arises. The meeting of the three is contact. With contact as a requisite condition, there is feeling. What one feels, one perceives (labels in the mind). What one perceives, one thinks about. What one thinks about, one complicates. Based on what a person complicates, the perceptions & categories of complication assail him/her with regard to past, present, & future forms cognizable via the eye." Now in this case, and this may relate to the sutta you quoted, we have the conditionality-chain: feeling -> perception (or recognition) -> thinking. It seems to me that the feeling arose from an initial discernment (as in the paticcasamupada-chain I gave at the beginning of this post), but the thinking mentioned here involves a reemergence of discernment through the mind-door and which takes as object the original one but now affected by vedana - and that will result in subseqent craving (or aversion) for the object. 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) 20463 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 11:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom and all, In addition to the last message, I don't think the word "conventional" or "ultimate" is an accurate modifier for the Four Noble Truths. The four Truths: the truth of dukkha, the truth of the cause of dukkha, the truth of the cessation of dukkha, the truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha, are noble. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Kom, > > I think what you stated is the Noble Truth of suffering. > > Regards, > Victor > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > Dear Victor, [snip] > > > > The original message already has my understanding on the two > > questions you asked above. It would be helpful to find out > > what you either disagree on, what you may be puzzling about, > > or what you would like to expand on. For example, expanding > > the conventional truth of suffering would be: > > > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > > lamentation, > > pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the > > unbeloved is dukkha; > > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is > > wanted is dukkha. > > > > These truths, as readily understood, are conventional. I > > think most people, regardless of what belief they have, > > would agree to these statements. > > > > kom 20464 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 0:06pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James, newcomers and other friends, Hi Nina, I will reply in-text to your comments: Dear James, newcomers and other friends, James, I appreciate the info you gave about Buddhaghosa. It is very nice you did that although you are not a fan of Buddhaghosa. (James: I was asked directly who he was, by a very nice and sincere person, so I obliged with the information. I do not hold grudges against Buddhaghosa, personally; he had his own reasons why he did what he did. I wish that I could make it clear to everyone that when I oppose a person's stance on dhamma issues, I am not opposing him or her as a person. But, yet again, that is an assumption you have made about me. Please don't assume this about me.) It is useful for the newcomers. (James: Yes, so that they may reach their own conclusions. I would never dream of keeping people away from Buddhaghosa because I disagreed with him…on some issues. I encourage people to study him...with a skeptical eye.) You wrote:< I hope it will put to bed some issues and confusions surrounding me and my posts.> I would like you to feel confortable and at ease on this list. Do not think of hornels anymore. I want you to feel safe. (James: I believe that you are sincere, here. That is a start.) I just have an observation. You wrote: I think you refer to English editions here, not to Pali. Because I have the whole Sumangala Vilaasinii in Pali here at hand. I have several other co in Pali and quite a number in Thai. He wrote or rather compiled, commentaries to the whole of the Suttanta, the Vinaya, and to the Abhidhamma pitaka. (James: There is some confusion here. About this information about Buddhaghosa, I didn't write it. I thought I had made this clear by putting it in quote marks with a link to the Internet source at the bottom, but perhaps I should have also introduced the source at the beginning. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Perhaps you can bring up these issues with the author and ask him to change the material on the website after you present your input.) I wholeheartedly agree with what you say: you have to check for yourself what you learn from the scriptures and commentaries. More important than any historical argument. For me the outcome is the opposite to what you experience, but that does not matter. (James: Yes, that does not matter. However, this sentiment doesn't completely correspond with some of what you write in the following section.) ______________________ This may be of some interest to the newcomers: The more I study the more benefit I get also from the commentaries. I did not know this before, but now with my Pali study I read more and more commentary. For me personally it is an enormous help and reminder for awareness of the elements, the khandhas, the aayatanas, and these are in fact only mental phenomena, nama, and physical phenomena, rupa. So often a sutta passage is very short and may not be clear. (James: For those with panna [higher wisdom], it will be clear enough.) I take up the Co and it is clarified. (James: Or misinterpreted...but not always.) As I said before: surprises every day. Sutta reading is not easy, they are impressive but very compact. (James: No one said that Buddhism should be easy. IMO, it is better to struggle individually with each sutta to find meaning rather than going to read what someone else thinks about it…and then assume that their interpretation is correct because it is ancient and written in Pali. You will also be surprised by the depth and the wonders of the suttas and the surprises they can offer everyday. What you don't understand one day, will become amazingly clear on another day.) I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the Abhidhamma (James: This I completely disagree with.) and without the development of vipassana, (James: This I completely agree with. I find this argumentation of the `bait and switch' variety. Which means to present something disagreeable and far-fetched with something easily agreeable and accepted…hoping that the agreement of one will lead to agreement with the other. The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and shouldn't be placed together so casually.) even if it is only a beginning. And without the commentaries, I see them all in conformity with each other, more and more. (James: And why is this bad? The suttas should conform to each other… they are each saying the same things in different ways. Each one is like a microcosm of them all. This is their wisdom…truly understand one and you will understand them all. They are wholistic. The Abhidhamma and commentaries aren't like this. They are linear in thought. Is it possible to describe a non-linear concept in a linear fashion? Personally, I think a great deal is lost when you attempt that.) At first I did not read commentaries, but in Thailand the suttas are edited each followed by its commentary. I started to buy them every time I was in Thailand. Acharn Sujin, my good friend in the Dhamma in Thailand, also quoted a lot from Co and subco, and gradually I saw their benefit. I did not mean to get so involved with my Pali study and the Pali yahoo list, but it just happened by conditions. Does not everything we think and do proceed according to conditions? And we never know the future. _______________________ James, as I said before, I like very much the way you explain to the Starkids what Buddhism is all about. I am thinking of the newcomers here who might be overwhelmed by Pali terms we use. What you say is very basic. (James: Thank you for this compliment. I know what you mean and it doesn't bother me...to be of help, that is.... With appreciation, Nina. Metta, James 20465 From: Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 8:09am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: groups of rupa Hi, Nina - In a message dated 3/21/03 1:26:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, nilo@e... writes: > Dear Howard, > I appreciate it that you study rupas thoroughly. See below. > op 20-03-2003 14:15 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > > >The four Great elements and these four derived rupas which always arise > >together are called the ³inseparable rupas² (in Pali: avinibbhoga rupas). > >Wherever there is solidity, there also have to be cohesion, temperature, > >motion, colour, odour, flavour and nutritive essence. As regards visible > >object or colour, this is a rupa arising with every kind of materiality. > It > >is that which is experienced through the eye-door. It is not a thing or a > >person. Visible object is the only rupa which can be seen. > >**************************************************** > >Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the discernment of > >a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > >single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the occasion > of > >a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > >including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - the > >discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all > but > >one are subliminal? > > N: Right, only one rupa at a time is object. Rupas do not float in the air, > they do not arise singly. Colour for instance needs the support of the four > great elements and other rupas. For example solidity is needed as the > foundation of colour. The other rupas in that group are not experienced. I > would not use the word subliminal. They are by conditions not objects. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I understand all of these things as conditions. But I don't conceive of conditions as just "hanging out" in some alleged external world. I see conditions as arising either as actualities which are discerned or as potentialities for future discernment pending the arising of appropriate conditions supportive of their discernment. These latter presently-unobserved conditions are what I CALL "subliminal", but probably the term 'subliminal' isn't really appropriate. ------------------------------------------------------ > It is amazing that certain conditions concur so that a particular object is > experienced. For the experience of colour there has to be the coming > together of colour and eyesense at the right moment. That is, eyesense rupa > must have only just arisen before and still lasting for several moments > before it falls away. The same for colour. By conditions these come > together > and then there is seeing. And the rupas that coarise with colour are not > experienced, although they are in one group. > H: I also have another question with regard to the co-occurrence of rupas > >in a single kalapa: Why, for example, must odor co-occur with color? Our > >experience doesn't seem to be?r that out. (If we close our nostrils, so > that > >there is no odor, can we no longer see?) I just do not understand what is > >being claimed here. > N: We should reduce the qu to: why are there these particular rupas in one > kalapa. It has helped me to think in the conventional term of table, this is > > just an illustration. Table consists of many groups of rupa. When touched, > there is the right condition for tangible object: three of the four great > elements: solidity, temperature and motion. When I lick the table there is > flavour, when smelling, there is odour. There is nutrition: woodworms can > eat it. There is colour: the colour can be seen. There is cohesion: it > holds > the rupas of the table together. Eight kinds of rupas. In the body there > are > also groups consisting of more than eight. Eyesense is produced by kamma, > and it has more than eight. But as I said, only one of them can be > experienced at a time. Each citta can experience one object. > Either odor, or visible object, or hardness, it all depends on conditions. > It is not possible to know all the reasons for what is happening. Kamma > conditions you to have this or that experience through one of the senses. > it > may not be the right time for seeing, but it may be time for hearing. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: I agree that it can be helpful to think about this matter in terms of a conventional object "out there", such as a table (or that "tree in my garden"! ;-), but it can also be misleading. The conventional object, when based on a well-grounded concept, corresponds to a multitude of interrelated paramattha dhammas, a structured network of interrelated phenomena, but is, in fact, not an existent. The danger in using it to think about kalapas, as I see it, is that it tends to make us believe that such an "object" is a true external existent in which the conditions inhere, whereas the reality (it seems) is merely that the conditions co-occur and are interrelated in lawfully describable ways. It helps me to think about the matter, instead, in terms of co-occurring conditions, some actual (i.e., objects of current discernment) and others potential (awaiting, as it were, the arising of conditions appropriate for their discernment). Perhaps one could think of the potential conditions as not-yet-sprouted kammic seeds. ----------------------------------------------------------- > Nina. > =============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20466 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 1:12pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > NIna:I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the > Abhidhamma > (James: This I completely disagree with.) > >NINA: and without the development of vipassana, > (James: This I completely agree with. I find this argumentation of > the `bait and switch' variety. Which means to present something > disagreeable and far-fetched with something easily agreeable and > accepted…hoping that the agreement of one will lead to agreement with > the other. The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and > shouldn't be placed together so casually.) > > ____________________________ Dear James, Nina didn't explain all the reasons for her statement but I thought you might like to read this extract from a talk bythe venerable Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: """Vipassana is a method of wisdom that searches for truth and peace in diverse ways by observing, inquiring into, and penetrating the nature, the essence, the set order, the absence of being, the selflessness and the ultimately reality of mind and matter. ..... that is, the seeking out and penetration of reality, relies on an ascent through the seven purifications. In both instances, Vipassana and Abhidhamma are identical. Since Vipassana meditation takes the Abhidhamma as its sole object of contemplation, Vipassana and Abhidhamma cannot be separated. And while it may not be said that one can practice Vipassana only after one has mastered the Abhidhamma, Vipassana meditation and the study of Abhidhamma remain one and the same thing. Because mind, mental factors and matter are forever bound up with this fathom-long body, the study and learning of this subject, and the concentrated observation of the nature of mind, mental factors and matter are tasks which cannot be distinguished. Since at the very least one would have to say that there can be no Vipassana without an understanding of mind and matter, surely then it is not possible to separate Abhidhamma and Vipassana.""" http://www.abhidhamma.org/sitagu%20sayadaw.htm RobertK 20467 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:45pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > Dear James, > Nina didn't explain all the reasons for her statement but I thought > you might like to read this extract from a talk bythe venerable > Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: < Hi Robert K., I am aware of this quote by Sayadaw (I think it has been quoted before on this list), and I consider it using the same `bait and switch' technique I described. What is written in the Abhidhamma cannot be directly compared to the direct experience of vipassana, it is ridiculous to even state such a thing with the confidence that Sayadaw presents. It is like stating that the written description of eating a meal is just like the actual experience of eating the meal. They cannot be compared and they are not the same thing. The Lord Buddha didn't say, "Listen Monks, you have a choice. You can either meditate and experience reality directly, or you can read the Abhidhamma and get the same experience. I know that some of you aren't keen on meditation, so I am going to give you this choice." It really doesn't work that way. There are no short-cuts. Thank you for pointing this out, however; and I don't mean to imply that you or Nina are purposefully trying to mislead people. But I believe you are doing just that unintentionally. I will present an alternative viewpoint and then we can let members decide for themselves. Metta, James 20468 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 2:58pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 11:04 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom and all, > > In addition to the last message, I don't think the > word "conventional" or "ultimate" is an accurate modifier for the > Four Noble Truths. > > The four Truths: the truth of dukkha, the truth of the cause of > dukkha, the truth of the cessation of dukkha, the truth of the way > leading to the cessation of dukkha, are noble. > > Regards, > Victor > I think it is not merely words we want to distinguish, it is the understanding that we aim to bring about. In that sense, I think Howard's explanation elucidates the distinctions between what we can say as conventional and as paramatha. What do you think, Victor? Do you disagree with what Howard explains? Do you disagree on the labelling, or the content, or both? kom 20469 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:13pm Subject: RE: Bhavanga Cittas, Kalapas, and Arammanas (Re: [dsg] Bhavanga-cittas - corr... Dear Howard and Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > > **************************************************** > > Now, it is said that a single mind-moment involves the > > discernment of > > a single object. When that object is rupic, it must be, I would think, a > > > > single rupa, and not an entire kalapa. Is is possible that on the > > occasion of > > a citta whose object is a rupa, in fact an entire kalapa has arisen, > > including solidity, color, motion etc, but that all but one of these - > > the > > discerned object - are below the threshhold of consciousness; i.e., all > > but > > one are subliminal? > ..... > I wouldn’t put it this way. Like with the tree outside your window when > there is no looking, one cannot say the rupas are subliminal. Simply, > there are no conditions for seeing to see that visible object, or body > consciousness to feel the hardness of the tree and so on. > > In the same way, rupas arising are supported by other rupas in a kalapa, > but it depends on conditions what is experienced at any given moment. In > the Way corner recently we read about the predominance of certain rupas > whilst walking- eg predominance of earth element whilst lowering the foot > and air element while lifting it. It just depends whether there is any > awareness of what ‘appears’, but the rupas arise and fall regardless. > > You ask some other detailed qus on odour and colour, but I need to check > your other post first and get back later (unless someone else like ~KOM~ > can help out in the meantime) because I’m out of time til the beginning of > next week. > As far as I understand it, the citta (and its conascent cetasikas) experiences a single paramatha characteristic at any point of time. So, when odour is experienced, a single characteristic is appearing, even if odour cannot arise by itself---it has to arise with other rupas (as Howard mentioned) also. As far as I understand, there is no subliminal experience of the citta, a citta experiences a single thing, and not anything else at that moment. However, given the speed of the mind, the next series of citta may be experiencing something else. I *speculate* that one of the thing we call subliminal is something that the citta experiences, but we don't conceptualize on what is experienced heavily yet. For example, sometimes I hear somebody speaking, but I don't know the meaning of the speech yet. But once they sound stops, I think back on the sound and conceptualize on the meaning. I think the citta experiences all kind of stuffs all the time, but because they are not paid more attention to the level that it is recalled easily, it is "subliminal." Ever look for something that is right in front of you? Do you see or do you not see? kom 20470 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 3:49pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, Nina, and all, > I see more and more that we cannot understand suttas without the > Abhidhamma > (James: This I completely disagree with.) I also don't think it is true that one cannot understand the discourses without the Abhidhamma. > and without the development of vipassana, > (James: This I completely agree with. I find this argumentation of > the `bait and switch' variety. Which means to present something > disagreeable and far-fetched with something easily agreeable and > accepted…hoping that the agreement of one will lead to agreement with > the other. The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and > shouldn't be placed together so casually.) I am not an expert in Abhidhamma Pitaka. However, from my exposure to writings and discussions on Abhidhamma, in DSG and elsewhere, I have come to see it as a work in the domain akin to psychology and cognitive science that presents an elaborate model, a conceptual framwork in understanding human mind and cognitive/mental process. I believe that studying Abhidhamma can be a very interesting intellectual enterprise, and I would not deny that one can gain deeper understanding in human mind and cognitive/mental process through studying Abhidhamma. However, I don't think that this understanding per se is requisite to liberation, and I don't think studying Abhidhamma leads to insight/vipassana. Regards, Victor 20471 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:01pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > you might like to read this extract from a talk bythe venerable > > Sitagu Sayadaw of Burma: > < > > Hi Robert K., > > I am aware of this quote by Sayadaw (I think it has been quoted > before on this list), and I consider it using the same `bait and > switch' technique I described. What is written in the Abhidhamma > cannot be directly compared to the direct experience of vipassana, it > is ridiculous to even state such a thing with the confidence that > Sayadaw presents. It is like stating that the written description of > eating a meal is just like the actual experience of eating the meal. > They cannot be compared and they are not the same thing. The Lord > Buddha didn't say, "Listen Monks, you have a choice. You can either > meditate and experience reality directly, or you can read the > Abhidhamma and get the same experience. I know that some of you > aren't keen on meditation, so I am going to give you this choice." > It really doesn't work that way. There are no short-cuts. >__________ Dear James, I am starting to understand your objections to Abhidhamma. I think the venerable Sitagu Sayadaw didn't mean that merely reading about Abhidhamma equates with vipassana. Rather that the dhammas explained in the Abhidhamma are the same dhammas that arise now and that can be insighted directly. The Abhidhamma, as a simple example, lists 'seeing' and 'sound' and 'aversion' and 'conceit' but simply reading about them is not the same as understanding them directly. It also lists 'nibbana' - as do the suttas - and I guess no one believes that merely by reading Nibbana in the Abhidhamma that they have experienced it. I like this discussion though, as I can think of people who have studied Abhidhamma and then inflate their book knowledge so that they think they have experienced levels of insight. No doubt I overestimate myself on occasion. Robertk 20472 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 4:54pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, Indeed, I think that the words one uses often reflects one's understanding, and difference in even one word can change and/or distort a message. Take the modifiers "conventional" and "noble". When appended to "truth of suffering", "conventional truth of suffering" carries a different message from "noble truth of suffering". In discussing the teaching of the Buddha, I don't think the adjectives and adverbs "conventional", "ultimate", "conventionally", and "ultimately" help to convey clear and truthful messages. I see these words at best as noise that distorts and obscures or at worst as modifier for a straight-out lie such as "there is no human being". Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > I think it is not merely words we want to distinguish, it is the > understanding that we aim to bring about. In that sense, I think Howard's > explanation elucidates the distinctions between what we can say as > conventional and as paramatha. > > What do you think, Victor? Do you disagree with what Howard explains? Do > you disagree on the labelling, or the content, or both? > > kom 20473 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 6:29pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 4:55 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > Indeed, I think that the words one uses often reflects one's > understanding, and difference in even one word can change and/or > distort a message. Take the modifiers "conventional" and "noble". > When appended to "truth of suffering", "conventional truth of > suffering" carries a different message from "noble truth of > suffering". > > In discussing the teaching of the Buddha, I don't think the > adjectives and adverbs "conventional", "ultimate", "conventionally", > and "ultimately" help to convey clear and truthful messages. I see > these words at best as noise that distorts and obscures or at worst > as modifier for a straight-out lie such as "there is no human being". > Thanks for the clarification. We will just have to disagree, although clearly, even on what the Buddha truly teaches about the first noble truth (maybe other as well?). kom 20474 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 9:59pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and Samatha Howard (and Azita) First, since I was quoting from memory in my post, I should set out for the record exactly what CMA says (see below – with apologies for any inaccuracy in my earlier post). Secondly, I would like to know if I have understood the question. I read you as suggesting that perhaps the mindfulness of satipatthana is a condition for the development of concentration of samatha. I think you are drawing attention to the fact that the description given for mindfulness sounds a lot like our idea of the concentration that is samatha. While I can see where you are coming from here, I think we need to be careful about making such a comparison. In a sense it is a case of comparing apples with oranges. The mindfulness being described in CMA is the mental factor of that name, so its characteristic and function are to be understood in the context of a single moment of consciousness. On the other hand, the ‘concentration that is samatha’, in the sense of successive moments of consciousness taking the same object, is a description in conventional terms of several different moments of consciousness. Actually, the concentration that is associated with samatha should in my view be understood in terms of *the high degree of absorption in the object* that occurs at a single moment of consciousness, rather than the fact that *the same object is taken for successive moments of consciousness*. I say this because the latter is not in fact a necessary characteristic of samatha. For those who attained mastery of jhana, for example, moments of jhana may occur momentarily, interspersed among other non-jhana moments. Jon Ch 2. Compendium of mental factors Guide to #5. (2) Mindfulness (sati): The word sati … signifies presence of mind, attentiveness to the present … . It has the characteristic of not wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object.[18] Its function is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is manifested as guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective field. Its proximate cause is strong perception (thirasa~n~naa) or the four foundations of mindfulness. Footnote 18 'Apilaapana', also rendered "not wobbling." The commentators explain that sati keeps the mind as steady as a stone instead of letting it bob about like a pumpkin in water. --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Azita) - > jonoabb@y... writes: ... > > A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated > > translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental > factor > > of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > function > > of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the > > object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water > rather > > than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). ... > ============================ > It seems to me that "the citta fixed firmly and > unwaveringly on the object" sounds like one-pointed mind, like a > mindstate with (significant) concentration. I take "The mental > factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly > on the object" to mean not that mindfulness is the same as > concentration but that mindfulness is a condition for the arising > of concentration, that it has "the characteristic or function" of > fostering concentration. Do you think I am interpreting this > correctly? > > With metta, > Howard 20475 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 10:12pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Contentment Larry I think you touch upon an important point here. Non-contentment can easily be seen as a threat to the monastic life, whereas no such consideration applies as regards the lay-person (although it could I suppose encourage certain any existing tendencies to breach of the precepts). I am not aware of anything in the teachings that says that richness of possessions as such is an obstacle to the development of understanding, let alone that lay folk should dispose of luxury or surplus items. There are plenty of instances in the suttas of wealthy lay individuals who had highly developed understanding (Anathapindika being one such). So no need for any of us to worry about those 'mountains of riches' being heaped up (if only, if only ...) Jon --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Jon, > > You asked what I thought about: > > "...contentment that accords with suitability, i.e., disposing with > any luxury items received and retaining only the most basic > requisites." > > I suppose there are differences of suitability for monastics and > lay > people. On the other hand, I don't see any _ultimate_ problem with > heaping up mountains of riches. > > One could also apply this as a remedy. If a person has gotten into > the > habit of constantly complaining about the quality and amount of his > possessions and all the agravation involved in acquiring and > protecting those possessions, perhaps a simpler life would be in > order. > > Larry 20476 From: rjkjp1 Date: Fri Mar 21, 2003 11:57pm Subject: Re: Madhura and Ghotamukha Suttas --- Dear Christine, The texts refer to the 84,000 units of Dhamma - 82,000 by the Buddha and 2000 from the monk (usually sariputta). Mahakaccana was the chief disciple in analysis and spoke the madhura sutta - recorded by Ananda. He is also featured in expanding brief statements of the Buddha in other suttas. I think a sutta by Kumara kassapa was also included in the Digha nikaya. There is no subterfuge here - the monks didn't try to say it was the Buddha speaking. The extremely high regard of mahakaccana is probably one of the reasons the Nettipakarana was (honaririly) included in the Tipitaka by the monks in Burma. That, and the milinda panha and Petakopadesa (BTW this is the only work I know of that has been corrupted and there is apparently no unflawed copy to be found - hopefully one day) don't fit as commentaries but are not strictly part of the Tipitaka. They need their own category. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I wondered when I read the Madhura sutta MN 84 and the Ghotamukha > Sutta MN 94 how they came to be included in the Majjhima Nikaya if > they were composed after the Buddha's passing? Are there others like > this? They both begin with the words "(Evam me suttam) Thus have I > heard ..." which was, I thought, an authentication of the text and > signified suttas heard from the lips of the Blessed One. Am I on the > wrong track? > > metta, > Christine 20477 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:29am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Group, I'll join this interesting thread, but more or less as a devil's advocate. It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how his writings should be viewed. It seems that when one first comes to this list, the impression gained is that discussion revolves around Commentaries rather than the Suttas. As time goes on, if one sticks at it, it becomes clear that the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning. I can understand that as decades passed and conditions changed, explanations were needed to unpack these meanings. ( For me, it does seem very difficult to conceive of a time when understanding will arise and I'll move out of pre-school.) Of course, it would help if all-of-Buddhism agreed on what was indisputably the meaning of the Buddha's teachings. The comments of James, Nina, RobK, Victor and others, (and given the valued position that the Visuddhimagga and other writings of Buddhaghosa hold in the Theravada tradition), I was curious to look at a few articles critical of Buddhaghosa and the Abhidhamma, on the internet. The first is from a book about the teachings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/ "Buddhadasa's Movement: An Analysis of It's Origins Development & Socia Impact" Ch. 4 'Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism' Quotes: 'From the doctrinal point of view the brunt of Buddhadasa's attack is directed toward Buddhaghosa, one of the greatest Buddhist commentators in the 5th century A.D., who is most acclaimed for providing a commentary and interpretative structure for the Theravada tradition, and the scholastism of the Abhidhamma.' (p. 119) 'He declares that Visudhimagga is one of the oldest historical evidences showing gradual use of Hindu concepts in interpreting Buddhist teachings.' (p.120) '... he criticises the Abhidhamma Pitaka, one of the cardinal tripatie scriptures in the Tipitaka: Abhidhamma, Sutta, and Vinaya Pitaka.' 'Buddhadassa insists that Abhidhamma was completed about 1300 years after the death of the Buddha. He further criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound Buddhist teaching.' (p. 121) and the second article, is from the Letters of Nanavira Thera : L.79 of 29 December 1963 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett6l.htm He seems to claim Ven. Buddhaghosa and then Nanamoli Thera 'misinterpreted' sutta material, in this instance particularly that about 'cittavithi'. Part of letter 79 contains criticism of the Abhidhamma and states his scepticism that the word 'abhidhamma' used in the suttas means the Abhidhamma Pitaka. If so, than the word 'abhivinaya' would also indicate that we should look for an Abhivinaya as well as a Vinaya. As well, he says, "It is thus wholly to be expected that attempts should be made to secure the authority of the Abhidhamma Pitaka (assuming that it is, in fact, a later production) by identifying it with the 'abhidhamma' of the Suttas. Add to this the fact that the Atthasalini and the other commentarial works of the Ven. Buddhaghosa Thera are perhaps nine hundred years later than the Abhidhamma Pitaka that they set out to defend, and you will see that if we find internal reason for refecting the books of the A.P. as not authoritiative (i.e. if we find that the texts of these books cannot be reconciled with our understanding of the Sutta texts) there is nothing very much to compel us to accept them as the Buddha's own Teaching." Towards the end of the letter he quotes his teacher Ven. Nayaka Thera and what he views as possibly a 'kanha dhamma' - 'dark teaching' - a teaching that does not lead to awakening "...they, being undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, when discussing the advanced teaching and engaging in cross-questioning, falling into a dark teaching will not awaken.' Anguttara V, viii, 9. It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to hear other's thoughts. metta, Christine 20478 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:14am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam, op 21-03-2003 17:41 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > I would be delighted to learn more about 'what is dhamma?'. You > correctly sense that I learn best from basics precepts, partly > because the fundamentals show through the clearest, at least to my > slow mind. However, I hope it is not too tedious for you, and > others on dsg. I don't want to hold others back, or cause > frustration. N: On the contrary, it is useful and necessary for all of us. Never enough of basics. I appreciated Kom's mail about the truths, anger is always anger, it cannot be kindness. It has its own characteristic. I would like to listen moreto Kom, Sarah and others. In my post to Mike I spoke in short about citta, cetasika and rupa. These are dhammas, realities that have their own characteristic. Different from the long stories we think about, stories of people, events. I shall quote first a little of my "The Preserving of the Teachings", discussions we had in India before. (see Zolag web): Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? Lodewijk finds it too much. It takes a long time to apply it, we often fail. But how beneficial. When we are attached to a person, it is actually clinging to ourselves, to the importance of self. No other religion could teach me this. It is so valuable. At least we see the disadvantage and danger of attachment, and also the way to cling less to self: what we take for person or I are only seeing, hearing and other cittas which experience different objects through different doorways, one at a time. I appreciate Sarah's reminders, she always stresses: not the situation, not the story is real. We get involved with situations and persons. The way out of this distress is knowing the dhamma appearing now. Nina. 20479 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 5:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I did not disagree with what you stated on the noble truth of suffering, and I am not sure how we would disagree on the first noble truth. I think what we disagreed on is that I would only use "noble", not "conventional", as the modifier to the truth of suffering. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > Thanks for the clarification. We will just have to disagree, although > clearly, even on what the Buddha truly teaches about the first noble truth > (maybe other as well?). > > kom 20480 From: Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and Samatha Hi, Jon (and Azita) - Perhaps mindfulness is "remembering to be aware" in the sense of holding at bay, in the moment, the inclination for the mind to seek other pastures. Equivalently, perhaps it is the *tendency* to attend to whatever arises in the moment. I emphasize here a *tendency* because, it is said that in any mind moment there is a single object. If, at a single time, there is but one object, then what can it mean for the mind *not* to be mindful of it, and, for that matter, what can it mean for the mind not to be *concentrated* on it? Now, as far as being concentrated, that may be easily answered: To be concentrated *in the moment*, as opposed to the more conventional concentration of staying with the same object from moment to moment to moment, may be a matter of clarity/focus/non-fuzziness, in the same sense as a magnifying glass or a microscope focusses. (This makes ekagatta, it would seem to me, not the same as, but a support for clear comprehension.) But the business of being *mindful* in the moment is more difficult, it seems to me. One is always "mindful" in the moment of the one and only object of consciousness at that moment in the sense of being aware of it - so, I am guessing that mindfulness actually amounts to "the inclination to remain" or, better, the absence of "the inclination to leave" with respect to the object. It would be a kind of satisfaction or patience with whatever should happen to be present, and a willingness to remain with it - sort of an equanimity, with no "felt need" to float away. It makes sense to me that such inclination will foster clarity/focus on whatever object is present, i.e., it will foster one-pointedness, and will also foster calmness. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/22/03 1:00:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Howard (and Azita) > > First, since I was quoting from memory in my post, I should set out > for the record exactly what CMA says (see below – with apologies for > any inaccuracy in my earlier post). > > Secondly, I would like to know if I have understood the question. I > read you as suggesting that perhaps the mindfulness of satipatthana > is a condition for the development of concentration of samatha. I > think you are drawing attention to the fact that the description > given for mindfulness sounds a lot like our idea of the concentration > that is samatha. > > While I can see where you are coming from here, I think we need to be > careful about making such a comparison. In a sense it is a case of > comparing apples with oranges. The mindfulness being described in > CMA is the mental factor of that name, so its characteristic and > function are to be understood in the context of a single moment of > consciousness. On the other hand, the ‘concentration that is > samatha’, in the sense of successive moments of consciousness taking > the same object, is a description in conventional terms of several > different moments of consciousness. > > Actually, the concentration that is associated with samatha should in > my view be understood in terms of *the high degree of absorption in > the object* that occurs at a single moment of consciousness, rather > than the fact that *the same object is taken for successive moments > of consciousness*. I say this because the latter is not in fact a > necessary characteristic of samatha. For those who attained mastery > of jhana, for example, moments of jhana may occur momentarily, > interspersed among other non-jhana moments. > > Jon > > Ch 2. Compendium of mental factors > Guide to #5. > > (2) Mindfulness (sati): The word sati … signifies presence of mind, > attentiveness to the present … . It has the characteristic of not > wobbling, i.e. not floating away from the object.[18] Its function > is absence of confusion or non-forgetfulness. It is manifested as > guardianship, or as the state of confronting an objective field. Its > proximate cause is strong perception (thirasa~n~naa) or the four > foundations of mindfulness. > > Footnote 18 > 'Apilaapana', also rendered "not wobbling." The commentators explain > that sati keeps the mind as steady as a stone instead of letting it > bob about like a pumpkin in water. > > --- upasaka@a... wrote: >Hi, Jon (and Azita) - > >jonoabb@y... writes: > ... > >>A great analogy, Azita. While looking for this in the updated > >>translation (CMA) I came across another good one. The mental > >factor > >>of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > >function > >>of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly on the > >>object, and gives the simile of being like a stone in water > >rather > >>than like a pumpkin bobbing about in the water (from memory). > ... > >============================ > > It seems to me that "the citta fixed firmly and > >unwaveringly on the object" sounds like one-pointed mind, like a > >mindstate with (significant) concentration. I take "The mental > >factor of sati (mindfulness) is said to have the characteristic or > >function of allowing the citta to be fixed firmly and unwaveringly > >on the object" to mean not that mindfulness is the same as > >concentration but that mindfulness is a condition for the arising > >of concentration, that it has "the characteristic or function" of > >fostering concentration. Do you think I am interpreting this > >correctly? > > > >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) 20481 From: nidive Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:51am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Christine and All, > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century > Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the > place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to > hear other's thoughts. OK, here's my thoughts... from a sutta... if you don't mind... doesn't matter if you think it's not relevant at all. Sariputta's Lion's Roar [11] 16. Then the Venerable Sariputta went to the Blessed One, respectfully greeted him, sat down at one side, and spoke thus to him: "This faith, Lord, I have in the Blessed One, that there has not been, there will not be, nor is there now, another recluse or brahman more exalted in Enlightenment than the Blessed One." "Lofty indeed is this speech of yours, Sariputta, and lordly! A bold utterance, a veritable sounding of the lion's roar! But how is this, Sariputta? Those Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the past -- do you have direct personal knowledge of all those Blessed Ones, as to their virtue, their meditation, [12] their wisdom, their abiding, and their emancipation?" [13] "Not so, Lord." "Then how is this, Sariputta? Those Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the future -- do you have direct personal knowledge of all those Blessed Ones, as to their virtue, their meditation, their wisdom, their abiding, and their emancipation?" "Not so, Lord." "Then how is this, Sariputta? Of me, who am at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, do you have direct personal knowledge as to my virtue, my meditation, my wisdom, my abiding, and my emancipation?" "Not so, Lord." "Then it is clear, Sariputta, that you have no such direct personal knowledge of the Arahats, the Fully Enlightened Ones of the past, the future, and the present. How then dare you set forth a speech so lofty and lordly, an utterance so bold, a veritable sounding of the lion's roar, saying: 'This faith, Lord, I have in the Blessed One, that there has not been, there will not be, nor is there now another recluse or brahman more exalted in Enlightenment than the Blessed One'?" 17. "No such direct personal knowledge, indeed, is mine, Lord, of the Arahats, the Fully Enlightened Ones of the past, the future, and the present; and yet I have come to know the lawfulness of the Dhamma. Suppose, Lord, a king's frontier fortress was strongly fortified, with strong ramparts and turrets, and it had a single gate, and there was a gatekeeper, intelligent, experienced, and prudent, who would keep out the stranger but allow the friend to enter. As he patrols the path that leads all around the fortress, he does not perceive a hole or fissure in the ramparts even big enough to allow a cat to slip through. So he comes to the conclusion: 'Whatever grosser living things are to enter or leave this city, they will all have to do so just by this gate.' In the same way, Lord, I have come to know the lawfulness of the Dhamma. "For, Lord, all the Blessed Ones, Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the past had abandoned the five hindrances, [14] the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; had well established their minds in the four foundations of mindfulness; [15] had duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and were fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment. "And, Lord, all the Blessed Ones, Arahats, Fully Enlightened Ones of the future will abandon the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; will well establish their minds in the four foundations of mindfulness; will duly cultivate the seven factors of enlightenment, and will be fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment. "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20482 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:34am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I'll join this interesting thread, but more or less as a devil's > advocate. It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > his writings should be viewed. > Hi Christine, I would like to express my gratitude for this scholarly and worthwhile post. Unfortunately, I am somewhat discouraged by your phrase about `playing the devil's advocate' because that means you have already assigned yourself to a `camp', and view this as an adversarial discussion. I try my best not to view it that way and not to encourage it to be approached that way. We are all Buddhists, on the same side, trying to discover and understand the truth of the Buddha's teaching. That should make us all open-minded to all of the various possibilities. We are all on the same side… the side of truth. With that said, please allow me to make a few specific comments, from my perspective, about your observations. First, your comment, "the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning." This I agree with, but perhaps don't agree with your underlying meaning. To the Lord Buddha, the lessons were quite `off the cuff'. He didn't plan ahead, makes notes, practice the lessons, get feedback, change the lessons, etc., he simply sat down when he felt the time was right, instinctively knew what subject he should address, called his monks to gather around, and gave the lesson. Monks did not interrupt him while he was speaking to ask questions, nor did they ask questions when he was finished. They were far too shy for that to ask questions of such a highly respected person in everyone else's company (but there are a few exceptions). So often, when a lesson was finished, those monks who wanted further clarification of what they just heard would go to the senior monks to explain it to them, according to their accumulations. The explanations would not be a `one-size-fits-all' type of explanation; the Buddha's teachings are far too deep and profound for that. So, keeping this in mind, I would say that there is some value and historical precedent for the commentaries. However, they should not be given the same value, or viewed in the same light, as the suttas themselves. They should also be seen correctly for their limitation: inherently flawed to unilaterally explain the depth of the Buddha's teachings to everyone, regardless of individual accumulations. As far as the Abhidhamma, I have spoken so much against that work that I am starting to sound like a broken record. I, of course, agree with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu when he writes, "He further criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound Buddhist teaching." Haven't I been crowing this for so long now that some want to make me a candidate for KFC? ;-) Some assume that I just oppose the Abhidhamma because others are so much in favor of it and I just like to be special and noticed. Believe me, that is not my goal or intention. I am noticed enough with such superficial tactics. I genuinely oppose the Abhidhamma because I believe it runs contrary to the Buddha's teachings and I am concerned for those who embrace it. I see in them a false belief that they have attained a special level of panna [higher wisdom] when they haven't achieved anything of the sort. Actually, I would even be so bold as to state that complete ignorance of the Buddha's teachings is better than Abhidhammic learning (So, yes, I would also agree with Ven. Nayaka Thera that it is a `dark teaching' In the `Game of Life', I consider it a `go back seven spaces' card.) But this is just my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone…just warn them. Christine, I would hardly state that your understanding of the Buddha's teachings is at the pre-school level! LOL! Give yourself more credit than that! ;-) You, and everyone, have the tools and mental abilities to decide for yourself the truth. That is what the Buddha stated and that is what I believe also. Metta, James 20483 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:46am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 5:39 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > I did not disagree with what you stated on the > noble truth of > suffering, and I am not sure how we would > disagree on the first > noble truth. I think what we disagreed on is > that I would only > use "noble", not "conventional", as the modifier > to the truth of > suffering. > > Regards, > Victor Thanks for more clarification. You were indicating that you disagreed with the explanation of the first truth using the labels conventinal and ultimate, and you later mentioned (or implied) that using such words may bring distortions to the teachings. Perhaps you may want to explain the first truth in the way you understand it? I think this would be useful to many people including myself. Is there anything else in the first truth beyond: Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha kom 20484 From: Heather Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 10:35am Subject: Hello. I am new to this group and new to the teachings of Buddha. What I have learned so far is not much, but it makes more sense to me than anything I have heard before.I just do not know where to begin my journey to enlightenment or where to go for the answers I need. I want to learn as much as I can. 20485 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 0:07pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- Dear Christine, I think it will be helpful if you detail the objections venerable Buddhadasa and Venerable Nanavira have. Why is " a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line > with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound > Buddhist teaching.'" (Buddhadasa) and also discuss his belief that the " Visudhimagga is one of the oldest historical evidences > showing gradual use of Hindu concepts in interpreting Buddhist > teachings.' (p.120) Also can you give the reasons why the venerable Nanavira and his teacher thought Abhidhamma was a 'kanha dhamma' - 'dark teaching' - > a teaching that does not lead to awakening ".... Did they give reasons or simply write that? RobertK > In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I'll join this interesting thread, but more or less as a devil's > advocate. It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > his writings should be viewed. > > It seems that when one first comes to this list, the impression > gained is that discussion revolves around Commentaries rather than > the Suttas. As time goes on, if one sticks at it, it becomes clear > that the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were > carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning. I can > understand that as decades passed and conditions changed, > explanations were needed to unpack these meanings. ( For me, it does > seem very difficult to conceive of a time when understanding will > arise and I'll move out of pre-school.) > > Of course, it would help if all-of-Buddhism agreed on what was > indisputably the meaning of the Buddha's teachings. The comments of > James, Nina, RobK, Victor and others, (and given the valued position > that the Visuddhimagga and other writings of Buddhaghosa hold in > the Theravada tradition), I was curious to look at a few articles > critical of Buddhaghosa and the Abhidhamma, on the internet. > > The first is from a book about the teachings of Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: > http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/ > "Buddhadasa's Movement: An Analysis of It's Origins Development & > Socia Impact" Ch. 4 'Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism' > > Quotes: 'From the doctrinal point of view the brunt of Buddhadasa's > attack is directed toward Buddhaghosa, one of the greatest Buddhist > commentators in the 5th century A.D., who is most acclaimed for > providing a commentary and interpretative structure for the Theravada > tradition, and the scholastism of the Abhidhamma.' (p. 119) 'He > declares that Visudhimagga is one of the oldest historical evidences > showing gradual use of Hindu concepts in interpreting Buddhist > teachings.' (p.120) '... he criticises the Abhidhamma Pitaka, one > of the cardinal tripatie scriptures in the Tipitaka: Abhidhamma, > Sutta, and Vinaya Pitaka.' 'Buddhadassa insists that Abhidhamma was > completed about 1300 years after the death of the Buddha. He further > criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line > with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound > Buddhist teaching.' (p. 121) > > and the second article, is from the Letters of Nanavira Thera : > > L.79 of 29 December 1963 > http://www.geocities.com/Athens/9366/lett6l.htm > > He seems to claim Ven. Buddhaghosa and then Nanamoli > Thera 'misinterpreted' sutta material, in this instance particularly > that about 'cittavithi'. Part of letter 79 contains criticism of the > Abhidhamma and states his scepticism that the word 'abhidhamma' used > in the suttas means the Abhidhamma Pitaka. If so, than the > word 'abhivinaya' would also indicate that we should look for an > Abhivinaya as well as a Vinaya. > > As well, he says, "It is thus wholly to be expected that attempts > should be made to secure the authority of the Abhidhamma Pitaka > (assuming that it is, in fact, a later production) by identifying it > with the 'abhidhamma' of the Suttas. Add to this the fact that the > Atthasalini and the other commentarial works of the Ven. Buddhaghosa > Thera are perhaps nine hundred years later than the Abhidhamma Pitaka > that they set out to defend, and you will see that if we find > internal reason for refecting the books of the A.P. as not > authoritiative (i.e. if we find that the texts of these books cannot > be reconciled with our understanding of the Sutta texts) there is > nothing very much to compel us to accept them as the Buddha's own > Teaching." > > Towards the end of the letter he quotes his teacher Ven. Nayaka Thera > and what he views as possibly a 'kanha dhamma' - 'dark teaching' - > a teaching that does not lead to awakening "...they, being > undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding, when discussing > the advanced teaching and engaging in cross-questioning, falling into > a dark teaching will not awaken.' Anguttara V, viii, 9. > > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century > Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the > place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to > hear other's thoughts. > > metta, > > Christine 20486 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 0:33pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Dear Group, < snip > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to hear other's thoughts. metta, Christine KKT: My opinion is: If you want to be sure about the << authenticity >> ie. whether such and such teachings were really the words of the Buddha then you will have problems because it's impossible to determine their authenticity. But if you try to understand the << spirit >> of the Buddha's teachings then you mind will be free, free to enquire into whatever teachings, even non-Buddhist teachings. Metta, KKT 20487 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 1:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hello. Dear Heather, > -----Original Message----- > From: Heather [mailto:brenwyn2002@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 10:35 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Hello. > > > I am new to this group and new to the teachings > of Buddha. What I > have learned so far is not much, but it makes > more sense to me than > anything I have heard before.I just do not know > where to begin my > journey to enlightenment or where to go for the > answers I need. I > want to learn as much as I can. > > Welcome to DSG! I think you have come to the right group; if we already know a lot already, we wouldn't need to study! Here's are some resources that may help: Books written by Nina, a member of DSG: http://www.zolag.co.uk/ebook.html Posts about different topics which may help with answering some questions: http://tinyurl.com/2c0k Tipitaka Reference Sites: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/index.html Other helpful links: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/links As you probably have already noticed, the literature on the Buddha's teaching is vast. We may feel overwhelmed. However, if we keep in mind that the reason that we study the dhamma is to understand the truth (of life, which is verifiable), and to follow the teachings, then it doesn't matter where we start, or how slowly we understand, as long as the understanding grows and the wholesome mental states develop. I personally would start with Nina's books, since she has publications of different types, one of which you may like. kom 20488 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 3:53pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi KKT & Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: phamdluan2000 [mailto:phamdluan@a...] > > But if you try to understand > the << spirit >> of the Buddha's > teachings then you mind > will be free, free to enquire > into whatever teachings, > even non-Buddhist teachings. > > And if you are trying to understand the truth, then you can investigate if what is being said is truth, since truth withstands scrutiny and the test of time... kom 20489 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:07pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Robert and All, The stimulus for my post was those by other members, but principally it was Nina's suggestion in a post to James - Message 20427 of Friday March 21, 2003. "Asking questions is useful, it is one of the conditions for enlightenment ...... Would others then speak about difficult, controversial points of Buddhaghosa? I am sure more people here may have them." I had read something of Nanavira's writings a couple of years ago, and I am particularly interested in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's thoughts as he is so widely respected and influential both in the East and West. Indeed, Prof. Donald K. Swearer often edits his writings and has mentioned him as being the modern day Nagarjuna. Upon unearthing the references, I thought them worth presenting in light of Nina's invitation above. I think I gave the url links for the sources of my quotes in my original post? (The letter 79 by Nanavira Thera and Ch. 4 of the book on Buddhadasa's teachings.) Nanavira Thera has a note that says: "abhidhamma: Although various disciples are sometimes said to discuss abhidhamma and abhivinaya amongst themselves, in fact the Suttas nowhere describe the Buddha himself as teaching either abhidhamma or abhivinaya to either humans or deities. This suggests that perhaps the prefix abhi- might best be taken in this instance not as 'higher' or 'advanced' but as 'extended', and to understand that the monks sometimes discussed dhamma and vinaya in their own terminology rather than in the terminology used by the Buddha. See in particular A. VI,60: iii,392f." The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." Regarding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: The chapter from which the quotes were taken is Ch. 4 "Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism', and is itself is 35 pages long: http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf "Buddhasdasa illustrates this argument [re Hindu concepts in the Visuddhimagga] through historical evidence, such as Buddha's Own Word, the Suttas in the Tipitaka. In his book he wrote the title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction between what he considers the interpretation of Buddhist teaching using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense. He is convinced that uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy has obscured a real encounter with the Buddha's dhamma." This book may be able to be obtained free of charge: http://www.geocities.com/wave_books/freebooks.htm I don't presently have time to read all the writings and letters of Nanavira or the writings of Buddhadasa, to summarise their thoughts for the list, I had assumed that some members of the list would be familiar with them and able to comment. So much of Buddhadasa's writings are not yet translated into English. I'm told that he has been given five Honorary Doctorates by Thai universities. His books, both written and transcribed from talks, fill a room at the Thai National Library and influence all serious Thai Buddhists metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- 20490 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:51pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Swee Boon, and all, Thank you for the sutta. It's not that I think it is irrelevant, it is just that, being an Australian :-), I'm not very good at hints and allusions. I need to be told straight out what's on your mind. I enjoy your posts Swee Boon, even if we may be disagreeing - and I'm not so sure if this is the present case. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: 20491 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 7:58pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, If you want an explanation on the noble truth of dukkha, I would recommend the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sacca1.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Hi Victor, [snip] > > Thanks for more clarification. You were indicating that you > disagreed with the explanation of the first truth using the > labels conventinal and ultimate, and you later mentioned (or > implied) that using such words may bring distortions to the > teachings. Perhaps you may want to explain the first truth > in the way you understand it? I think this would be useful > to many people including myself. Is there anything else in > the first truth beyond: > > Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association > with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is > dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha > > kom 20492 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:06pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, James: I am somewhat discouraged by your phrase about `playing the devil's advocate' because that means you have already assigned yourself to a `camp', and view this as an adversarial discussion. I try my best not to view it that way and not to encourage it to be approached that way. We are all Buddhists, on the same side, trying to discover and understand the truth of the Buddha's teaching. That should make us all open-minded to all of the various possibilities. We are all on the same side… the side of truth. ***Christine: Don't be discouraged James - I am not arguing with anyone, just putting up (other people's) thoughts that may have a bearing on the topic. In the end, it is truth that matters, not whether any individual was right or wrong. I don't have a 'preferred result', just a desire to know a 'result beyond question'. (not sure of my chances here :-)). -------------------------------- James: With that said, please allow me to make a few specific comments, from my perspective, about your observations. First, your comment, "the suttas weren't just 'off the cuff' teachings, but were carefully crafted lessons densely packed with meaning." This I agree with, but perhaps don't agree with your underlying meaning. To the Lord Buddha, the lessons were quite `off the cuff'. He didn't plan ahead, makes notes, practice the lessons, get feedback, change the lessons, etc., he simply sat down when he felt the time was right, instinctively knew what subject he should address, called his monks to gather around, and gave the lesson. ***Christine: Agreed -------------------------------- James: Monks did not interrupt him while he was speaking to ask questions, nor did they ask questions when he was finished. They were far too shy for that to ask questions of such a highly respected person in everyone else's company (but there are a few exceptions). So often, when a lesson was finished, those monks who wanted further clarification of what they just heard would go to the senior monks to explain it to them, according to their accumulations. The explanations would not be a `one-size-fits-all' type of explanation; the Buddha's teachings are far too deep and profound for that. ***Christine: No quarrel with this. --------------------------------------------- James: So, keeping this in mind, I would say that there is some value and historical precedent for the commentaries. However, they should not be given the same value, or viewed in the same light, as the suttas themselves. They should also be seen correctly for their limitation: inherently flawed to unilaterally explain the depth of the Buddha's teachings to everyone, regardless of individual accumulations. ***Christine: No quarrel with this either. _____________________________ James: As far as the Abhidhamma, I have spoken so much against that work that I am starting to sound like a broken record. I, of course, agree with Buddhadasa Bhikkhu when he writes, "He further criticizes that a large part of Abhidhamma is not only not in line with Buddha's dhamma but it is also antithetical to the profound Buddhist teaching." I genuinely oppose the Abhidhamma because I believe it runs contrary to the Buddha's teachings and I am concerned for those who embrace it. I see in them a false belief that they have attained a special level of panna [higher wisdom] when they haven't achieved anything of the sort. Actually, I would even be so bold as to state that complete ignorance of the Buddha's teachings is better than Abhidhammic learning ***Christine: This is worth discussing James - aren't there any teachings of the Buddha that speak about elements, bases and groups? I think, perhaps, there are. Isn't this is a large part of Abhidhamma teachings? Maybe it is just that for some of us, different parts of the Teachings are more attractive. We incline more to some ideas than others. We feel more comfortable with applying some parts of the Tipitaka than others. Would it be worth looking for suttas that teach the same things as the Abhidhamma, even if the word Abhidhamma isn't mentioned? ----------------------------- James:(So, yes, I would also agree with Ven. Nayaka Thera that it is a `dark teaching' In the `Game of Life', I consider it a `go back seven spaces' card.) But this is just my opinion. I am not trying to convince anyone…just warn them. ***Christine: It seems that it was Nanavira Thera who implied this - to clear up any incorrect impression I have given, I'll quote the para. I was referring to here (as well as in the post to RobK): "The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." Metta, James -------------------- Always good to discuss things with you James and to hear your reflections, understanding and ideas - Metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 20493 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:08pm Subject: Re: Hello. Hi, I would recommend the page http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/index.html Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Heather" wrote: > I am new to this group and new to the teachings of Buddha. What I > have learned so far is not much, but it makes more sense to me than > anything I have heard before.I just do not know where to begin my > journey to enlightenment or where to go for the answers I need. I > want to learn as much as I can. 20494 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 8:09pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi KKT and Kom, and all, KKT: But if you try to understand > the << spirit >> of the Buddha's > teachings then you mind > will be free, free to enquire > into whatever teachings, > even non-Buddhist teachings. Kom: "And if you are trying to understand the truth, then you can investigate if what is being said is truth, since truth withstands scrutiny and the test of time..." Christine: The biggest obstacle for me, is still the same one that existed when I joined this List - the Process. Or Lack Thereof. The big thing going for formal sitting meditation is there is something (a method) to do - go to a particular place and sit in a certain position for a specified length of time, and do a, then b and then c. Expect x, y, and z to happen. There are accessories to own and arrange - mat, cushions of various sizes and shapes, shawls, candles and incense if wished. Places to congregate with others who are like minded (retreats, classes), and a special talk to talk. There is a sense of support in being assured you are making progress and encountering difficulties that others have overcome. There is a sense of belonging. But right now for me - I read the suttas and study other texts, I take Pali lessons, when I can I go to weekend Dhamma discussions with others - I really have no idea if I am on the main road and accumulating anything wholesome. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" 20495 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 9:40pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" < I am particularly interested in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's thoughts as > he is so widely respected and influential both in the East and West. > Indeed, Prof. Donald K. Swearer often edits his writings and has > mentioned him as being the modern day Nagarjuna. > > I think I gave the url links for the sources of my quotes in my > original post? > The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late > Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat > through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, > however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage > from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that > a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that > is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark > teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha > dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks > undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." ____________ Dear Christine, Thanks for giving the expanded quote by Nanavira. It still doesn't clarify for me why he believed this. Is there some point you feel is convincing that he has made somewhere? I'm sure we could find a hundred monks who don't like Abhidhamma - but it doesn't help much unless they give reasons and discuss it. ____________ > > Regarding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: The chapter from which the quotes were > taken is Ch. 4 "Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism', and > is itself is 35 pages long: > http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf > > "Buddhasdasa illustrates this argument [re Hindu concepts in the > Visuddhimagga] through historical evidence, such as Buddha's Own > Word, the Suttas in the Tipitaka. In his book he wrote the > title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction > between what he considers the interpretation of Buddhist teaching > using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense. He is convinced that > uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy has obscured a real > encounter with the Buddha's dhamma." > This book may be able to be obtained free of charge: > http://www.geocities.com/wave_books/freebooks.htm _____________ Thanks for this. Fortunately I have this book or a later edition(not with me right now) and have made notes. I will add some here: I read Practical Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada)by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of Thailand)after some prior discussions about it. In these discussions it was suggested that the Buddha did not teach rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come into the teachings. This book was cited as a source and guide. I think it has many useful points and I certainly appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality. I'd like to begin with these comments from the venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6 "therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way that there is a self persisting over a series of lives is contrary to the principle of dependent origination." This is evident to anyone who has had even a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the bedrock of Dhamma. There is no self persisting over lives. However, in the next sentence he says that "dependent origination is on no way concerned with morality which must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". This I don't follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - and it is just natural law that certain types of action lead to certain results. We can think of this as a moral law without evoking any self. In the following paragraph p.6 he says that an incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to this that the "during the time the commentaries were composed there arose a widespread tendency to explain matters of ultimate truths in terms of the Eternalist theory." He lays the blame for this on Buddhaghosa (ancient composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries) p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries together so that total blind acceptance..will allow only one voice to be heard." He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he speculates that it either happened because of lack of insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot to destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga [written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said there was a self that spun around in the cycle of birth and death and rebirth as in the case of Bhikkhu Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order" . He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga. He does note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man of great knowledge." He then says ."BUT I don't agree with him at all regarding Dependent Origination because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it became Brahministic." And he carries on (p63) to note that he "is not going to defile of defame or villify Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that he cannot be considered to be an Arahat."" So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that Buddhaghosa taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the Paticcasamuppada, because of his brahmin (hinduistic) background. Is that true? I think it is best to let the ancient texts speak for themselves. From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga Chapter XV11 Dependent origination 113 "but how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation and so on". 115 "when he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths' he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world"endquote 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen states, instead of taking the occurence of formations to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes action..." 161 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate from the past, with no cause in the past it is not. So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested here without cause from that"....... " 273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold voidness,"" 313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self view by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action view because he does not perceive that the causative function of ignorance etc us established as a law.." 314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so practice that he may begin to find a footing in the deeps of the dependent origination" Now another point about the book. On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over several lives and suggesting that "kamma in this life gives rise to results in some far off future life it as if there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we receive in the birth in which the deed was done.....to suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life become effective in this, a later life, is impossible"" Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one who receives results but that results arise by conditions (just to be pedantic). From the Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka);" Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the commentaries (and tipitaka) say that the results of kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the time of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the results will arise because of the many other conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a quote from the Tipitaka: " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI, 63). I can add more if you like, Christine. Anyway I think venerable Buddhadasa's belief that the ancient commentaries and Buddhaghosa believed in a soul that transmigrates is quite mistaken. To me the whole of the Abhidhamma - and much of the commentaries- is pointing to the anattaness (no selfness, no soul anywhere) of each moment. It is so real and helpful. I was explaining to a friend who had some worries today. I said if one can start- just a little - to see the difference between the 6 doors then life becomes more understandable and handleable. You see it is always the thinking that causes our upsets. What appears through the senses is merely different objects. Yesterday I got tax bill out the blue for an apartment I own. I thought I was exempt because I live in another country but apparently not. I have to pay about 5000 dollars. It took me back for about a minute - until I saw that it was only thinking that was causing the pain. All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts. This is basic Abhidhamma. RobertK 20496 From: Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 4:58pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Christine - In a message dated 3/22/03 11:16:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > Christine: The biggest obstacle for me, is still the same one that > existed when I joined this List - the Process. Or Lack Thereof. The > big thing going for formal sitting meditation is there is something > (a method) to do - go to a particular place and sit in a certain > position for a specified length of time, and do a, then b and then c. > Expect x, y, and z to happen. There are accessories to own and > arrange - mat, cushions of various sizes and shapes, shawls, candles > and incense if wished. Places to congregate with others who are like > minded (retreats, classes), and a special talk to talk. There is a > sense of support in being assured you are making progress and > encountering difficulties that others have overcome. There is a > sense of belonging. > But right now for me - I read the suttas and study other texts, I > take Pali lessons, when I can I go to weekend Dhamma discussions with > others - I really have no idea if I am on the main road and > accumulating anything wholesome. > metta, > Christine > ============================ Why not continue to do all the reading, studying, and discussing, but also do sitting, standing, lying, bending, and walking meditation? Why not use your own home as bodhi tree, and sit in formal meditation, cultivating calm and maybe jhanas, and also observing the rise and fall of phenomena? And also, during ordinary times when there is no need to pay attention to a task that would get in the way, why not be mindful of whatever arises without attachment? And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? Why not do that all? (No need for special mats, seats, incense, bells, Buddha statues, a special place such as a meditation hall or center, or even for fellow meditators - though these are all okay.) 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) 20497 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 10:11pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi James, ***Christine: This is worth discussing James - aren't there any > teachings of the Buddha that speak about elements, bases and > groups? I think, perhaps, there are. Isn't this is a large part of > Abhidhamma teachings? > Maybe it is just that for some of us, different parts of the > Teachings are more attractive. We incline more to some ideas than > others. We feel more comfortable with applying some parts of the > Tipitaka than others. > Would it be worth looking for suttas that teach the same things as > the Abhidhamma, even if the word Abhidhamma isn't mentioned? > ----------------------------- Hi Christine, I keep resolving not to discuss this issue anymore, but I keep coming back to it. I am not sure if I have weak resolve or it is my karma to discuss this issue…but I am leaning more toward believing the latter. I know, for a fact, that my posts on this matter upset some of the members of this group, which I don't like to do. When they get upset, I get upset. Not only that, I don't like to see people upset. But I believe that the truth is more important than their or my feelings, and should take precedent. Yes, there are some suttas which discuss elements (but not bases and groups, like that found in the Abhidhamma), but what is important is the context in which these matters were discussed. First, the Buddha taught that it was important to be aware of the Four Great Elements so that one could be aware of how they manifest in the body and subsequently the mind. However, this was only a minor part of his teaching and he didn't give it the emphasis that you will find in the Abhidhamma. The Buddha stressed the ignorance of desire and how to eliminate it, not how the universe or the mind is composed. Second, the Buddha spoke about elements in order to contradict mistaken notions held by many of his monks who came from a Brahmin background (Vedic religion). Unfortunately, these talks weren't successful enough because after the Buddha died these mistaken notions continued, were combined with elements of Buddhism, and resulted in the formulation of the Abhidhamma Pitaka we know today. I have already posted several posts concerning why I believe the Abhidhamma Pitaka is mistaken with its notions of reality (remember the `Rupa is Rubbish' series? That was a hoot! ;-), but, for the sake of argument, let's just say that I am wrong. Let's say that everything in the Abhidhamma is correct and it correctly describes the realities of mind and matter. There is still one question that begs to be answered: So what? So what about nama and rupa; so what about cittas and cetesikas; so what about mind doors and sense consciousnesses? Knowing these things aren't going a make a person any more enlightened than classes on chemistry, physics, and psychology…and isn't that what this is all about? If it doesn't lead to enlightenment, what point is it? It doesn't have any point and its result is to make people believe they know more than they actually do. It is silly and saddening when I see people sincerely seeking answers, happiness, and peace and they are given a lot of theories of primitive physics and psychology falsely labeled as Buddhism. That is not going to help anyone and it is not the truth. Let me end with the words of the Buddha, "I only teach suffering and the end of suffering." I'm sorry, but I don't see where the Abhidhamma Pitaka falls into that paradigm. I mean no offense to anyone and I only hope to help people. Metta, James 20498 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:20pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, I am more interested in what you have to say about Dukkha, besides showing me the texts. I think we may understand what the texts say differently, but I can never figure out from what you say, as you often quote from the texts. I don't believe you have the same understanding as the Buddha, as nobody does, so just quoting from the texts don't tell me what you understand, or what I could learn from you. If you insist that it is better for me to just read from the texts, then we don't need a discussion at all, as things stand as they are: you have what you believe is right, and I have another, and neither may be even close to what the Buddha has taught. Also, your telling me that what is said is a distortion is not at all useful, because you don't explain what the non-distorted version to be. I think the wise can be known by discussions, not by quoting from the texts. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 7:59 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma > > > Hi Kom, > > If you want an explanation on the noble truth of > dukkha, I would > recommend the page > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/sacca1.html > > Regards, > Victor > 20499 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:40pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Christine: The biggest obstacle for me, is > still the same one that > existed when I joined this List - the Process. > Or Lack Thereof. The > big thing going for formal sitting meditation is > there is something > (a method) to do - go to a particular place and > sit in a certain > position for a specified length of time, and do > a, then b and then c. > Expect x, y, and z to happen. There are > accessories to own and > arrange - mat, cushions of various sizes and > shapes, shawls, candles > and incense if wished. Places to congregate with > others who are like > minded (retreats, classes), and a special talk to > talk. There is a > sense of support in being assured you are making > progress and > encountering difficulties that others have > overcome. There is a > sense of belonging. > But right now for me - I read the suttas and > study other texts, I > take Pali lessons, when I can I go to weekend > Dhamma discussions with > others - I really have no idea if I am on the > main road and > accumulating anything wholesome. > metta, My opinion is that the Buddha's teachings lead to knowledge, comprehension, and detachment. Hence, the best gauge in "progress" is, do we understand the dhammas, as they are occurring now, better than before we listened to the teaching of the Buddha? Do we have attachments in the self even more, or less? Do we have more attachments to the different practices than ever before? Whenever there is mindfulness mindful of the reality, we should be gladdened, for that is the path, the only path. Whenever there is attachment to mindfulness or to wisdom, we should know that this is not the path, but the cause of all sufferings. Whenever there is attachment to the wrong practice, we should leave it immediately, for if we do not leave this, we might be lost for a long time. The understanding (and not just words, nor stories, nor just thinking, nor just repeating to oneself) is the key. Association with a wise person who knows the true dhamma is the key. It is better to be alone, with the right understanding, than within a group of people with wrong views, even if we may like them or like how things go. Ultimately, we are alone in this path, except that very rarely, we have good friends that help us along. kom ps: I do have a sense of belonging to the group I am affiliated with in the bay area, but you can see too that this sense of belonging is again, not the path. Belonging may help to assuage our current unhappiness or loneliness, but it is not the way, as the Buddha has taught it. 20500 From: Sukinderpal Date: Sat Mar 22, 2003 11:44pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, I am more interested in what you have to say about Dukkha, besides showing me the texts. I think we may understand what the texts say differently, but I can never figure out from what you say, as you often quote from the texts. I don't believe you have the same understanding as the Buddha, as nobody does, so just quoting from the texts don't tell me what you understand, or what I could learn from you. If you insist that it is better for me to just read from the texts, then we don't need a discussion at all, as things stand as they are: you have what you believe is right, and I have another, and neither may be even close to what the Buddha has taught. Also, your telling me that what is said is a distortion is not at all useful, because you don't explain what the non-distorted version to be. I think the wise can be known by discussions, not by quoting from the texts. kom YES SIR!!!! (Sorry moderators, couldn't resist) Sukin. 20501 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 1:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Mike What happens after death is not something that I find occupies my mind much at all. My thinking is that unless death marks the end of everything (i.e., extinction), it must be followed by 'rebirth' of some sort, and this I accept as the more likely position. There is no way of knowing anything about the nature of the realms (heavenly or hell) into which one may potentially be reborn, but the description given in the teachings is a plausible one (I put it no higher than that). 'Faring according to deeds' is how it is often expressed, and this is my 'working hypothesis'. In the Buddha' s description of things there is no 'promised land' nor any indication of the likelihood of being reunited with one's loved ones. Jon --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Jonothan Abbott > To: > Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2003 12:53 AM > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Last conversations..... > > > Others present at my mother's bedside placed importance on > reassuring > > her that she would be entering the promised land, be reunited > with my > > late father, and so on. > > Is this reminiscent to you of the idea of rebirth in deva realms, > etc? Do > you tend to take the latter (or former, for that matter) literally, > or as > myth or metaphor, or...? > > A new can of worms? > > mike 20502 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 2:14am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard and Chris, Long time no write Howard :-). When I read Chris' original message, I thought to myself, " Why does Chris want 'road signs'? " But more importantly I thought, "why does she want to 'read the suttas and study other texts, take Pali lessons, go to weekend Dhamma discussions with others'"?! By this I mean, why have a grasping attitude toward the Teachings giving rise to the idea that certain things have to be done to attain it? I compared this to the idea about 'formal meditation'. So when I saw this post of yours, I feel compelled to reply. Hope you do not mind the tone:-). My comments are between yours: > ============================ > Why not continue to do all the reading, studying, and discussing, but > also do sitting, standing, lying, bending, and walking meditation? ============================ Sukin: Isn't Chris doing all this already? Or do you mean that now she should start to observe the activities of her mind and body in a particular way? If so, what is that way, and what dhamma is doing the noting and what would prompt those dhammas to arise?! ============================ Why not > use your own home as bodhi tree, and sit in formal meditation, cultivating > calm and maybe jhanas, and also observing the rise and fall of phenomena? ============================ Sukin: What is significant about this 'bodhi tree' that you ask Chris to think about? Is this one of the objects conducive to jhana? How does one 'observe rise and fall of phenomena' with the attitude that *this* is the place (bodhi tree or otherwise) to do so? Can one be intent on observing phenomena even now, how more difficult it would be to do so when obsecured by the idea of time and place? Lobha attaches to everything, the goal, the person doing, the place, the time. ======================== And > also, during ordinary times when there is no need to pay attention to a task > that would get in the way, why not be mindful of whatever arises without > attachment? ======================== Sukin: But there is still *someone* doing the noting, no? And who can control attachment? And if attachment itself can be observed, wouldn't wanting to do something 'without attachment' possibly condition a turning away from attachment and hence developing more ignorance of it? ======================== And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, > attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and > emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? ======================== Sukin: Can *we* choose to observe 'impermanence'? Is not this the function of sati and panna? Wouldn't a projected idea of impermanence with little accumulated panna be risking the chance that wrong view increases? ======================== Why not do > that all? (No need for special mats, seats, incense, bells, Buddha statues, a > special place such as a meditation hall or center, or even for fellow > meditators - though these are all okay.) ======================== Sukin: Are they really okay? How can I go around carrying all that and expect to come to understand the truth of anicca, dukkha and anatta? ======================== > With metta, > Howard ======================== Sukin: Just to let you know Howard, otherwise most of the time I am in agreement with what you have to say :-). Best wishes, Sukin. 20503 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Mindfulness and Samatha Howard You said: "If, at a single time, there is but one object, then what can it mean for the mind *not* to be mindful of it, and, for that matter, what can it mean for the mind not to be *concentrated* on it?" This is a good question and an interesting area to discuss. First, as regards the mental factor of mindfulness (sati), we need to remember that this arises only with wholesome moments of consciousness (kusala citta). It is absent at any moment of unwholesome consciousness or resultant consciousness (akusala citta or vipaka citta). Thus it has nothing to do with the fact that there is but 1 object for each moment of consciousness. If, for example, there is ignorance (moha) accompanying the moment of consciousness, then there is no mindfulness. Even when the citta is kusala, there are levels of wholesomeness and so also levels of mindfulness. Mindfulness of the level of satipatthana arises with the citta that experiences directly a characteristic of a presently arising dhamma. As regards the mental factor of ekagatta (concentration), this we are told arises with every moment of consciousness, so it can be akusala as well as kusala (or vipaka). Your particular area of interest is the role of ekagatta and other factors in the case where successive moments of consciousness take the same object. We need to remember here that that situation can occur with akusala consciousness as well as with kusala consciousness; in other words, there is nothing *inherently* wholesome in the fact of successive moments of consciousness take the same object. Furthermore, the mere fact that there is concentration on one of the 40 objects of samatha bhavana does not make the mindstate kusala (where is the panna in mere concentration?). Samatha bhavana (the development of tranquility) is something different from anything so far mentioned. It is a level of panna (wisdom) that arises together with calm/tranquility (another wholesome mental factor). Although it is capable of leading to degrees of absorption in the object, this can only occur if panna has been developed to the stage where it can discriminate keenly between kusala and akusala at any moment. So it may not be helpful to think of samatha bhavana in terms of concentration on a particular object, since that does not give any indication of the importance of the kusala aspect, especially panna. I am aware this is a sensitive and controversial area. I hope I have managed to explain why, in my view, samatha bhavana and ekagatta should not be thought of as being in any respect synonymous, and why both are different from mindfulness. And finally, my 'usual disclaimer', namely, nothing here is intended to downplay the importance of samatha bhavana in the teachings; I am simply trying to distinguish what is from what isn't ;-). Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Azita) - > Perhaps mindfulness is "remembering to be aware" in the sense of holding at bay, in the moment, the inclination for the mind to seek other pastures. Equivalently, perhaps it is the *tendency* to attend to whatever arises in the moment. I emphasize here a *tendency* because, it is said that in any mind moment there is a single object. If, at a single time, there is but one object, then what can it mean for the mind *not* to be mindful of it, and, for that matter, what can it mean for the mind not to be *concentrated* on it? Now, as far as being concentrated, that may be easily answered: To be concentrated *in the moment*, as opposed to the more conventional concentration of staying with the same object from moment to moment to moment, may be a matter of clarity/focus/non-fuzziness, in the same sense as a magnifying glass or a microscope focusses. (This makes ekagatta, it would seem to me, not the same as, but a support for clear comprehension.) But the business of being *mindful* in the moment is more difficult, it seems to me. One is always "mindful" in the moment of the one and only object of consciousness at that moment in the sense of being aware of it - so, I am guessing that mindfulness actually amounts to "the inclination to remain" or, better, the absence of "the inclination to leave" with respect to the object. It would be a kind of satisfaction or patience with whatever should happen to be present, and a willingness to remain with it - sort of an equanimity, with no "felt need" to float away. It makes sense to me that such inclination will foster clarity/focus on whatever object is present, i.e., it will foster one-pointedness, and will also foster calmness. With metta, Howard 20504 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Questions [Sarah] Dan Thanks for the interesting analysis of the Smv on this difficult area. While I sympathise with your reading of a 'contradiction', this is obviously not the accepted position on this text. The passage that follows is taken from CMA (as quoted by Larry in a post of his last year). I can only assume that the point to be drawn from the interpretation given by the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya is a point other than the one you draw (no suggestions of my own at the moment -- I need to spend some time looking at it). Jon [With thanks to Larry for taking the trouble to key in this important passage] ++++++++++++++++++++++++ Guide to par. 17, ch. IV: Sense objects are distinguished into three classes: the undesirable (anittha), the moderately desirable (ittha, also called itthamajjhatta, desirable-neutral), and the extremely desirable (ati-ittha). While the desirable object is thus subdivided into two, all undesirable objects are comprised within a single class called simply "the undesirable." According to the Abhidhamma philosophy, this distinction in the quality of objects pertains to the intrinsic nature of the object itself; it is not a variable determined by the individual temperament and preferences of the experiencer. The Sammohavinodani, the commentary to the Vibhanga, contends that when a person considers a desirable object to be undesirable, or an undesirable object to be desirable, he does so due to a perversion of perception (sannavipallasa). The object itself, however, remains inherently desirable or undesirable independently of the person's personal preferences. The Sammohavinodani states that the distinction between the intrinsically desirable and undesirable obtains by way of the average being (majjhima-satta): "It is distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials, burgesses, land owners and merchants." Whether on a given occasion one experiences an undesirable, a moderately desirable, or an extremely desirable object is governed by one's past kamma. Thus the object experienced provides the opportunity for kamma to ripen in the form of resultant states of consciousness (vipakacitta). The resultant cittas accord with the nature of the object spontaneously, without deliberation, just as a facial reflection in a mirror accords with the features of the face. Through the force of unwholesome kamma one encounters an undesirable object, and thus the resultant cittas in the cognitive process by which that object is cognized will be generated by the maturation of that unwholesome kamma. In this case the sense consciousness, reception, investigation, and registration cittas are necessarily unwholesome-resultants (akusalavipaka). The accompanying feeling is always equanimity (upekkha), except in the case of body-consciousness, which is accompanied by pain. Conversely, a desirable-neutral or a very desirable object is encountered through the force of wholesome kamma, and the resultant cittas in the cognitive process will be generated by the maturation of that wholesome kamma. In this case the same four resultant positions will be occupied by wholesome-resultants (kusalavipaka). These cittas will generally be accompanied by equanimity, except that body-consciousness is accompanied by pleasure and, in the experience of an extremely desirable object, investigation and registration are accompanied by joy. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/14142 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ --- "Dan D." wrote: > Dear Sarah, > I don't disagree with most of what you say about > desirable/undesirable sense object. However, the first 1/3 of the > Smv > explanation contradicts both us and the second 1/3. I wouldn't be > so quick to say there is a contradiction in the text if it weren't > structured explicitly to point out the dispute, which seems to read > like: "I think that ittha/anittha can be understood via the > predilections of the average man because he (unlike rulers and > peasants) can properly distinguish between agreeable and > disagreeable. But the Elder Tipitika Cula-Abhaya disagrees. He > thinks > the ittha/anittha aspect can only be understood by how, say, the > sound is actually heard (vipaka) rather than how it is perceived > and conceived (javana/impulsion)." This "But so-and-so said" > construction > is not uncommon in the commentaries. Isn't its function to point > out where there is disagreement about interpretation? Otherwise, > why "but"? ... 20505 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:41am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Dear Robert How are you? Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward ideas of Buddhadasa. I doubt that the people like Buddhadasa had done any serious study of Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka. Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka are not for the feeble- minded backward people. Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without carefully studying the message. I am always amazed to know the existence of people who are not in the position to criticize great personalities like Aacariya Buddhaghosa, yet have the audacity to do so - that is to say, the audacity to commit the wrong speech (micchaa vaacaa). With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" < I am particularly interested in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's thoughts as > he is so widely respected and influential both in the East and West. > Indeed, Prof. Donald K. Swearer often edits his writings and has > mentioned him as being the modern day Nagarjuna. > > I think I gave the url links for the sources of my quotes in my > original post? > The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late > Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat > through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, > however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage > from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that > a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that > is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark > teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha > dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks > undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." ____________ Dear Christine, Thanks for giving the expanded quote by Nanavira. It still doesn't clarify for me why he believed this. Is there some point you feel is convincing that he has made somewhere? I'm sure we could find a hundred monks who don't like Abhidhamma - but it doesn't help much unless they give reasons and discuss it. ____________ > > Regarding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: The chapter from which the quotes were > taken is Ch. 4 "Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism', and > is itself is 35 pages long: > http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf > > "Buddhasdasa illustrates this argument [re Hindu concepts in the > Visuddhimagga] through historical evidence, such as Buddha's Own > Word, the Suttas in the Tipitaka. In his book he wrote the > title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction > between what he considers the interpretation of Buddhist teaching > using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense. He is convinced that > uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy has obscured a real > encounter with the Buddha's dhamma." > This book may be able to be obtained free of charge: > http://www.geocities.com/wave_books/freebooks.htm _____________ Thanks for this. Fortunately I have this book or a later edition(not with me right now) and have made notes. I will add some here: I read Practical Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada)by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of Thailand)after some prior discussions about it. In these discussions it was suggested that the Buddha did not teach rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come into the teachings. This book was cited as a source and guide. I think it has many useful points and I certainly appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality. I'd like to begin with these comments from the venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6 "therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way that there is a self persisting over a series of lives is contrary to the principle of dependent origination." This is evident to anyone who has had even a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the bedrock of Dhamma. There is no self persisting over lives. However, in the next sentence he says that "dependent origination is on no way concerned with morality which must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". This I don't follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - and it is just natural law that certain types of action lead to certain results. We can think of this as a moral law without evoking any self. In the following paragraph p.6 he says that an incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to this that the "during the time the commentaries were composed there arose a widespread tendency to explain matters of ultimate truths in terms of the Eternalist theory." He lays the blame for this on Buddhaghosa (ancient composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries) p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries together so that total blind acceptance..will allow only one voice to be heard." He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he speculates that it either happened because of lack of insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot to destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga [written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said there was a self that spun around in the cycle of birth and death and rebirth as in the case of Bhikkhu Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order" . He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga. He does note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man of great knowledge." He then says ."BUT I don't agree with him at all regarding Dependent Origination because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it became Brahministic." And he carries on (p63) to note that he "is not going to defile of defame or villify Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that he cannot be considered to be an Arahat."" So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that Buddhaghosa taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the Paticcasamuppada, because of his brahmin (hinduistic) background. Is that true? I think it is best to let the ancient texts speak for themselves. From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga Chapter XV11 Dependent origination 113 "but how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation and so on". 115 "when he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths' he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world"endquote 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen states, instead of taking the occurence of formations to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes action..." 161 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate from the past, with no cause in the past it is not. So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested here without cause from that"....... " 273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold voidness,"" 313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self view by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action view because he does not perceive that the causative function of ignorance etc us established as a law.." 314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so practice that he may begin to find a footing in the deeps of the dependent origination" Now another point about the book. On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over several lives and suggesting that "kamma in this life gives rise to results in some far off future life it as if there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we receive in the birth in which the deed was done.....to suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life become effective in this, a later life, is impossible"" Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one who receives results but that results arise by conditions (just to be pedantic). From the Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka);" Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the commentaries (and tipitaka) say that the results of kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the time of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the results will arise because of the many other conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a quote from the Tipitaka: " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI, 63). I can add more if you like, Christine. Anyway I think venerable Buddhadasa's belief that the ancient commentaries and Buddhaghosa believed in a soul that transmigrates is quite mistaken. To me the whole of the Abhidhamma - and much of the commentaries- is pointing to the anattaness (no selfness, no soul anywhere) of each moment. It is so real and helpful. I was explaining to a friend who had some worries today. I said if one can start- just a little - to see the difference between the 6 doors then life becomes more understandable and handleable. You see it is always the thinking that causes our upsets. What appears through the senses is merely different objects. Yesterday I got tax bill out the blue for an apartment I own. I thought I was exempt because I live in another country but apparently not. I have to pay about 5000 dollars. It took me back for about a minute - until I saw that it was only thinking that was causing the pain. All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts. This is basic Abhidhamma. RobertK Weight Age Gender Female Male 20506 From: nidive Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:28am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi Suan, > Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward > ideas of Buddhadasa. I too think that RobertK had written a very wonderful reply. > I doubt that the people like Buddhadasa had done any serious study of > Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka. > > Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka are not for the feeble- > minded backward people. > > Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to > the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without > carefully studying the message. Oh no ... > I am always amazed to know the existence of people who are not in the > position to criticize great personalities like Aacariya Buddhaghosa, > yet have the audacity to do so - that is to say, the audacity to > commit the wrong speech (micchaa vaacaa). I wonder do such people accumulate great akusala kamma to send them to the woeful states of existence. Assuming that Buddhaghosa had taught the real Dhamma and that the Abhidhamma is really the true ultimate doctrine, would not that be equivalent to slandering the Buddha? For it was said "one who sees the Dhamma sees the Buddha". Although the Buddha and probably Buddhaghosa had become extinct in parinibbana, do you think committing such "wrong speech" accumulates great akusala kamma? I also have objections to what Buddhadasa taught about nibbana. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20507 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 1:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, Jon (and Mike) - In a message dated 3/23/03 4:29:21 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Mike > > What happens after death is not something that I find occupies my > mind much at all. My thinking is that unless death marks the end of > everything (i.e., extinction), it must be followed by 'rebirth' of > some sort, and this I accept as the more likely position. There is > no way of knowing anything about the nature of the realms (heavenly > or hell) into which one may potentially be reborn, but the > description given in the teachings is a plausible one (I put it no > higher than that). 'Faring according to deeds' is how it is often > expressed, and this is my 'working hypothesis'. > > In the Buddha' s description of things there is no 'promised land' > nor any indication of the likelihood of being reunited with one's > loved ones. > > Jon > =========================== I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your final paragraph, I do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some manner with one's loved ones. People with related kamma and experiences and accumulations tend to be reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - sometimes as friends, sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes child-parent, sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the Sutta pitaka that indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's and others' previous lives. 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) 20508 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 1:47am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Sukin (and Christine) - It seems to me that the gist of your reply below is included in the paragraph: Sukin: Isn't Chris doing all this already? Or do you mean that now she should start to observe the activities of her mind and body in a particular way? If so, what is that way, and what dhamma is doing the noting and what would prompt those dhammas to arise?! Now, I understand you to be saying that there is no partticularly Buddhist practice at all, and that my neighbor who knows nothing of the Dhamma is already doing what needs to be done .. conditions just need to somehow develop. Or, at most, you might be saying that all one should do is read the Sutta Pitaka, and, even moreso, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, and think about that. Perhaps I misunderstand you. But if not, then it best be just said that our views of what the Buddha recommended differ radically. As far as what Christine does or does not do, this I don't know. I was merely responding to her post. It is certainly quite possible that Chris engages in any number of activities of her choosing. I made some suggestions that I hoped might be helpful ... that's all. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/23/03 5:14:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, sukin@k... writes: > > > Hi Howard and Chris, > > Long time no write Howard :-). > When I read Chris' original message, I thought to myself, " Why does > Chris want 'road signs'? " But more importantly I thought, "why does she > want to 'read the suttas and study other texts, take Pali lessons, go to > weekend Dhamma discussions with others'"?! > By this I mean, why have a grasping attitude toward the Teachings > giving rise to the idea that certain things have to be done to attain it? I > > compared this to the idea about 'formal meditation'. > So when I saw this post of yours, I feel compelled to reply. Hope you do > not mind the tone:-). My comments are between yours: > > >============================ > > Why not continue to do all the reading, studying, and discussing, > but > >also do sitting, standing, lying, bending, and walking meditation? > ============================ > Sukin: > Isn't Chris doing all this already? Or do you mean that now she should > start to observe the activities of her mind and body in a particular way? > If so, what is that way, and what dhamma is doing the noting and what > would prompt those dhammas to arise?! > ============================ > Why not > >use your own home as bodhi tree, and sit in formal meditation, > cultivating > >calm and maybe jhanas, and also observing the rise and fall of > phenomena? > ============================ > Sukin: > What is significant about this 'bodhi tree' that you ask Chris to think > about? Is this one of the objects conducive to jhana? How does > one 'observe rise and fall of phenomena' with the attitude that *this* is > the place (bodhi tree or otherwise) to do so? Can one be intent on > observing phenomena even now, how more difficult it would be to do so > when obsecured by the idea of time and place? Lobha attaches to > everything, the goal, the person doing, the place, the time. > ======================== > And > >also, during ordinary times when there is no need to pay attention to > a task > >that would get in the way, why not be mindful of whatever arises > without > >attachment? > ======================== > Sukin: > But there is still *someone* doing the noting, no? And who can control > attachment? And if attachment itself can be observed, wouldn't wanting > to do something 'without attachment' possibly condition a turning away > from attachment and hence developing more ignorance of it? > ======================== > And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, > >attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, > and > >emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? > ======================== > Sukin: > Can *we* choose to observe 'impermanence'? Is not this the function of > sati and panna? Wouldn't a projected idea of impermanence with little > accumulated panna be risking the chance that wrong view increases? > ======================== > Why not do > >that all? (No need for special mats, seats, incense, bells, Buddha > statues, a > >special place such as a meditation hall or center, or even for fellow > >meditators - though these are all okay.) > ======================== > Sukin: > Are they really okay? How can I go around carrying all that and expect to > come to understand the truth of anicca, dukkha and anatta? > ======================== > >With metta, > >Howard > ======================== > Sukin: > Just to let you know Howard, otherwise most of the time I am in > agreement with what you have to say :-). > > Best wishes, > Sukin. > > /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20509 From: nidive Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:11am Subject: Re: Buddhadasa Hi Christine, I am not a fan of Buddhadasa and I don't appreciate his teachings at all. In fact, I think that his teachings is the actual 'dark teachings'. I do not have much knowledge on his teachings. But I do know that he does not accept the reality of rebirth and he thinks that nibbana comes with this life and is the elimination of the defilements. My question then is: if there is no rebirth and this life is the only one, what is the purpose of nibbana? He claims that nibbana is the elimination of the defilements. That one experiences nibbana temporarily when defilements are suppressed temporarily. If that is the case, then when one dies, does not defilements "die" too. That means that when a person dies, he is/becomes nibbana? If that is so, why bother about nibbana at all? I do not see any lawfulness of the Dhamma in his dark teachings. It only brings on more contradictions. In my opinion, his dark teachings lean to the side of annihilism (and he has the audacity to say that Buddhaghosa teaches eternalism). That aside, I also know that I do not have direct personal knowledge of the virtue, meditation, wisdom, abiding and emancipation of either Buddhaghosa or of Buddhadasa. But if I have direct personal knowledge of the lawfulness of the Dhamma, then I will not be swayed by the opinions of either Buddhaghosa or Buddhadasa. For had not the Buddha said: "...Now, Kalamas, don't go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by conjecture, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, 'This contemplative is our teacher.' When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when adopted & carried out, lead to benefit & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them." If I pursue the line of thinking of Buddhadasa, it leads to only more stress and more perplexing questions. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20510 From: nidive Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, ---------------------------------------------------------- And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? ---------------------------------------------------------- Not only the impermanence of it all, but the non-selfness of it all. Yes, I appreciate what you have advised Christine. I *feel and know* what you are trying to convey by the above. I do not know why, but I feel that this dhamma study group seems to have the tendency to de-emphasize on concentration practice. Even though I think that jhana is not necessary, I feel that a certain level of proficiency in concentration practice is needed. I also think that studying the Abhidhamma and reflecting intellectually on the dhammas is not the correct practice. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20511 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:05am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Suan, > > > Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward > > ideas of Buddhadasa. > > I too think that RobertK had written a very wonderful reply. Hi NEO and Suan, I want to address both of you with one post. First, it is hypocritical to the extreme to state that "Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without carefully studying the message." Do you both not see how this is glaringly hypocritical? Perhaps you don't so let me spell it out. This statement (and others of the same nature in these two posts) is supporting a `view of conceit' that equates a person's `message' or `ideas' with the person himself. It is not feasible to state that it is wrong to criticize Buddhaghosa as a person without listening to his ideas, and then turn around and do just that to those who oppose some of the ideas of Buddhaghosa (like myself) by referring to them as a `class of backward people'. Although I do have to give you kudos for the cleverness of crouching such a personal insult in such a seemingly innocuous manner ;-) (hint: irony). Also, you cannot scare me, and shouldn't try, with allusions and innuendos that I (and the other `backward people' ;-) are going to go to hell for opposing some of the views of Buddhaghosa. The Christians tried that with me for many years and it never worked ;- ). What determines a person's rebirth in a hell realm is intent, and, even if I am mistaken, my intent is far more pure than the both of yours who aim at character assassination and attempted silence with hints of supernatural punishment. Also, Robert K's post was not the unilateral disqualification of all of the views of Buddhadasa that you both seem to purport it as being. He simply questioned some of Buddhadasa's interpretations using his own analysis. Personally, I didn't find it conclusive in any regard because he didn't quote the actual words and analysis of Buddhadasa, but he did quote the actual words of Buddhaghosa. That is not a fair or comprehensive comparison. To paraphrase one and then direly quote the other may be a misrepresentation of both and more strongly of the views of Buddhadasa; which I am not saying with all certainty that that is what occurred. I don't have the inclination to study both of these scholars in-depth and present my own findings on the matter. Unless either one of you care to do that, we are back at where we started. Finally, you both make a false assumption that one has to be thoroughly familiar with every single aspect of the Commentaries and the Abhidhamma in order to reach any conclusions about them. Both of those works are so vast that no one could say with certainty that they are thoroughly familiar with either body of work, even if they are completely in favor of them. Your position is like stating that one cannot believe the teachings of the Lord Buddha until that person is fully enlightened. Of course that is not necessary. It is quite possible to reach conclusions about something with only partial knowledge of it. As always, it was a pleasure writing to the both of you. Please don't continue to make this discussion such a strong adversarial one; that isn't beneficial to anyone (I hope that isn't what this post does…but I felt these things needed to be stated.). Take care. Metta, James 20512 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:28am Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine & Other, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Hi Robert and All, I was exposed to V. Buddhadhassa's work thru my parents' interests, so I am by no mean an expert on what he teaches. However, from my brief glimpses of his work, I have the following impressions: 1) his teachings, especially when it comes to rebirth, is substantially different from what's in the 3 tipitakas. To believe that what he teaches is right, one needs to believe in the supposition that the tipitakas have been heavily doctored to include fragments of other beliefs (you can see how much the texts refer to rebirth: this seems to amount to major overhaul, not just convenient modifications). He believes in the aberration in all three tipitakas, not just the commentaries or the abhidhamma tipitakas. 2) To believe in no rebirth seems to me amounting to belief in spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. How do we come to be like we are, even as babies? Babies have personalities and habits, how do those come to be? The venerable would explain it, "it is what it is". Although this sounds very alluring and calming, this points to spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. 3) To believe in no rebirth also negates the explanation of kamma and its results. He sometimes explained the results of kamma to mean what we receive in this very life. If you believe this, then there are people who commit evils, but who will receive no results, and there are people who receive (good and bad) results, without causes. Kamma that are conditioned by attachments (and therefore, wouldn't necessarily condition anger or anxiety, something he views as the punishment of this very life) may bear no fruit if the authority doesn't catch the crooks and punish them. People who are born rich and beautiful, miserable and disadvantaged, are put there without cause: stuffs happen. I don't think there are much disagreements that intellectual understandings about the dhamma alone cannot bring about enlightenment. It is the disagreement of what brings about the understanding at the pati-pati (practice) level, that is usually in questions. Are we firm in our understanding of anattaness of realities? Do you "choose" to see, hear, think about what is happening right now? Once we see that, we then understand anattaness better, and also that the understanding at the pati-pati level is the same way as any other realities: they are conditioned. Without the proper causes, they don't arise, and with the proper causes, they arise. The direct causes of wisdom at the pati-pati level is not the desire to know or to do or to be calm, it is the understanding at other levels. Kusala at all levels support development of panna, but desire, even though it is something that may motivate us at the beginning (to be out of misery, to have an explanation, for example), quickly becomes a hindrance for further development, and may very well lead us into the wrong practices. kom 20513 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:49am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, Hope you are not upset with me. Let me explain the background from which my reaction arose. A friend had written off-list expressing what I thought was confusion with regard to the disagreements expressed by different members here on dsg on different issues. He also said that he found no cause for confusion reading the direct words of the Buddha. This is why I quickly reacted to Kom’s message to Victor by showing my approval to what he wrote. I too was thinking about how each person reads the text and thinks that he understands it as it should be understood. All so simple, all so clear, no need for the commentaries!! Yes there was dosa, especially when I see that people prefer Nanavira and Buddhadasa to Buddhaghosa. As you probably know I don’t read anything but these posts on dsg. But once I did pick up one of the commentaries (forget which one) and read two pages from it. I remember that I felt much joy and gratitude towards the author and realized that without the commentaries I would not have come to understand the original message. I also thought about the last time someone mentioned and quoted Nanavira, I had the impression that this person was probably trained in western philosophy, this was reflected in the way he chose to question and the conclusions he would then make. There was a particular style there. Of course I am grateful to him, because it set me thinking about how we all are limited by our peculiar method of inquiry. In fact I think many times, asking a question, we already choose an answer we would like to hear. But of course I should be watching my own mind. With regard to Buddhadasa, I had once made the conclusion that he mostly “reactedâ€? to what he saw in the general Thai public. In the case of Buddhaghosa, I think he was blaming the wrong person. I think the cause for his reaction was the the general Thai buddhists’ trend to misinterpret not only Buddhagosa’s writings, but the Teachings in general. Many Thais do have the influence of Brahmanism, but is this the Visudhimagga’s fault? I hope you now understand Howard. But yes, we do disagree, and I would like to proceed along with this if you don’t mind. Comments are in between. Howard: • Now, I understand you to be saying that there is no partticularly • Buddhist practice at all, and that my neighbor who knows nothing of the • Dhamma is already doing what needs to be done .. conditions just need to • somehow develop. There is a hearing or reading about reality, one of the characteristics of which is Anatta. And one hears about conditions and how complex is the cause for the arising of any dhamma. How well one understands this depends on many conditions one of which is one’s accumulations. This ranges on the one hand Sariputta and Bhaiya who immediately understood from just a few words to the other extreme someone such as the Pope, who interprets Buddhism as being a pessimistic religion based on his misunderstanding of the Noble Truth of Dukkha. Did Sariputta and Bahiya do anything to attain enlightenment, ie. with this object in mind? Would you say that their attitude would have been the same as your neighbor’s? Conditions need to be developed, not randomly but also not capable of being directed and controled by anything but the conditions themselves. Certainly not by what we think and wish to be. Howard: • Or, at most, you might be saying that all one should do is • read the Sutta Pitaka, and, even moreso, the Abhidhamma and the commentaries, • and think about that. I wouldn’t say this either, because the important first step is pariyatti, which is the actual moment of intellectual understanding. ‘Reading’ is a conventional activity, it can be done with complete ignorance and attachment. If one thinks that this activity per se would lead to insight, then I object to it as I do to formal meditation. But of course the description is needed, in this case then, if one has the correct understanding of the purpose of the Teachings, then the words can condition sati and sampajanna to arise. And here I do not see anything that would lead me to conclude that once sati has arisen, I can then direct my mind to cause more sati to arise, either by listening or reading more or by trying to direct my mind towards the arising phenomena. Howard: • Perhaps I misunderstand you. But if not, then it best • be just said that our views of what the Buddha recommended differ radically. • As far as what Christine does or does not do, this I don’t know. I was merely • responding to her post. It is certainly quite possible that Chris engages in • any number of activities of her choosing. I made some suggestions that I • hoped might be helpful ... that’s all. I don’t know how far the misunderstanding is, but in the case of mentioning about Chistine’s activities, I was not pointing to the activities themselves, but to the attitude towards those activities, whatever they are. My objection is towards a sudden encouragement of sakyaditthi even if this be with the intention of loosening it. I do not think we can think of acquiring something for ourselves and expect to decrease lobha in the process. Similarly I do not think that engaging in silabattaparamasa can lead to the wearing away of sakyaditthi. Please let us pursue this Howard, and I would like others to join in as well. If one or both of us are wrong, we should know, don’t you think? With metta, Sukin. 20514 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:43am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Christine and all, Here is my thoughts about the place of the Abhidhamma Pitaka: First of all, I don't see the Abhidhamma Pitaka as part of the Dhamma and Discipline. The Dhamma and Discipline has one taste, the taste of liberation. I can discern this taste of liberation in the discourses and the Vinaya. I also discern it in some of the writings on the Teaching of the Buddha. My exposure to Abhidhamma Pitaka is second-handed (or third or fourth). It is mostly through writings or discussions in DSG or elsewhere. From what I read about the Abhidhamma Pitaka, I have come to see it as an elaborate conceptual system that aims to describe, explain and classify mental phenomena. To me, the "taste" of this sytem is different from that of the Dhamma and Discipline. In other words, I see the Abhidhamma Pitaka and the Dhamma-Discipline in two different domains with different focuses. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, [snip] > It appears that the writings of these two well-known 20th Century > Bhikkhus could give one pause when considering and reflecting on the > place of the Visuddimagga and the Abhidhamma. It would be good to > hear other's thoughts. > > metta, > > Christine 20515 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 0:30pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- It is not feasible to state > that it is wrong to criticize Buddhaghosa as a person without > listening to his ideas, and then turn around and do just that to > those who oppose some of the ideas of Buddhaghosa ( _________________> Dear James, Swee Boon and Suan, Thanks for the comments about my post. I wrote most of it about 18months ago and this was mostly a paste job. While I think venerable Buddhadasa's comments about the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa are mistaken I also think we should not be gentle when disagreeing. Otherwise people react rather than consider. So I sympathise with what James said above. ________ > Also, Robert K's post was not the unilateral disqualification of all > of the views of Buddhadasa that you both seem to purport it as > being. He simply questioned some of Buddhadasa's interpretations > using his own analysis. Personally, I didn't find it conclusive in > any regard because he didn't quote the actual words and analysis of > Buddhadasa, but he did quote the actual words of Buddhaghosa. That > is not a fair or comprehensive comparison. _______________ Actually I quoted both Buddhadasa and Buddhaghosa directly. As I said in my post there are several points in Buddhadasa's book that I thought were useful. I think Sukin made a good point when he noted that Buddhadasa may have been reacting to some of the misinterpretations of Dhamma that occur in thai society - but that he wrongly identified the Visuddhimagga with those misunderstandings. People can read the visuddhimagga and take it wrongly, but that is not the fault of the Vis. Here is an article by Buddhadasa that has some worthwhile points I think. http://www.buddhanet.net/budasa10.htm INSlGHT, BY THE NATURE METHOD ""One thing must be noticed, however: the intensity of concentration that comes about naturally is usually sufficient and appropriate for introspection and insight, whereas the concentration resulting from organized training is usually excessive, more than can be made use of. Furthermore, misguided satisfaction with that highly developed concentration may result. While the mind is fully concentrated, it is likely to be experiencing such a satisfying kind of bliss and well- being that the meditator may become attached to it, or imagine it to be the Fruit of the Path. Naturally occurring concentration, which is sufficient and suitable for use in introspection, is harmless, having none of the disadvantages inherent in concentration developed by means of intensive training. In the Tipitaka, there are numerous references to people attaining naturally all states of Path and Fruit. This generally came about in the presence of the Buddha himself but also happened later with other teachers. These people did not go into the forest and sit, assiduously practicing concentration on certain objects in the way described in later manuals. In these cases, keen, penetrating insight came about quite naturally. These examples clearly show that natural concentration is liable to develop of its own accord while one is attempting to understand clearly some question, and that the resulting insight, as long as it is firmly established must be quite intense and stable. It happens naturally, automatically in just the same way as the mind becomes concentrated the moment we set about doing arithmetic. Likewise in firing a gun, when we take aim, the mind automatically becomes concentrated and steady. This is how naturally occurring concentration comes about. We normally overlook it completely because it does not appear the least bit magical, miraculous, or awe inspiring. But through the power of just this naturally occurring concentration, most of us could actually attain liberation. We could attain the Fruit of the Path, Nirvana, arahantship, just by means of natural concentration. So don't overlook this naturally occurring concentration. It is something most of us either already have, or can readily develop. We have to do everything we can to cultivate and develop it, to make it function perfectly and yield the appropriate results, just as did most of the people who succeeded in becoming arahants, none""""" 20516 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 0:52pm Subject: Re: Parameters The Buddha declared "I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering." Hi Mike et al (Kom, Victor, Howard, Sukin), Thanks, Mike. It was well worth the wait! There is much in your response that requires careful analysis, this is only my first attempt at that. In view of the lively concurrent discussions, I would like to stipulate that I mean no disrespect to anyone, and especially none to the Buddha. Specifically, my questions are just attempts to understand your attitudes and viewpoints. M: "I'm not aware of one, though, that contains even one of even the most conventional expressions of the eight path factors--much less all eight of them or the incredible elucidation of them in the Tipitaka." "Where else, though, is it identified as ta.nhaa? What an amazing and unique insight." "The other three noble truths I would agree are unique to Buddhadhamma, but not implicitly (if by that you mean sort of tautologically)--I mean I really don't think any of them are to be found elsewhere (except where borrowed from Buddhadhamma)." "I think that all manner of teachings can be more or less relevant to lots of different things--I just don't know of one that I find relevant to the four noble truths and conditioned origination." D: I had offerred the solution to suffering, including unsatisfactoriness of existence, as one common denominator. Yes, what you point out may be unique to Buddhism. Each religion has aspects that are unique, and none are completely similar. The question however, is whether we should concentrate only on the differences, at the expense of the similarities. The answer illuminates the parameters of understanding about what we are, what the universe is, and myriad other mysteries. Let me repeat this portion which is worth spending some thinking capital on: The answer illuminates the parameters of understanding. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: "d:> So, I think it is again an issue of terminology, view, parameters, and ultimately ... belief." Here we disagree. The uniqueness of the four noble truths is not a matter of 'terminology, view, parameters and ultimately ... belief.'-- they are unique quite outside these considerations. As for belief, for my part, I don't 'believe' in the Buddhadhamma. I accept it as a working hypothesis because it explains more, more satsifactorily, than anything else I've discovered so far. If by belief you mean something like 'blind faith', the Buddha discouraged this sort of thing as I understand it. D: I have never found so much aversion to the word 'belief' as on dsg!! No, I do not mean blind faith, whatever that really means. Theologicians of other religions would never admit 'blind faith' either. Most intelligent believers, explore, test etc. yet still have to accept a set of views, within set parameters, using a certain terminology. Accepting what we cannot immediately verify to be true, is my understanding of belief in this context. Take Nibbana, is there or is there not belief in it? Take liberation, is there or is there not belief in it? Belief is what we all require to make sense of the immediately unknowable, to hold out a construct that somehow lends order to the apparent chaos. Coincidentally, it is the mother of all concepts!!! Now, if you want to say you do not 'believe' that's okay with me, but I reserve the right to wonder ;-). ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: ".......When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to welfare & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them..." D: Knowing for yourself, is a common motif of many religions. Once we accept the basic premises, begin to 'believe' as it were, we begin to 'know' within that construct. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: "d:> I guess what I am looking for is a view about other teachings not overly restricted by the parameters of one's own > dominant belief. Perhaps even this is not easily possible, let alone true objectivity." I don't see (my perception of) the absence of the four noble truths from other teachings as being an overly restricted view, or as being restricted at all. I do see this as the distinction between Buddhadhamma and religions and other teachings, though. I think this is quite a valid distinction. D: The view that the 4NT are unapproachably distinct from other religions, seems to inhibit objective consideration of the latter. I hope I am reading you correctly here, Mike. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: I have to admit I don't think I ever read Titus Andronicus. D: Now available on DVD - skilfully adapted I am told. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: d: > "Cruel, irreligious piety!" A very nice line! And so often true of religions--never of Buddhadhamma properly understood though, in my opinion. D: Really? The dialogue on Buddhaghosa just today may suggest otherwise! Of course the caveat of being properly understood, would apply to all religions, presumably protecting any of their believers from Cruel, irreligious piety. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: "d:> What struck me there was that mutually > exclusive beliefs of both parties, provided no bridge to aid > understanding. > Needless to say both thought they were right. > What therefore follows is a showcase for kilesa and kamma! If you're suggesting that the absence of a 'bridge to aid understanding (between the parties?) is the source of the following evil, I think this is an error (no offense). People who understand each other perfectly well (in the conventional meaning of 'understanding') are capable of the of the greatest horrors. I think, for example, that George W. Bush and Saddam Hussein understand each other perfectly well, speaking conventionally. Understanding in the sense of pa~n~naa is something entirely different, of course. D: In the play, the refusal to identify with the other's point of view, resulted in horrors beyond their imagination. The history of religions gives ample examples of this phenomenon. By understanding I mean more than perceiving the insults thrown back and forth, the capabilities of the adversary etc. if that is what you imply by conventional. I mean the ability to see oneself in the shoes of the other. To have compassion for the other, not just pity. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: I wouldn't say this; every day I endeavour to have fun, to 'be good', to make a living, to stay well etc. I also try to understand (in a conventional way) what's happening in the world socio- economically and even a little about physics and so on. It's true that I have no interest in religion, though. In fact, I quite dislike religion (akusala, I know!). By religion I mean, roughly, superstitious belief in the possibility of influencing events by means of the supernatural (or the petitioning of supernatural beings). D: I apologize Mike. By saying the only focus of your endeavor, I meant as in focussing your religious sense, rather than the totality of life, if it is safe to make that distinction. I think that all religions have the core of truth. What then happens, is the onion- like layering on of superstition, ritual, xenophobia, and most importantly, misinterpretation. I also have no time for belief in influencing events by petitions/supplications/penances, none in ghosts, devils, angels, heaven, hell etc. This however, does not give sufficient reason to reject the core teachings of most religions. I believe that each core provides a unique aspect of truth and reality - parts of the mosaic of existence. I know what I say is unconventional, but there you have it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: Nibbaana? Do you think that nibbaana exists outside the four noble truths? D: This illustrates the issue of parameters. Yes, I do think/believe that "............" a.k.a 'unconditioned reality' exists. Whether inside or outside of the 4NT, is a matter of view and parameters, part of which I am trying to explore with you. Is it safe to conclude that Nibbana is only achieved by the path taught by the Buddha? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: To me, one of the most striking (and delightful) aspects of Buddhadhamma is the way that it illustrates that the preoccupations of everyone, everywhere are unsatisfactory, impermanent and empty. I've deliberately equivocated 'proliferation' (papa~nca) with preoccupation here--hope I'm not twisting your meaning: "Dependent on the eye....... D: I presume you mean that the preoccupations of everyone are just proliferation. I am not sure that I can answer this intelligently or accurately. All I can say is that billions are striving for some experience of the unconditioned reality in their own ways, and I personally cannot just ascribe that to a mental dead-end for all of them. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- M: d: > Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs? Not quite sure what you mean here. D: This may require a whole separate response. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike, this does NOT specifically apply to you, but is a general question for contemplation by everyone: Do we run the risk of mana, by easily (or reactively) considering other beliefs relatively inferior to our own? It is indeed a pleasure to interact with you, Mike. I don't think we are very distant at all in our general understanding. :) u.w. dharam 20517 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:43am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi, Swee Boon (and Suan, and Robert) - Wow! Hellfire and damnation! Sign me up for the revival meeting! In a message dated 3/23/03 9:28:57 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Suan, > > >Thank you for writing a wonderful reply to the wrong and backward > >ideas of Buddhadasa. > > I too think that RobertK had written a very wonderful reply. > ------------------------------------------------ Howard: I think so as well! Robert is always to-the-point, measured, moderate, and insightful. As far as Budhhadasa Bhikkhu is concerned, I like some of his stuff, and am not keen about other stuff of his. So what? I am not the Grand Inquisitor, nor am I aware of anyone else who fills that role. Geez, where are all the witches? I'd love to have a good witch-burnin' party! ----------------------------------------------- > > >I doubt that the people like Buddhadasa had done any serious study of > >Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka. > > > >Pali commentaries and Abhidhamma Pi.taka are not for the feeble- > >minded backward people. > > > >Anyone who criticizes Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma Pi.taka belongs to > >the class of backward people who shoot the messenger - without > >carefully studying the message. > > Oh no ... > > >I am always amazed to know the existence of people who are not in the > >position to criticize great personalities like Aacariya Buddhaghosa, > >yet have the audacity to do so - that is to say, the audacity to > >commit the wrong speech (micchaa vaacaa). > > I wonder do such people accumulate great akusala kamma to send them to > the woeful states of existence. Assuming that Buddhaghosa had taught > the real Dhamma and that the Abhidhamma is really the true ultimate > doctrine, would not that be equivalent to slandering the Buddha? For > it was said "one who sees the Dhamma sees the Buddha". Although the > Buddha and probably Buddhaghosa had become extinct in parinibbana, do > you think committing such "wrong speech" accumulates great akusala kamma? > > > I also have objections to what Buddhadasa taught about nibbana. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon > > =============================== With fundamentalist fire-and-brimstone 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) 20518 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:51am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi, Swee Boon and all - In a message dated 3/23/03 5:43:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, Upasaka writes: > > Hi, Swee Boon (and Suan, and Robert) - > > Wow! Hellfire and damnation! Sign me up for the revival meeting! > ============================= While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with annoyance, and I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20519 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Sukin - Your post is a lengthy one, and so I snipped all but the part I think requires immediate reply. In a message dated 3/23/03 12:50:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, sukin@k... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Hope you are not upset with me. > ======================== Not at all. We are fine!! :-) With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20520 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:51pm Subject: Me Again! Dear James, It's me again Janice! Thanks for answering my questions. Now here are another few questions! How old is the Buddha now? Do you pray in the temple every once a week?(at least) Do you take any classes in the temple? For a change I shall share a poem with you- YELLOW WITH AGE See how old paper withers and looks Ancient old photographs dusty old books Watch how old leaves, linens and skin Alter to mirror the changes within Mark how with age things gradually mellow React to the air and oxidize yellow. Metta, Janice 20521 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:54pm Subject: Again! Dear Kom, Thank you for answering my questions! Lately, I am quite upset about the war which had just started in Iraq! Here are a few questions: Do you believe in war? do you support it? Do you believe in the laughing Buddha? Do you follow the mindfulness path? Do you go to the temple every week? Metta, Janice 20522 From: Star Kid Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 3:57pm Subject: JANicE~>>! Dear Janice, Hello! I'm Kiana and I was suprised and happy that you wrote me a letter and gave me a happy belated Birthday wish! I remember you! You are the cute girl who studies in Mrs.Abbott's Friday class and I saw you before! I have to say 'Happy Birthday" to you too! On March 5th, was your birthday, is it? Now is the time to answer your questions. THat book "The British Museum-Buddha" is interesting because it tells many differnce ideas of Buddha, and there are really many Buddhas in the world! You can try to borrow that book in Mrs.Abbott's class! You will know more about them! Metta,Kiana 20523 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 4:51pm Subject: Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), 2. Clear comprehension in looking straight on and in looking away from the front, p. 86 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html In the same way, eye is eye-base; visible object is materiality-base; seeing is mind-base; feeling and so forth, the associated things, are thing-base. Thus looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these four bases. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Likewise, eye is eye-process; visible object is materiality-process; seeing is eye-consciousness-process; and the things beginning with feeling associated with eye-consciousness are mind-process. Thus, looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these four processes. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Exactly, in the manner already stated, eye is support-condition; visible object is object-condition; adverting is condition of proximity, contiguity, decisive-support, absence and disappearance; light is condition of decisive-support and those beginning with feeling are conascence-condition. Thus looking straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the front is seen in the combination of these conditions. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? [Tika] With the words: light is the condition of decisive-support the conditionality of seeing is stated through the Suttanta method, through the way of illustrated discourse, discursively, indirectly. [T] Conascence-condition too belongs to just seeing. This is (given as) only an example owing to the obtaining also of conditions of mutuality, association, presence, non-disappearance and so forth. Here, in this way, by reflection on the aggregates, bases, processes, and conditions, too, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood. 3. Clear comprehension in the bending and the stretching of limbs Sammiñjite pasarite = "in bending and in stretching." In the bending and the stretching of the joints. The consideration of purpose and lack of purpose in regard to any contemplated act of bending or stretching, and the taking up of that which is purposeful, after not bending and stretching according to merely the mind's inclination, is clear comprehension of purpose. In this matter, a person who experiences pain every moment due to standing long with bent or stretched hands or feet does not get concentration of mind (mental one-pointedness), his subject of meditation entirely falls away, and he does not obtain distinction (absorption and so forth). But he who bends or stretches his hands and feet for the proper length of time does not experience pain, gets concentration of mind, develops his subject of meditation and attains distinction. Thus the comprehension of purpose and non-purpose should be known. Clear comprehension of suitability is the comprehension of the suitable after considering the suitable and the non-suitable even in a matter that is purposeful. In this connection, the following is the method of explanation: It is said that on the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine, while young bhikkhus were rehearsing the doctrine, young bhikkhunis standing at the back of the bhikkhus were listening to the rehearsal. Then a young bhikkhu came into bodily contact with a bhikkhuni while stretching out his hand, and, by just that fact, became a layman. Another bhikkhu in stretching his foot stretched it into fire and his foot got burnt to the bone. Another stretched his foot on an ant-hill and was bitten in the foot by a poisonous snake. Another bhikkhu stretched out his hand till it rested on the pole of a robe-tent, a ribbon-snake on the pole bit the hand of that bhikkhu. Therefore the stretching of one's limbs should be done in a suitable and not an unsuitable place. This should be understood here as clear comprehension of suitability. [T] Just by the showing of the tribulation of non-comprehension of that, the felicity of comprehension is made clear; thus here, the illustration of these should be understood. [T] In the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine = In the terrace of the great relic shrine known by the name of Hemamali, at Anuradhapura, in Lanka, built by the king Dutthagamini. [T] By just that fact, became a layman = By reason of coming into bodily contact with a female, that bhikkhu having become filled with longing for sense-delights turned to the lower life of the world. [T] On the pole of a robe-tent = On a pole fixed to the roof of a tent covered with robes. [T] It is said by the commentator that bhikkhus having made a robe-tent were in that tent rehearsing the doctrine even on the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine. It is said by the commentators, the elders Ananda and Dhammapala, that the ribbon-snake is a snake-species found in Lion Island. 20524 From: Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:22pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Nina and all, I'm a little bewildered by the section on clear comprehension. Are the seven parts of this section concerned with insight, aka "clear comprehension" (sampaja~n~na) in four ways, i.e., purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion, into the body in the practice of body mindfulness (kaya anupassana)? Purpose, suitability, and resort seem to be concerned with maintaining purity and could possibly be characterized as "awareness". This adds another dimension to insight. Larry 20525 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:39pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: _______________ > Actually I quoted both Buddhadasa and Buddhaghosa directly. > As I said in my post there are several points in Buddhadasa's book > that I thought were useful. I think Sukin made a good point when he > noted that Buddhadasa may have been reacting to some of the > misinterpretations of Dhamma that occur in thai society - but that he > wrongly identified the Visuddhimagga with those misunderstandings. Hi Robert K, Oh, my apologies, I didn't clarify this enough. What I meant to say is that you don't directly quote where Buddhadasa explains his reasoning and evidence for why Buddhaghosa inadvertently supports the positions of atta and, therefore, incorrectly presents karma and dependent origination; but you do quote some material from Buddhaghosa that states there is no self (showing that he at least, in those examples, supported anatta), in opposition to a position of Buddhadasa's that you have not presented in its entirety. Granted, you do quote Buddhadasa directly, but not anything that relates to his main point. You quote where he lays the groundwork for his argument, and then where he follows up after his argument, but not the main argument itself. I still have no idea how Buddhadasa justified this position against Buddhaghosa. Surely he didn't just state it, not offer any evidence, and that was the end of that? My point was that I am depending on you to prove your case: Buddhadasa made accusations that were unsupported or incorrect. I don't see how you did this. It shouldn't be up to me to look up this two works and find out for myself what you haven't presented. I believe that if someone takes up the goal of convincing people of something, it needs to be presented in a fair and complete way. Granted, you aren't being paid for this so you don't have to do anything. But I also don't have to believe you unless you follow through with a balanced presentation. That was all I was saying. Metta, James ps. The comments that Buddhadasa might have been reacting to how the Buddhadharma is incorrectly presented in Thai society is not supported with any type of evidence and is a generalization that is unfair to both Buddhadasa and Thai society. 20526 From: bodhi342 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 5:59pm Subject: Re: Parameters Hi Mike, I have a (hopefully humorous) postscript caveat to add to my last sentence in my prior message: "I don't think we are very distant at all in our general understanding.....but then, how long is a piece of string??" :) You were not clear on my question: "Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs?" By this I meant to ask if it were possible to find sufficient common ground, between the all too well encapsulated understandings - religious, philosophic and scientific etc. if each steadfastly insists on its own unique superiority, as indeed many adherents maintain. Not only is theirs right, but the ONLY right one, and others be damned. That is often the real-world situation. Those less certain are left with sa.mvega (thanks, Mike!). May I explore this issue using an analogy? Advance apologies to solar worshippers/heliophiles. An advanced member of a group studies, contemplates, discusses and proclaims that everything is dependant on the Sun. All life, heat and light, the seasons, the weather, all cycles of existence (metaphorically) revolve around the Sun. Now to a large degree, we have to agree that this is (conventionally) true, verifiable, and constant over time. It can also be viewed an issue of parameters and belief. Later, others of that group, insist that only sufficient exposure to the Sun allows any individual to fully understand the profound nature of this revelation. Some others insist that frequent sunburns are the key. All other prior, and subsequent, constructs are inferior because they do not expound these stark truths about 'reality'. So, those who speak about the importance of air, water, nutrition, gravity etc. for example, are off the mark. Being off the mark, these others will be condemned to cold, dark ignorance and other ignoble outcomes. The above analogy can be applied to almost any contemporary religion or philosophy. If we are honest, we can see how this sort of process operates. The problem is not with the initial observation, the truth; but it lies with those who come later and insist on qualifiers leading to exclusivity. These people cannot reconcile well-encapsulated internally consistent beliefs, with other beliefs, that may also be true. All or none. After so much human effort and understanding, it would be a shame if we miss this simple point - that we are looking at different aspects of the same Truth. Since many of us pursue further understanding to shed ignorance, I am concerned about the artificial limiting of knowledge based on, shall we politely say, premature closure. Premature closure that leads people to the delusion that they are on THE ONLY path to correct understanding, and eventually "..........". IMHO there is much to be understood, within and outside of, any one particular teaching or field of understanding. Keeping a truly open mind seems to be just a basic prerequisite. Keeping an open mind also obliges one to consider the opposite view carefully, and without too much aversion. No place for mana here! Not because of any injunction not to be conceited, but because of a humble understanding of how easily even the intelligent can be fooled. Hope this overlong explanation helps to clarify. u.w. dharam 20527 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:18pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" > wrote: > _______________ > > Actually I quoted both Buddhadasa and Buddhaghosa directly. > > As I said in my post there are several points in Buddhadasa's book > > that I thought were useful. I think Sukin made a good point when > he > > noted that Buddhadasa may have been reacting to some of the > > misinterpretations of Dhamma that occur in thai society - but that > he > > wrongly identified the Visuddhimagga with those misunderstandings. > > > Hi Robert K, > > Oh, my apologies, I didn't clarify this enough. What I meant to say > is that you don't directly quote where Buddhadasa explains his > reasoning and evidence for why Buddhaghosa inadvertently supports > the positions of atta and, therefore, incorrectly presents karma and > dependent origination; but you do quote some material from > Buddhaghosa that states there is no self (showing that he at least, > in those examples, supported anatta), in opposition to a position of > Buddhadasa's that you have not presented in its entirety. Granted, > you do quote Buddhadasa directly, but not anything that relates to > his main point. You quote where he lays the groundwork for his > argument, and then where he follows up after his argument, but not > the main argument itself. I still have no idea how Buddhadasa > justified this position against Buddhaghosa. Surely he didn't just > state it, not offer any evidence, and that was the end of that? _______________ Well I tried to summarize his arguments fairly . It ran to many pages so I couldn't quote them all. Unfortunately the book is up in Japan but I have a few more notes so might add these later. I think I could write even more on points where I agree with Buddhadasa, but my aim in this case was to respond only to his criticisms of Buddhaghosa and the Visuddhimagga. __________ > Metta, James > ps. The comments that Buddhadasa might have been reacting to how the > Buddhadharma is incorrectly presented in Thai society is not > supported with any type of evidence and is a generalization that is > unfair to both Buddhadasa and Thai society. _______ In the original letter from Christine she gave this link: http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf ""Buddhadasa further indicates that there are a great many aspects of profound teachings most people do not understand because they are familiar only with everyday language. Moreover, when the Tipitaka is interpreted in terms of everyday language it is incomprehensible. He observes that the confusion between Buddhism and popular beliefs, and traditional formulations of Thai Buddhism consisting of miracles, and supernatural accounts, result because the Buddhist doctrine is not interpreted in terms of dhamma language. ..[..]. That is, for Buddhadasa, in the deepest sense of traditional interpretation of Thai Buddhism, the form of everyday language which seems to be foundamentally misguided, is based on the standards of everyday and dhamma language. [..]Buddhadasa is concerned with the significance of dhamma language, and firmly maintains that everyday language is not the Buddhist language. .... Moreover, notes Buddhadasa, the Tipitaka contains both possible meanings of the doctrine. There are many examples in the Tipitaka which show that Buddha Himself taught dhamma using the two levels of meaning. [...]As a result, his concept is more than a means employed by Buddhadasa to criticize particular ideas and practices within Thai Buddhism. [..]Buddhadasa points out the example of the majority of Thai Buddhists who do not understand the aim of merit making, thus they make merit and expect something in return in the form of rewards such as fortunes, happiness in this life and the next life. [....]Buddhadasa's criticism of Thai Buddhism is a part of his attempt to return to original Buddhism. Further, it can lead us to a better understanding of the religious situation in Thailand. [...]Buddhadasa criticizes the education of Thai Sangha as superficial. [...]In Buddhadasa's view the Sangha is preoccupied with prestige, position, and comfort and they have little interest in the highest ideals of Buddhism. Most of the monks are more concerned with building new temples and governing the Sangha hierachy than teaching the dhamma to the people. He strongly criticizes those monks who practice the magical art of fortune-telling or soothsaying for their own ends and he looks askance at a mechanistic use of merit-making and rituals that aim for the attainment of an immediate reward. Buddhist teaching is then capitalized for fortune and status. The strict monastic disciplines are diverted for prestige and fame and so Buddhism becomes a vehicle.. [..]Buddhadasa does not agree with the government policy of propagation of Buddhism. He criticizes that the government....""" RobertK 20528 From: All There Is Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 6:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg]War, (Janice) Hello Janice, With so many gifts that the humanity is presented every day, it still has to return to the destruction. Keep remembering that the deepest evil has the highest good attached to it. The change has begun. The powers will shift, the attitudes will alter, the hearts will solidify in love. It is necessary to walk through darkness to appreciate the light. Anchor the vision of a brighter world in your hearts and so will be done Source 20529 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 7:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Howard, Christine and Sukinder, I'll take up that invitation. For me I think people should do as they wish to do and not feel constrained or exhorted to do or not do this or that. I remember meeting with A. Sujin about a year after we first met and feeling a little guilty when I recounted that I sometimes went to a zen center where we did sitting, slow walking and chanting; felt like I was letting the "theravada' down. She picked up on this and said "Why? Don't you think awareness can occur while you are sitting or walking slow?" Nina van Gorkom wrote in buddhism in daily life: "One is first confronted with the practice of Buddhism when one sees different customs of the Thais, such as giving food to the monks, paying respect to the Buddha image or reciting the 'precepts' on special occasions such as Uposatha Day [Uposatha Day is the day of 'fasting' or 'vigil' which laypeople usually observe four times a month (the days of the new moon, full moon and the two days of the half moon) by undertaking moral precepts and by visiting the temple]. In the beginning I thought that these customs were mixed with many things which are not essential for the practice of Buddhism. For example, I did not see how the presenting of eggs to the statue of the Emerald Buddha could have anything to do with the practice of Buddhism. However, even such popular beliefs can teach us something about the practice of Buddhism. There are many levels of understanding the Buddha's teachings. The people who present the eggs to the statue of the Buddha express their confidence in him. This is a wholesome act which will bear its fruit accordingly. However, the people who present the eggs may not realise that it is their respect to the Buddha which will bring them a good result and not the eggs presented to him. They may not clearly see which cause will bring them which result. They would receive greater benefit from their act of paying respect to the Buddha if this were done in a more meaningful way. They could, for example, pay respect to the Buddha in abstaining from ill deeds, in serving other people, in learning more about the teachings of the Buddha and in helping other people to understand the teachings as well. """ It is always - as Nina says - seeing clearly 'which cause brings which result'. If I sit or walk slowly or light incense or chant it can be with a confused understanding that focuses on the ritual and calm that comes with this, rather than the actual present moment. But awareness can also arise during these activities if there are sufficient supporting conditions. Also I used to believe that if someone studied enough of the Tipitaka (especially the Abhidhamma and commentaries, Howard;)) they would sooner or later develop wisdom that should lead to increasing direct insight into the present moment. However, through meeting someone (no one on this list) I came to see that just studying Abhidhamma won't necessarily lead in the right direction at all. It was like holding a mirror up so that I could see my own faults. So while reading or considering Dhamma it is only beneficial if there is kusala at those moments. Sometimes I might read with a subtle hoping - that I can progress. Or an attachment to the teachings. These are simply tanha -a papanca - that actually prolong samsara. One is going in the wrong direction even while doing an outwardly kusala activity. Or there might be conceit "I understand" - another papanca. Or ditthi of some degree. And if there is not awareness of the difference between genuine kusala and 'outward' kusala then one will go in the wrong direction for a long time. Even if there is kusala while studying this is still only at the level of pariyatti unless it goes deeper to actually insight the present moment. RobertK -- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: >> > Howard: > • Or, at most, you might be saying that all one should do is > • read the Sutta Pitaka, and, even moreso, the Abhidhamma and > the commentaries, > • and think about that. > > I wouldn’t say this either, because the important first step is > pariyatti, which is the actual moment of intellectual > understanding. ‘Reading’ is a conventional activity, it can be done > with complete ignorance and attachment. If one thinks that this > activity per se would lead to insight, then I object to it as I do to > formal meditation. But of course the description is needed, in this > case then, if one has the correct understanding of the purpose of the > Teachings, then the words can condition sati and sampajanna to > arise. And here I do not see anything that would lead me to conclude > that once sati has arisen, I can then direct my mind to cause more > sati to arise, either by listening or reading more or by trying to > direct my mind towards the arising phenomena. > > Howard: > • Perhaps I misunderstand you. But if not, then it best > • be just said that our views of what the Buddha recommended > differ radically. > • As far as what Christine does or does not do, this I don’t > know. I was merely > • responding to her post. It is certainly quite possible that > Chris engages in > • any number of activities of her choosing. I made some > suggestions that I > • hoped might be helpful ... that’s all. > > I don’t know how far the misunderstanding is, but in the case of > mentioning about Chistine’s activities, I was not pointing to the > activities themselves, but to the attitude towards those activities, > whatever they are. My objection is towards a sudden encouragement of > sakyaditthi even if this be with the intention of loosening it. I do > not think we can think of acquiring something for ourselves and > expect to decrease lobha in the process. Similarly I do not think > that engaging in silabattaparamasa can lead to the wearing away of > sakyaditthi. > Please let us pursue this Howard, and I would like others to join in > as well. If one or both of us are wrong, we should know, don’t you > think? > With metta, > Sukin. 20530 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 8:49pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 ---Dear James, Christine and all, I add some more about ven. Buddhadasa's book on Paticcasamuppada. As I said I don't have it with me so am working off an old letter I wrote: On page 61 , paragraph 268 (chapter heading 'Buddhaghosa' about the 9th paragraph): "therefore his[Buddhaghosa] explanation took on the appearance of spanning three births because of the rebirth consciousness from the past coming into the present birth and from the present going over into the future birth" Venerable Buddhadasa is correct; in that if the Visuddhimagga and Buddhaghosa had said that consciousness comes or goes anywhere we are at odds with the Dhamma and the fundamental anattaness and impermanence of all phenomena. It is the radical insight into reality gained by the Buddha that shows that what we have taken to be the same consciousness can't last for the briefest moment- it certainly can't go somewhere or pass from life to life. I am in agreement with venerable Buddhadasa-- as I am with many points in his book-- on the importance of getting this right. I think it is fair, though, to check with the Visuddhimagga as to whether the ancients really taught this perverted doctrine: There are several pages about this including especially Visuddhimagga xvii 133-175. It is complex. I will try to put it as simply as possible. There is a lengthy explanation of how at the actual moment of death, due to several conditions, an object is taken by that consciousness (called cuti-citta) death-consciousness. This consciousness is not different from other types of consciousness that arise and pass away all day long - but it is given this name to identify it(of course each moment is not exactly the same as any other and seeing consciousness is different from hearing consciousness etc; but all have the general characteristic of experiencing an arammana). The next consciousness that arises is called patisandhara (rebirth) and again this is no different from other types of consciousness Although we call it conventionaly a 'new life' it is, just like now, simply a stream of arising and passing consciousnesses carrying on. At this moment this process of arising and passing, birth and death, (khanika marana) occurs but because of ignorance we don't perceive it. But truly we are utterly different from what we were a second ago - the reason we look and feel approximately the same is because similar conditions arise to replace the mentality and materiality that fell away. At conventional death and new birth the changes are more obvious because different kamma will produce results. Here are some pertinent quotes: XVII 164 "The former of these two states of consciousness is called death (cuti) because of falling and the later is called rebirth because of linking (patisandhara) across the gap separating the beginning of the next becoming". Note that there is no suggestion of the consciousness from the previous life going to the present life. The whole point is to make it clear that that is exactly NOT what happens. 164. "it should be understood that it has neither come here from the previous becoming nor has it become manifest without the kamma, the formations(sankharas), the objective field etc. as cause. An echo , or its like, supplies the figures here; connectedness By continuity denies Identity and otherness" 302. "with formations as condition consciousness(sankhara paccaya vinnana) prevents seeing the transmigration of a self." 280 "consequently, the dependent origination with its twelve factors, revolving within the linking of cause and effect is established as having no beginning" 303 "Ignorance here is 'no theory' and 'wrong theory' Also consider an earlier letter where I noted that Buddhaghosa also taught "that the structure of conditions is present not only in a multiple consciousness but also in each single consciousness as well" (see dispeller of delusion and also note 48 of Visuddhimagga). In the Visuddhimagga it is noted that the factor of resultant consciousness does not only refer to rebirth consciousness but also xvii 126 "in the course of an individual existence or continuity" There are several paragraphs about this. ====== Now I want to look at the matter of other worlds, hells and animals and so forth. Venerable Buddhadasa refers to this in paragraph 39 page 14 and suggests that these actually refer to this life. So that "if someone is a state of agitation and anxiety that means that a state of being in hell exists... And these are real hells, more frightful than those hells beneath the ground that eternalists believe in" As venerable Buddhadasa notes sometimes the buddha used conventional speech (vohara-sacca) and at other times he used speech that refers to actual realities (paramattha sacca). In conventional speech we are now alive and living on the human plane. We see other beings living on another plane - the animal plane. The other planes(hells heavens) mentioned in the texts we do not usually see, hence some people believe that only the human and animal plane exist. Actually, according to the Dhamma, in the truest sense there are no humans, no animals no "us" even. But there are dhammas - ephemeral, conditioned phenomena - arising and passing away. In the salayatanasamyutta 35:135 (p1207 Bodhi translation)- (which Ven. Buddhadasa quotes) "I have seen, bhikkhus, the hell named 'Contact's sixfold base'. There whatever form one sees with the eye is underdesirable, never desirable; unlovely, disagreaable. whatever sound..whatever taste..whatever odour..whatever tactile object..whatever mental phenomenon one cognises with the mind is undesirable.disagreeable..."endquote Now, in this world, there are in reality no humans, computers, trees: these are only the shadows of the ultimate dhammas appearing. What appears to eyesense is different colours. Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant to some degree. The same for the denizens of hell except that the eye conscious moments are the result of past akusala kamma and hence there is usually no opportunity for pleasant results. Venerable Buddhadasa suggests that "If there is stupidity , then the state of being an animal arises..if there is sensual pleasure of various kinds and intensities then one of the heavenly states arise...All of these states are more real than those talked about which will be experienced after entering the coffin".Endquote I think it is true that we can infer to a degree the nature of other existences by understanding those momentary states of mind that arise in this life and so I don't think it is wrong to emphasise this aspect. But I believe the Buddha taught the planes of existence with a view to the real nature of the world. I think accepting this doesn't have to make one terrified of future lives or hopeful of heavenly pleasures. I think it acts to force one more onto the present because one knows that life now - which is only seeing, hearing, atsting, touching, thinking etc - is no different from life in the past and it will be just like that in the future. It means one becomes intent on understanding this moment and how the factors of the dependent origination work their ways. RobertK 20531 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:19pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam, sorry if this is double. op 21-03-2003 17:41 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...: > I would be delighted to learn more about 'what is dhamma?'. You > correctly sense that I learn best from basics precepts, partly > because the fundamentals show through the clearest, at least to my > slow mind. However, I hope it is not too tedious for you, and > others on dsg. I don't want to hold others back, or cause > frustration. N: On the contrary, it is useful and necessary for all of us. Never enough of basics. I appreciated Kom's mail about the truths, anger is always anger, it cannot be kindness. It has its own characteristic. I would like to listen moreto Kom, Sarah and others. In my post to Mike I spoke in short about citta, cetasika and rupa. These are dhammas, realities that have their own characteristic. Different from the long stories we think about, stories of people, events. I shall quote first a little of my "The Preserving of the Teachings", discussions we had in India before. (see Zolag web): Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? Lodewijk finds it too much. It takes a long time to apply it, we often fail. But how beneficial. When we are attached to a person, it is actually clinging to ourselves, to the importance of self. No other religion could teach me this. It is so valuable. At least we see the disadvantage and danger of attachment, and also the way to cling less to self: what we take for person or I are only seeing, hearing and other cittas which experience different objects through different doorways, one at a time. I appreciate Sarah's reminders, she always stresses: not the situation, not the story is real. We get involved with situations and persons. The way out of this distress is knowing the dhamma appearing now. Nina. 20532 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine & All, >It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > his writings should be viewed. ..... I'd also like to contribute to this busy thread with a little more background information, comments and questions. When I read comments and articles about Buddhaghosa it seems that all paths lead to the Culavamsa (the last part of the Mahavamsa, PTS transl by W.Geiger) and to extracts from Buddhaghosa’s own writings. The account in the Culavamsa is the oldest historical account of Buddhaghosa and all modern accounts seem to be directly or indirectly based on this. It was compiled by Dhammakitti at a later date. The Mahavamsa (and Culavamsa) are the well-known ‘Chronicle of Sri Lanka’. So, looking directly in the Culavamsa now, led me add a few details and questions. Buddhaghosa had ‘learnt’ the entire Tipitaka in India and become so named because “his speech (resounded) through the earth like (that of the) Buddha” <‘speech’ in Pali, ‘ghosa’>. We read that he was instructed to go to Sri Lanka because only the text without the commentary was available by this time (5th century AD) in India. On the other hand “the commentary in Sihala tongue is faultless. The wise Mahinda who tested the tradition laid before the three Councils as it was preached by the Perfectly Enlightened one and taught by Sariputta and others, wrote it in the Sihala tongue and it is spread among the Sihalas. Go thither, learn it and render it into the tongue of the Magadhas . It will bring blessing to the whole world.” Mahinda was of course the great arahant son of King Ashoka who introduced Buddhism to Sri lanka. ..... Qu: Why would Buddhaghosa be selected and sent to perform this task if a) his direct knowledge of the Teachings were not fully apparent and b) if it were not true and obvious to the wise arahants in India that the commentaries in Sri Lanka should be preserved and made available? ..... Buddhaghosa settled at the Mahavihara in Anuraddhapura. We read that the Mahavihara was “the abode of all pious (people)” and in “the great practising house” learned the commentary in Sihala tongue and asked for all the texts to compose and translate his commentary. Naturally, the Theras, I assume consisting of large numbers of arahants still, wished to test him out before handing over any of the precious texts for a re-write or translation. They gave him two verses and he was able to sum up “the three Pitakas together with the commentary” to write the Visuddhimagga, with apparent ease. He called the community “who was versed in the thoughts of the Enlightened One” and began to read by the Anuradhapura Bodhi tree. We read that the devas caused the book to disappear twice in order to show people his greatness and twice he rewrote it effortlessly and identically. There were no differences at all when the lost books reappeared. The community were delighted with the result and cried out “without doubt this is Metteyya!” and handed him the three Pitakas and full commentary to work on and so he “rendered the whole of the Sihala commentaries into the tongue of the Magadhas, the original speech of all.” Furthermore we read “all the teachers of the Theravada accepted it as the original text.” He then returned to India. ..... Qu: accepting this account as correct, why would these Theras as guardians of the only original commentaries, be so delighted and accept the Visuddhimagga and other commentaries, written by a complete foreigner unless they were correct and scrupulously faithful to the Sihala commentaries handed down from Mahinda’s time? They were also immediately accepted in India, Burma and all places where Theravada was taught. ..... This account of Buddhaghosa also conforms with Buddhaghosa’s own comments, especially those about the origins of the works such as the Visuddhimagga. He also mentions that the Sihala commentaries were composed by Mahinda and preserved in Sri Lanka. In the introduction to the Atthasalini, he says he will reveal the explanation of the meaning of the Abhidhamma as chanted by Maha Kassapa and the other Theras (at the First Council) and rechanted (at the Second Council) by the Arahants before Mahinda brought it to Sri Lanka. He continues to say he will explain all the meanings, word by word, unmixed by opinions from followers of other Nikayas. He mentions the Sihala commentaries by name in places. B.C.Law in “The Life and Work of Buddhaghosa”, pub. by Pilgrims Book, adds that “Mahinda was merely a translator into Sinhalese, and Buddhaghosa, a retranslator into Pali. Buddhaghosa himself frankly admits in his prologues to several commentaries that he annotated those passages only which were not commented upon by his predecessors, and the rest: he only translated.” ..... Qu: Surely if any of the comments given in his introductions were incorrect in any detail, there would be many a Thera to object. After all, the Mahavihara Theras had preserved the Sihala commentaries very carefully to date and knew them thoroughly. ..... B.C.Law’s writes that after his funeral, “Brahmins and other persons took the relics, buried them in sacred spots near the Bodhi tree and erected stupas over them.” In other words, during his life and immdediately afterwards, he was held in the highest regard for his writings and has been known as the greatest Theravada commentator ever since in all Theravada countries. ..... Qu: If the enlightened theras at the time and immediately after Buddhaghosa’s life in Sri lanka, India and elsewhere had such reverence and respect for his writings and immediately accepted them as, in effect, the word of the Buddha, why is it so difficult for modern writers and teachers to do so? ..... From Nanamoli’s introduction to the Visuddhimagga, we read his translation of Buddhaghosa’s prologue to the 4 Nikaya commentaries in which Buddhaghosa says; “(I shall now take) the commentary, whose object is to clarify the meaning of the subtle and most excellent Long Collection (Digha Nikaya)...set forth in detail by the Buddha and by his like (i.e the Elder Sariputta and other expounders of discourses in the Sutta Pitaka) - the commentary that in the beginning was chanted (at the First Council) and later rechanted (at the Second and Third), and was brought to the Sihala Island by the Arahant Mahinda the Great and rendered into the Sihala tongue for the benefit of the islanders, and from that commentary I shall remove the Sihala tongue, replacing it by the graceful language which conforms with Scripture and is purified and free from flaws. Not diverging from the standpoint of the elders residing in the Great Monastery (in Anuradhapura), who illuminate the elders’ heritage and are all well versed in exposition, and rejecting subject matter necessarily repeated, I shall make the meaning clear for the purpose of bringing contentment to good people and contributing to the long endurance of the Dhamma.” ..... Qu: These commentaries have been passed down with the other texts 1,500 years since Buddhaghosa, contributing to “the long endurance of the Dhamma” by those confident about their value. Should we not read and consider very carefully, not to mention develop more understanding, before adding a nail in the coffin of these texts? Qu: The comments i read about the mahavihara Theras in Aunradhapura at the time suggest they had great wisdom and probably included large numbers of arahants. Does anyone have any evidence to the contrary? ..... Nanamoli quotes examples from other texts by Buddhaghosa which show that he went to great pains to ensure “there is no sentence here that might conflict with the text or with the commentaries...”. Further, according to Nanamoli, “there is only one instance in the Vism where he openly advances an opinion of his own, with the words ‘our preference here is this’ (ch X111, 123).....The rarity of such instance and the caution expressed in them imply that he himself was disenclined to speculate an felt th need to point the fact out when he did. He actually says ‘one’s own opinion is the weakest authority of all and should only be acceptd if it accords with the Suttas’ (DA 567-68)...” ..... If these comments were untrue, why wasn’t it pointed out by his contemporaries? ..... Finally, I’d like to quote extracts from the postscript of the Visuddhimagga, conc., p742.(These are similar to comments at the end of other texts, such as the Atthasalini and presumably have always been included with the texts): 1.“This Path of Purification was made by the elder who is adorned with supreme and pure faith, wisdom and energy, in whom are gathered a concourse of upright, gentle, etc qualities due to the practice of virtue, who is capable of delving into and fathoming the views of his own and others’ creeds, who is possessed of keenness of understanding, who is strong in unerring knowledge of the Master’s Dispensation as divided into theree pitakas with their commentaries, a great expounder, gifted with sweet and noble speech that springs from the ease born of perfection of the vocal instrument, a speaker of what is appropriately said, a superlative speaker, a great poet, an ornament in the lineage of the elders who dwell in the Great Monastery, and who are shining lights in the lineage of elders with unblemished enlightenment in the superhuman states that are embellished with the special qualities of the six kinds of direct-knowledge and the categories of discrimination, who has abundant purified wit, who bears the name Buddhaghosa conferred by the venerable ones, and who should be called ‘of Morandacetaka.” ..... 2.Buddhaghosa’s words included in the Sinhalese texts only: “By the performance of such merit As has been gained by me through this And any other still in hand So may I in my next becoming Behold the joys of Tavitimsa Glad in the qualities of virtue And unattached to sense desires, By having reached the first fruition, And having in my last life seen Metteyya, Lord of Sages, Highest Of persons in the World, and Helper Delighing in all beings’ welfare, And heard the Holy One proclaim The Teaching of the Noble Dhamma, May I grace the Victor’s Dispensation By realizing its highest fruit.” ..... Qu: Surely this is not someone who would tell any untruths and if any of these comments were incorrect, why weren’t they pointed out by the Theras in Sri Lanka and elsewhere? Metta, Sarah ====== 20533 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Hi... Hi Darcy, Thank you for introducing yourself and it’s great to hear that you enjoy all the posts so much and also learn a lot. If you find some posts too technical in the beginning, you may wish to ignore these. I’d also be glad to hear where you live and are studying. We look forward to any further comments or questions you may have. Metta, Sarah ===== --- Darcy wrote: > Greetings to all, > > My name is Darcy, and I just wanted to introduce myself to the group. > I'm a non-traditional university student studying history and > languages. I enjoy all of your posts immensely, they are wise and > compassionate. I'm a beginner, but I've learned a great deal, both > from posts here and on a few other groups I joined. Thank you. :-) > > Metta, Darcy 20534 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 9:54pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > ---Dear James, Christine and all, > I add some more about ven. Buddhadasa's book on Paticcasamuppada. Hi Robert K, Thank you for this very thorough explanation. I am now convinced that Buddhadasa had it wrong about a strong misrepresentation of anatta to be found in the Visuddhimagga. If it was that strong there would be stronger evidence of it, which, as you clearly show, there isn't. I also agree with you that heaven and hell realms can be represented by states of mind in the here and now, but they are actual realms of varying degrees of materiality which exist. This is what the Buddha taught, on many occasions, and I don't believe he was speaking metaphorically. When he used metaphors to explain things, he made that abundantly clear with follow-up standard discourse. So Buddhadasa places entirely the wrong emphasis when he writes about these things; which I believe he was doing purposefully because he didn't believe they exist. However, this still doesn't make me rush to embrace Buddhaghosa's writings. I have my own reasons. One other question, this part of what you write I don't agree with, and I am not sure if they are your thoughts of if they come from somewhere else: "Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant to some degree." It was my understanding that the pleasantness, unpleasantness, or neutrality of the mind's reaction to a mental stimulus was the function of mental activity (consciousness) and not the result of karma. That such reaction is caused by desire and that when desire ceases those types of reactions also cease. In other words, karma isn't deterministic and can be changed. Is this also your understanding; is this an Abhidhamma slant on things? Metta, James 20535 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:39pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa(correction) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > I recounted that I sometimes went to a > zen center where we did sitting, slow walking and chanting; felt like > I was letting the "theravada' down. She picked up on this and > said "Why? Don't you think awareness can occur while you are sitting > or walking slow?" >________ 00ps that should have been 'fast walking' 20536 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:51pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa2 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Hi Robert K, > > Thank you for this very thorough explanation. I am now convinced > that Buddhadasa had it wrong about a strong misrepresentation of > anatta to be found in the Visuddhimagga. If it was that strong > there would be stronger evidence of it, which, as you clearly show, > there isn't. I also agree with you that heaven and hell realms can > be represented by states of mind in the here and now, but they are > actual realms of varying degrees of materiality which exist. This > is what the Buddha taught, on many occasions, and I don't believe he > was speaking metaphorically. When he used metaphors to explain > things, he made that abundantly clear with follow-up standard > discourse. Dear James, Yes, that's what I think too. ________ So Buddhadasa places entirely the wrong emphasis when he > writes about these things; which I believe he was doing purposefully > because he didn't believe they exist. _____________ __________ I think venerable Buddhadasa writes brilliantly on many aspects of Dhamma - but he seemed to go to extremes here. ___________ However, this still doesn't > make me rush to embrace Buddhaghosa's writings. I have my own > reasons. __________ Yes, no problem, all things in good time. (Or is that "all good things in time?") __________ > > One other question, this part of what you write I don't agree with, > and I am not sure if they are your thoughts of if they come from > somewhere else: > > "Sometimes the moment of seeing is the result of kusala kamma (good > kamma) and in that case the object will be pleasing to some degree. > At other times, in this plane, the moment of seeing is the result of > past akusala kamma- and in that case the object will be unpleasant > to some degree." > > It was my understanding that the pleasantness, unpleasantness, or > neutrality of the mind's reaction to a mental stimulus was the > function of mental activity (consciousness) and not the result of > karma. That such reaction is caused by desire and that when desire > ceases those types of reactions also cease. In other words, karma > isn't deterministic and can be changed. Is this also your > understanding; is this an Abhidhamma slant on things? ___________ This is a complex part of Abhidhamma that recently RobM, Dan and others have been discussing. Essentially as you say the reaction to the stimulus is caused by roots such as desire. This happens almost instantly. But the very instant of seeing, or hearing etc. is vipaka (result of past kamma) and occurs immediately before the reaction. The reaction itself is new kamma. So I think our understanding is close or the same here. There is a section in the Abhidhammathasangaha (available as a web book called Manual of Abhidhamma by narada thera)about this very point you make. RobertK > > Metta, James 20537 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 10:58pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Dear Christine & All, > > >It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how > > his writings should be viewed. > ..... > I'd also like to contribute to this busy thread with a little more > background information, comments and questions. > Hi Sarah, I have a couple of questions for you which are actually leading questions because I believe I know the answers. I only ask them to give you and others pause for thought: Since the original commentaries were composed before the completion of the Abhidhamma, how is it that they contain that work by name with a lot of analysis of it…attributed to the original commentaries? Why is it that the original commentaries, written in their mother tongue, disappeared and Buddhaghosa's was the only version remaining after his translation? They were of great historical value, why and how did they disappear? Why does Buddhaghosa state with 100% confidence that he only translated the commentaries (with some annotations of his own) while modern scholars find at least one glaring example when he inserts his own opinion into the commentaries? These are questions which beg to be answered. Okay, I will just let out what issues I have with Buddhaghosa. Personally, whenever I read sections of the commentaries, I sense that Buddhaghosa was nervous, pressured, guilt wracked and afraid while he wrote them. Of course, I could be wrong. (No need to comment on this.) Metta, James 20538 From: rjkjp1 Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- Dear Sarah, Thansk for this wonderful letter explaining the historical background. However where you write: Buddhaghosa's words included in the Sinhalese texts only: "By the performance of such merit As has been gained by me through this And any other still .." I remember reading an article that suggested this was added by a scribe who copied the original Visuddhimagga onto palm leaves. It been such a laborious job he considered it high merit (which it was). That is the reason for it not been in other versions such as the Burmese. RobertK 20539 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:07pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > ---------------------------------------------------------- > And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend > to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and > emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? > ---------------------------------------------------------- > > Not only the impermanence of it all, but the non-selfness of it all. > Hi Swee Boon, There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed towards a selected object. There can be the idea of directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. ************* > Yes, I appreciate what you have advised Christine. I > *feel and know* > what you are trying to convey by the above. > > I do not know why, but I feel that this dhamma study > group seems to have the tendency to de-emphasize on concentration > practice. ------------------ "Seems to have a tendency" is putting it mildly. It has become a major preoccupation here to clarify the differences between samatha and vipassana development and to point out that a certain third type of practice relates neither samatha nor vipassana. This third type includes being mindful of (concentrating on), daily activities; eg, 'while you are washing the dishes, know you are washing the dishes.' Relying on populist writers and meditation teachers, many Buddhists wrongly assume such 'vipassana meditations' are described somewhere in the Pali Canon. When they finally learn their mistake, through sources like dsg, it can be the greatest single discovery of their lives (as it was for me). Others are less pleased to be disillusioned. --------------------- > Even though I think that jhana is not necessary, I feel that a > certain level of proficiency in concentration practice is needed. -------------------- If you know of any vipassana developing techniques found in the ancient texts, please say so; these discussions are valuable to all of us. Kind regards, Ken H > Yes, I appreciate what you have advised Christine. I *feel and know* > what you are trying to convey by the above. > > I do not know why, but I feel that this dhamma study group seems to > have the tendency to de-emphasize on concentration practice. Even > though I think that jhana is not necessary, I feel that a certain > level of proficiency in concentration practice is needed. > > I also think that studying the Abhidhamma and reflecting > intellectually on the dhammas is not the correct practice. > > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 20540 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 23, 2003 11:49pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi RobertK, --- rjkjp1 wrote: > --- Dear Sarah, > Thanks for this wonderful letter explaining the historical background. ..... ....and many thanks to you and everyone else for your stimulating and helpful comments on this thread. Just a quick note back:- ..... > However where you write: > Buddhaghosa's words included in the Sinhalese texts only: > > "By the performance of such merit > As has been gained by me through this > And any other still .." > I remember reading an article that suggested this was added by a > scribe who copied the original Visuddhimagga onto palm leaves. It > been such a laborious job he considered it high merit (which it was). > That is the reason for it not been in other versions such as the > Burmese. ..... This is interesting. I don’t know if there is any note about it in the PTS or Pali editions of Vism. Nanamoli simply puts: “The following verses are only in Sinhalese texts” and that was what I used. I presume those verses were still said to be written by B.? Do you know (or Nina or anyone) who the first postscript note (“This Path of Purification was made by the elder....etc”) is ascribed to? Also the similar one in Atth.? In Atth. instead of the verses you refer to above, we read: “By grace of this, the book I wrote, Into Metteyya’s presence am I come. Within the Refuges established Upon the Sasana I take my stand. May mother, father, teachers, they who wish me well And they who do not, give me happy thanks And long safeguard the merit I have won! ------ May there be success! May there be welfare!” ..... The PTS footnote says: “These last seven lines are not in the Burmese texts, but are in the PTS edition, presumably transcribed from the three Sihalese MSS, used by the editor......It is quite possible that we have here the author’s coda to this book, so I have translated and inserted the lines. (The last two sentences are probably additions by a scribe)” Looking at the epilogue and postcript of the Sammohavinodani (Masefield transl): In the Epilogue by B., he says (brief extract): “I started to compose, and which has got the name “Dispeller of Delusion’ Because it can dispel delusion Concerning the most cryptical of meanings, Has now arrived at its conclusion without mishap, and it has drawn the substance From the ancient commentaries With forty recital sections in the Pali;......” This is followed by the postcript about Buddhaghosa’s qualities, (similar to the others and included as part of the text) and then the following verses, also included as text (with no note to indicate it is included in some manuscripts): “May it continue here to show the way to purity of wisdom To clansmen seeking for the means To ferry them across the worlds For just as long as in the world Shall last that name “Enlightened One”, By which, thus puriied in mind, Is known the Greatest Sage, World Chief.” ..... I’ll be glad to hear any more clarification about the various manuscripts, postscripts and epilogues. Metta, Sarah ============== 20541 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, Thanks for your comments and further questions (even if you have other answers in mind;-)) --- buddhatrue wrote: > I have a couple of questions for you which are actually leading > questions because I believe I know the answers. I only ask them to > give you and others pause for thought: Since the original > commentaries were composed before the completion of the Abhidhamma, > how is it that they contain that work by name with a lot of analysis > of it…attributed to the original commentaries? ..... These are good and difficult questions and I believe the answer in brief (from the old texts and commentaries themselves) is that the nucleus of both was established in the Buddha’s life or at the First Council. However, there is no doubt that Buddhaghosa, Dhammapala and other commentators added details and references from the Tipitaka and other commentaries - cross-referencing and so on. Likewise, though I understand the nucleus of the Abhidhamma dates from Sariputta and back to the Buddha himself, as we know, one of the texts, the Katthavatthu is added at a later stage. I understand that the ancient commentaries that Mahinda would have translated into Sinhala on arrival from India would have been of any of the Pali commentaries added from the Buddha’s life until perhaps the time of King Asoka (his father), so it isn’t surprising to me that they refer to the Abhidhamma in detail. If you have an example or two in mind, that would be interesting to look at in more depth. I’m not a historian or at all knowledgable on these points, but it’s fun pulling out texts and I think it’s important to clarify to some degree. ..... Why is it that the > original commentaries, written in their mother tongue, disappeared > and Buddhaghosa's was the only version remaining after his > translation? They were of great historical value, why and how did > they disappear? ..... The reason given is that Buddhaghosa’s works were immediately so highly regarded and all-inclusive and Pali became the language in Sri lanka for the study of the Teachings so that gradually the Sinhala texts just disappeared through neglect in effect. Maybe it didn’t occur to the Theras that a time would come when the authenticity of Buddhaghosa’s works would be challenged;-)Unfortunate, I agree. ..... >Why does Buddhaghosa state with 100% confidence > that he only translated the commentaries (with some annotations of > his own) while modern scholars find at least one glaring example > when he inserts his own opinion into the commentaries? ..... I think as Nanamoli states, his own opinions are so occasional (eg one in Vism, one in MN-A etc) and so clearly pointed out by Buddhaghosa, that it’s clear these are exceptions to the rule. I’m not sure if you are referring to any other examples by modern scholars. If so, pls let us know so we can check. ..... >These are > questions which beg to be answered. > > Okay, I will just let out what issues I have with Buddhaghosa. > Personally, whenever I read sections of the commentaries, I sense > that Buddhaghosa was nervous, pressured, guilt wracked and afraid > while he wrote them. Of course, I could be wrong. (No need to > comment on this.) ..... I’ll just very briefly slip in a comment to say that what you present and sense here is quite contrary to what Buddhaghosa himself says and what I understand from the Culavamsa about the ease and joy in his work and indeed the extraordinary quantity and speed of writing. Metta, Sarah p.s Thank you so much in one letter to a StarKid for telling us more about your temple. I hadn’t realized it was the same one where there were the terrible murders a few years back and it is really inspiring to read about how the community has managed to pick up and continue, playing such an important role in the area. Pls also know that even if one or two 8 year old children find some of your letters difficult, they are often the ones that others find most useful and inspiring(eg 19998 to Janet about the stages and going to the temple). Finally, thanks for sharing these sentiments which I fully agree with: “We are all Buddhists, on the same side, trying to discover and understand the truth of the Buddha's teaching. That should make us all open-minded to all of the various possibilities. We are all on the same side…the side of truth.” ================================ 20542 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:56am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Mike) - ... > =========================== > I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your > final > paragraph, I do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some > manner with > one's loved ones. People with related kamma and experiences and > accumulations > tend to be reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - > sometimes as > friends, sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes > child-parent, sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the > Sutta > pitaka that indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's > and others' previous lives. > > With metta, > Howard I agree with this, but would point out that it is not said in the texts-- (a) that the fact of association in a previous life is apparent in the future life to those involved, or (b) that such future re-association or reuniting is something to be wished for. Take the present life as an example of the point at (a). This life is the 'future' life of some previous existence, so those close to us now were no doubt also close to us then. But is this apparent, and are the details of that association of any real significance to us? As to the point at (b), it would presumably be attachment that formed the basis of any wish to be reunited in a future life with a particular person. Jon 20543 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love Hi Dharam, --- bodhi342 wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your interesting and thoughtful response. .... You may it easy for us all;-) ..... > I agree that gaining and relinquishing demonstrate a preoccupation > with self. That is the correct diagnosis, but clinging is probably > present in most people trying to make their way in various > religions. The pity is that their not fully understanding this > factor may prevent them from going the 'full distance', and therefore > prematurely jump ship. .... I quite agree. Back to lobha as the cause of suffering. ..... > > I like the extension of the gardener analogy to diminishing > blindness - it helpfully further develops the model. I think it is a > useful representation of the journey fo understanding. ..... thanks - it was a bit unusual for me to write like that but I appreciate your encouragement a lot. ..... > I think I hold more utility for describing structure to the blind > than you may, particularly if it tries to represent 'reality' and > therefore prevent the blind person from bumping, tripping or slamming > into some of those 'realities'. ..... Good points. Again, I don’t think we can set any rule about how much theory is necessary. Accumulations for reading, listening and so on are so different as Sukin points out so well in his Lion’s Roar posts;-) Some blind gardeners might not even get out of bed without a fair amount of description, whilst others prefer to jump out, bump and trip and then ask for more guidance and description. ..... > D: I (think I)understand what you say about Anatta here. However, > how many really pursue the Buddha's Teachings with that clearly in > perspective all along? I do not mean to underestimate others, but > ask this question honestly and humbly. There is a necessary distance > between theory and practice until the later stages. It is during > these earlier stages, where the risk for disgruntlement may arise. ..... To my mind, the theory and practice have to work together from the very beginning. Again as Sukin just wrote to Christine, it’s a question of the attitude and undestanding whilst lying in bed, listening to the theory or planting the garden or bumping and tripping. Disgruntlement has to also be known as just another conditioned dhamma. I don’t wish to underplay the difficulty, but surely it is the clinging to self and to pleasant states that conditions the disgruntlement about disgruntelment when it arises? ..... > I have not found the Buddha's teachings dry or joyless, so it is a > little difficult for me to comment accurately why others may feel > this, although I would be interested to find out their views. ..... Don’t we all respond differently to every aspect of daily life? ..... > It may be that many people approach religions (this and others) > looking for refuge. My point is just that, they risk disgruntlement, > if there is not some degree of understanding about the necessary > changes in mentality in seeking that refuge. ..... Perhaps it comes back to expectations again. If we have the idea there will be a revolution of personality or an easing of all we find difficult in life, then the seeds for disgruntlement are being planted. Perhaps this is what you mean about the “necessary changes in mentality in seeking that refuge”. > Sarah, thanks for a very stimulating and instructive conversation. .... I always find a lot of depth in your comments too. Now I’ll sit back and enjoy your continuing conversations with Mike, Nina and others;-) Metta, Sarah ======== 20544 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:10am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Ken - You and others are correct in emphasizing the importance of pariyatti. By studying and contemplating the Dhamma, a type of seed is planted, a "recollection seed" serving, among other things, to remind one to pay attention, to be mindful of what arises in the moment, to note its nature (as impermanent, conditioned, impersonal, and unsatisfying) and also as useful, harmful, or neutral (and affording one the opportunity to let go of the akusala and foster the kusala). But reminders can be ignored, attention can be let go of, and guarding the senses can be given short shrift. What makes the difference? As I see it, intention does. A little intention to "do the right thing" can lead to more. If we ignore kusala intention and fail to act on it, then, I think the Buddha's term of foolish/babyish/immature (I forget the Pali) would rightly apply to us. Conventional volition is important. With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/24/03 2:07:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "nidive" wrote: > >Hi Howard, > > > >---------------------------------------------------------- > >And when taking a walk on a lovely day, attend to the senses, attend > >to volition, attend to the constant stream of thought, feeling, and > >emotion in the background, and note the impermanence of it all? > >---------------------------------------------------------- > > > >Not only the impermanence of it all, but the non-selfness of it all. > > > > > Hi Swee Boon, > > There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed > towards a selected object. There can be the idea of > directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the > objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and > activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self > but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught > ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and > characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the > characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. > /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) 20545 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/24/03 3:56:34 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes, first quoting Howard: > People with related kamma and experiences and > >accumulations > >tend to be reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - > >sometimes as > >friends, sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes > >child-parent, sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the > >Sutta > >pitaka that indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's > >and others' previous lives. > > > >With metta, > >Howard > > I agree with this, but would point out that it is not said in the > texts-- > (a) that the fact of association in a previous life is apparent in > the future life to those involved, or > (b) that such future re-association or reuniting is something to be > wished for. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with both points. ------------------------------------------------- > > Take the present life as an example of the point at (a). This life > is the 'future' life of some previous existence, so those close to us > now were no doubt also close to us then. > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Correct. ---------------------------------------------------- But is this apparent, and> > are the details of that association of any real significance to us? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Usually no, but sometimes yes. Some people may actually remember. Others may have the sense of knowing another person "always", and there may be suggestive evidence to back that up, but, certainly, without clear memory, this is quite indefinite. As far as significance, I would say there is little if any. ---------------------------------------------------- > > As to the point at (b), it would presumably be attachment that formed > the basis of any wish to be reunited in a future life with a > particular person. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: In most cases, it would indeed be attachment that leads to the reuniting. But other sorts of connection could also (on rare occasions) play a role I would think, with the connection among the Buddha, Sariputta, and Moggallana a case in point. --------------------------------------------------- > > 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) 20546 From: All There Is Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 (Robert) Hello Robert, In the study, what happens when there is no suitable body, to be transferred to, for the leaving person. Source 20547 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:27am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Ken and all, I would think the dichotomy of being conventional and being ultimate is a rather useless division. Association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. How are the situations of association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved, and not getting what is wanted to be classified? Are they conventional or are they ultimate? Also, by whom sati cannot be directed towards a selected object? by whom the object is selected? Regards, Victor > Hi Swee Boon, > > There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed > towards a selected object. There can be the idea of > directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the > objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and > activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self > but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught > ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and > characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the > characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. > [snip] > > Kind regards, > Ken H 20548 From: All There Is Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:41am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hello John, >> I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your final paragraph, I >> do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some manner with one's loved >> ones. People with related kamma and experiences and accumulations tend to be >> reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - sometimes as friends, >> sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes child-parent, >> sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the Sutta pitaka that >> indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's and others' previous >> lives. >> >> With metta, >> Howard The above assumption is and is not as it is. Every lifetime on earth is for the acquirement of a particular experience or experiences to complete the road to enlightenment. To be born in the same or similar circumstances would not allow for advancement. Each and every person has their particular place on the road. The next lifetime is tailored towards the next portion of the road, so the likelihood of being born with the same family is small. However, there may be a need to spend a lifetime in support of another member of that family and in this case it will happen. > I agree with this, but would point out that it is not said in the > texts-- > (a) that the fact of association in a previous life is apparent in > the future life to those involved, or > (b) that such future re-association or reuniting is something to be > wished for. > > Take the present life as an example of the point at (a). This life > is the 'future' life of some previous existence, so those close to us > now were no doubt also close to us then. But is this apparent, and > are the details of that association of any real significance to us? > > As to the point at (b), it would presumably be attachment that formed > the basis of any wish to be reunited in a future life with a > particular person. Source 20549 From: All There Is Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love (Sarah) Hello Sarah > To my mind, the theory and practice have to work together from the very > beginning. Again as Sukin just wrote to Christine, it’s a question of the > attitude and undestanding whilst lying in bed, listening to the theory or > planting the garden or bumping and tripping. Disgruntlement has to also be > known as just another conditioned dhamma. I don’t wish to underplay the > difficulty, but surely it is the clinging to self and to pleasant states > that conditions the disgruntlement about disgruntelment when it arises? It is a good assumption that theory and practice need to be together. To use other terminology, Knowledge needs to be experienced in order to learn the truth. Knowledge without experience is nothing more than thinking. To use the analogy of the blind person; if the one that lays there hears everything described in detail and remembers it word for word, he will still not be sure if he is or is not going to bump into the realities. It is the one that jumps up hits the realities that now knows, what they are. It would be more likely to think that it is the lack of knowledge or understandable information that causes disgruntlement as well as the lack of experience of the knowledge. >> I have not found the Buddha's teachings dry or joyless, so it is a >> little difficult for me to comment accurately why others may feel >> this, although I would be interested to find out their views. > ..... > Don’t we all respond differently to every aspect of daily life? One needs to realize that at the time of Buddha's lessons, there were concepts that were incomprehensible. These concepts needed to be explained in a pictorial way, through examples and actions. These are always open for a different understanding of different people. There are virtually no translations that do not carry the feelings, knowledge and belief of the translator. Finally a written word is notorious for not conveying the meaning that is intended by the speaker. Such important parts as voice intonation and body language have no way to be recorded. Hence, what may bo meant as a pun may be taken very seriously in written form. This may have happened even in the scriptures. It is also the very reason why Buddha had left everything open to personal exploration. Source 20550 From: bodhi342 Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 8:54am Subject: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Nina, Thanks for this series of explanations. (Sorry for the delay, thought I ought to respond to Mike's slightly earlier post.) N: She (A. Sujin) also reminded me: ³There is no Lodewijk, there is just our own world of thinking, thinking of Lodewijk. When we were born we were alone. When seeing, we are alone, there is just citta that sees. We are alone because there is no self. Seeing arises and then thinking of the world of concepts and this hides the reality of seeing, visible object and the other realities.²> Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? D: Yes, Nina, very hard indeed! It runs counter to the most basic of (conventional?) understanding/experience/knowledge. Yes, we are born alone, we die alone, and some may live alone too. However, rejection of the world, rejection of life itself, is indeed hard to swallow. Why is it hard? The 'proper' answer is because of clinging to the idea of self. Okay. While, I can identify with the insignificance of self, in relation to a larger scheme (concept or reality); it is a revolution to completely negate self (mine or that of others). This negation seems to me to be a mental construct, itself a concept that one can possibly come to accept, given sufficient belief and concentration on such a view. Is it verifiable? Sukin gets frustrated trying to get this across to me, and I feel bad for him, but however much I try to reconcile such a view, I fail. His stock answer is insufficient accumulations. Okay.... That response however, can also be understood in context of my post to Mike about internally consistent understandings. "You do not understand about the Sun, because you are not sunburnt enough!". But this is removed from what others would consider a valid explanation. I am afraid, I am completely with Lodewijk, on this one, and I must say I do assume he exists. He exists, just like your father does. Is it possible to lead a social life without accepting the existence of yourself and others? Is it honest to lead a social life, if one rejects the existence of others? This understanding of anatta seems to me to be an extreme iteration of the realization that overattachment and over-clinging to self is delusionary and counterproductive. You may say, why not go the whole hog? That does not appear to be the middle-path choice. Talking about middle-path, if everything is conditioned, why did the Buddha advise choosing the middle alternative? Will stop here, and await your response. Hopefully we can discuss the rest of your post later. Thanks for your patience. u.w. dharam 20551 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, > > Thanks for your comments and further questions (even if you have other > answers in mind;-)) > Hi Sarah, Thank you for the answers. Yes, you are correct, they do not match what I have in my mind, but that is neither here nor there. I cannot prove what I think, or answer your other questions, without doing an intense study into the writings of Buddhaghosa, which I do not want to do, for obvious personal reasons. Perhaps, hopefully, in the future, this will not always be the case. Thank you for your kind comments regarding the letters of the Star Kids and don't worry, Janice's post did not discourage me or bother me in the least. Perhaps you could contact me off list and alert me to the posts addressed to me that I have not replied to thus far (I know there was one with a question asking if the Buddha could walk! :-) And I have lost track of it...and maybe some others.) Metta, James 20552 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Everyone, I"m going to chime in here with yet another "newcomer" question. I hope I'm not being out of place... ...SNIP... > > The above assumption is and is not as it is. Every lifetime on earth is > for the acquirement of a particular experience or experiences to complete > the road to enlightenment. To be born in the same or similar circumstances > would not allow for advancement. Each and every person has their particular > place on the road. The next lifetime is tailored towards the next portion of > the road, so the likelihood of being born with the same family is small. > However, there may be a need to spend a lifetime in support of another > member of that family and in this case it will happen. > ...SNIP... This thread confuses me on 2 points. 1.) I thought that there was "no self" and that was the purpose of Buddhist practice was to realize the impermanence. Therefore, how would there be an eternal "me" to be reborn again and again? I always thought that the reincarnation was more that the imprint of our actions / desires continue, but it would not be in any concrete "that was me" form. 2.) In the quote above, is the suggestion that the entire function and flow of the universe is to push us all to Enlightenment? That seems like quite an "order" to things. So, who/what makes this decision to put a specific person into this or that baby(?) to further his/her Enlightenment? Anyway, I hope my questions make sense and are not too obvious or unwelcomed. As always, I appreciate any and all insights you all can give. Peace, Dave 20553 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Swee Boon, op 23-03-2003 16:30 schreef nidive op nidive@y...: > I also think that studying the Abhidhamma and reflecting > intellectually on the dhammas is not the correct practice. N: We have to verify them when they arise in life. It is one of the conditions for direct awareness. It is food for the growth of right understanding. I am impressed by the level of the discussion on Buddhaghosa. I like to quote what Kom wrote: And Rob K wrote: Understanding develops very slowly, but we can see the benefit of even a little understanding. Nina. 20554 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Hello. Dear Heather, Welcome here. I like what Kom writes. See my remarks below. op 22-03-2003 22:40 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: > Welcome to DSG! I think you have come to the right group; if we already know a lot already, we wouldn't need to study! We may feel overwhelmed. > However, if we keep in mind that the reason that we study > the dhamma is to understand the truth (of life, which is > verifiable), and to follow the teachings, then it doesn't > matter where we start, or how slowly we understand, as long > as the understanding grows and the wholesome mental states > develop. N: My books Kom spoke about are actually not my own thoughts, they are based on many conversations with my good friend in the Dhamma, Acharn Sujin. She gives us deep teaching, a teaching which is rare, it takes time to absorb. Time and again I need remarks and questions from others as reminders of reality, and these also help me to absorb the teachings, little by little. I need to go back to basics all the time. I also translate A. Sujin's works, such as the perfections the Bodhisatta developed, you find here on dsg. It is now on truthfulness. I like translating, I find that this works on me and reminds me of what we have to develop. The other series: Dhamma Issues is very detailed, I just translate these for the archives of the Dhamma group in Bangkok, but some people like to read these. They are answers to questions different people may have. Kom helps me a lot whenever I cannot find the translation of the Thai word. Success with your studies, Nina. P.S. Kom, how is the bay area, did Jack bring good reminders from Thailand? 20555 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:16am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice Dear James, op 23-03-2003 07:11 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: N: Nina: O.K. I find that too, not trying to persuade others. In another post: < The Abhidhamma and vipassana practice aren't related and shouldn't be placed together so casually.> Good point. Today I like to touch on this point with personal examples. Last time during the discussions in Thailand I found this became much clearer. It needs a longer explanation, and pertains to what you wrote: begs to be answered: So what? So what about nama and rupa; so what > about cittas and cetasikas; so what about mind doors and sense > consciousnesses?> You touch on important points, saying it very directly. Good points again. I try to explain by means of examples. Why is A. Sujin always speaking on seeing and visible object, about six doorways? We had problems with my very old father."There is only seeing and visible object, or thinking of a story." Only one moment at a time and then it is gone. The story is only in one moment of thinking. Each moment is so short, all objects are so insignificant. What does this have to do with my father and our problems? Everything. Here are the basics, it is reality, it is truth. And it works I find. The situation can be really difficult, but a beginning of realizing that there is only hearing or sound, instead of my father's harsh voice, his shouting, is beneficial. We can gradually learn that there are in our life only nama and rupa: realities that experience and realities that do not experience. We do not have to name them nama and rupa, they have different characteristics and any name will do. We have to know their characteristics when they appear in life. Not the book, not the classifications, only characteristics that directly appear and can be known by panna, when there is awareness of them one at a time. Yes citta and cetasikas, they are both nama, they are important, I find. A. Sujin explains: understanding, panna has to go through all realities. Attachment is a cetasika and we have to learn and we can learn that there is much more attachment than we ever thought. She reminds us of our subtle attachment that we may not notice ourselves, by asking us questions. "Do you like to have awareness?" as I mentioned before. We learn that it is conditioned, there it is again, we can even laugh about it. We have to learn about our ignorance: moha. This is ignorance of realities, of citta, cetasika and rupa. Ignorance of the four noble Truths. Moha arises with each akusala citta, and before I never knew this. Only the Buddha taught this. It is so basic. Ignorance blinds, it is so dangerous. Then there is conceit, the point you brought up before. It can arise on account of any object, but there is ignorance together with conceit, we are blind. You are really worried that the Abhidhamma leads to believing that one knows what one does not know. As I mentioned before, the late Phra Dhammadaro used to say: the dhamma is sobering up. One has conceit, but at least realizes it. Only the arahat has eradicated it, thus, of course we have it. Lots of it, clinging to the importance of self. Yes, it must appear in our writing and speech, I am so glad you remind me of this. A reminder by a Dhamma friend is so useful. But we learn through the Abhidhamma that there are so many moments which change very fast. Cittas are extremely fast. Example: when I was in Thailand I said, every time I come here I realize that I know so little. Many different moments while saying that: Look how humble I am (conceit), or saying it with worry (dosa or aversion, akusala again) or: sincerely realizing that direct understanding of realities is so difficult and that we are only beginning. No, the Abhidhamma should not lead to taking for understanding what is not understanding. Pretending to ourselves that we know , while in reality we do not know. It shows how complex the Abhidhamma is, but, it helps. It is subtle and deep. We need many times of listening and considering. But I have to add: also sutta and vinaya, all three parts of the Tipitaka help us. The Abhidhamma teaches more in detail about citta, cetasika, rupa, the processes. Enough for today. I cannot explain all aspects at this moment. But what is the use of study if we do not apply it now? Is there akusala now, ignorance now? The whole of the Tipitaka is for practice. It is a learning process for our whole life, no expectations to directly realize the truth immediately. We have to practise some music for my father who is heavily depressed and only music helps him. A next time some more. Nina. 20556 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:35am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I"m going to chime in here with yet another "newcomer" question. I > hope I'm not being out of place... > > ...SNIP... Hi Dave, If you don't mind, I am going to offer my input in regards to your question. I am not a fully enlightened one, however, so my answer isn't going to be as skillful as what you would find in the suttas of the Lord Buddha. I know that rebirth is difficult to understand because there is such a strong idea of a self in all of us and corporal reality gives us the impression that we have a self. We see babies born, grow up, and die. It all seems very natural and to support the idea that there is nothing else going on there…but that is illusion. Have you ever seen one of those `morphing' videos which are popular nowadays? In those videos, through the capabilities of video transitions, you will see one person seamlessly change into another person and then another person and then another person. That is a good mental construct for what rebirth is like. There is one `continuum of conditions' that will manifest different forms over many different lifetimes in many different realms. In this realm, close to the animal realm, this manifestation needs to start out as a baby first, grow up, get old, and die. However, in other realms this isn't the process at all. The manifestation will appear as the size it will always be, doesn't significantly age, until it just ends. And to the entities in that realm, that is fully natural and they couldn't imagine entities appearing a babies coming out of other entities, etc. To them, that would be bizarre to the extreme and far fetched. As far as the question if the universe, or karma, naturally leads all of these entities to enlightenment: that is a false belief. The Buddha taught that this process will continue indefinitely if awareness of reality isn't achieved. And as far as this argument concerning if these continuums manifest together, in different ways, for lifetime after lifetime: that may or may not be true, it again depends on conditions. The Buddha told many stories of his previous lives that he spent in the company of his current companions…and Ven. Ananda seemed to keep springing up with him in many of them. So, that isn't far fetched nor does it support the idea of a soul or atta, but it isn't terribly important either. When the two or more continuums interact in the future (or `another time', as time isn't a uniform constant), the conditions are different and there usually isn't memory of the past interactions. I hope this clears up the issue somewhat for you. I am sure some others on this list can add in other ways to improve your understanding. Metta, James 20557 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 (Robert) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, All There Is wrote: > Hello Robert, > > In the study, what happens when there is no suitable body, to be > transferred to, for the leaving person. > > > Source ____________ Dear Source, This is quite complex. According to the texts there are three types of death. Ultimate death is happening every moment that citta (consciousness ) arises and passes away. Conventional death is the usual death, and final death is the death of an arahant when there are no more conditions for rebirth. You asked about conventional death. If we take the human realm: To be born as a human the condition was some degree of good kamma. So that condition couldn't result in an animal birth. Let's look at the possibility of a time in the future when there are no humans - what would then happen to a being whose kamma was of a type that should condition human birth? According to the texts there are also other beings that we can't see - devas and others- whose birth is also the result of good kamma. Some of these beings are said to be very close to humans (in kammic result) and so it might be that one was born as one of these lower devas (or higher goblins). These beings don't need the seed of mother an father because the matter is conditioned by the kamma or citta itself. Apart from that there are said to be an infinite number of beings in the 10,000 fold universe so one might be born even somewhere outside earth (I guess) if there was no suitable matter here. This is all open to debate as - just going on some very brief descritions in the texts. RobertK 20558 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi again, Jon - In a message dated 3/24/03 9:25:36 AM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > But is this apparent, and> > >are the details of that association of any real significance to us? > ---------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Usually no, but sometimes yes. Some people may actually remember. > Others may have the sense of knowing another person "always", and there may > > be suggestive evidence to back that up, but, certainly, without clear > memory, > this is quite indefinite. As far as significance, I would say there is > little > if any. > ======================== My reply here was unclear. My sentence "Usually no, but sometimes yes" pertained to whether it is apparent that the people close now were probably close to us in previous lives; it did *not* refer to whether there is any significance to that continued association. 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) 20559 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- > > Hi Dave, > > > As far as the question if the universe, or karma, naturally leads > all of these entities to enlightenment: that is a false belief. The > Buddha taught that this process will continue indefinitely if > awareness of reality isn't achieved. ___________> _________ Dear Dave, I was just going to reply to your useful question when I saw this by James. It is a clear an accurate answer I think. It may not be as comforting as believing everyone will get enlightened sooner or later no matter what. But the Dhamma presents the truth(I believe) - not what we wish things were. RobertK 20560 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/24/03 10:29:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Ken and all, > > I would think the dichotomy of being conventional and being ultimate > is a rather useless division. > > Association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved > is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. > > How are the situations of association with the unbeloved, separation > from the loved, and not getting what is wanted to be classified? Are > they conventional or are they ultimate? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I agree with you here, Victor. The dukkha, the mental distress/dissatisfaction that arises is as real as real can be, and, moreover, what it is useful to recognize is that it arises as the result of clinging to what we perceive as people and things, regardless of what their "ultimate" status may be. (Of course, more directly, we cling because we are reacting to pleasant experience with a craving that habituates into clinging, and this fact is to be seen by looking a bit more microscopically at what actually arises in the mind, and its nature. That, as I see it, requires going beyond concepts of things and directly "seeing".) ------------------------------------------------ > > Also, by whom sati cannot be directed towards a selected object? > by whom the object is selected? > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: Speaking conventionally, the "whom" is you and me. I consider that terminology a shorthand for what is actually going on, a useful shorthand. You, perhaps, don't think of it that way. Okay. :-) ------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > ========================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20561 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:23am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, "Source " - In a message dated 3/24/03 10:44:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, Source@a... writes: > Hello John, > > >>I share your assessment, Jon. However, with regard to your final > paragraph, I > >>do think there is likelihood of reuniting in some manner with one's loved > >>ones. People with related kamma and experiences and accumulations tend to > be > >>reborn "together" in a variety of relationships - sometimes as friends, > >>sometimes as enemies, sometimes as parent-child, sometimes child-parent, > >>sometimes siblings. I believe there is much in the Sutta pitaka that > >>indicates this, including discussions of the Buddha's and others' > previous > >>lives. > >> > >>With metta, > >>Howard > > The above assumption is and is not as it is. Every lifetime on earth is > for the acquirement of a particular experience or experiences to complete > the road to enlightenment. To be born in the same or similar circumstances > would not allow for advancement. Each and every person has their particular > place on the road. The next lifetime is tailored towards the next portion > of > the road, so the likelihood of being born with the same family is small. > However, there may be a need to spend a lifetime in support of another > member of that family and in this case it will happen. > ============================ While, of course, you are perfectly entitled to your own beliefs, I think that what you write above is an expression of what some call "life lessons" and is closer to new age philosophy or theosophy than it is to the Dhamma. Also, as an aside, I do not presume that one encounters the same "beings" in consecutive lifetimes. 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) 20562 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:30am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi Dave, I will try to give my response to point #1 for now. The idea "there is no self" is a big misconception about the Buddha's teaching. The purpose of the Buddhist practice is not to realize impermanence. The goal is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I"m going to chime in here with yet another "newcomer" question. I > hope I'm not being out of place... > [snip] > > This thread confuses me on 2 points. > > 1.) I thought that there was "no self" and that was the purpose of > Buddhist practice was to realize the impermanence. Therefore, how > would there be an eternal "me" to be reborn again and again? I > always thought that the reincarnation was more that the imprint of > our actions / desires continue, but it would not be in any > concrete "that was me" form. > > 2.) In the quote above, is the suggestion that the entire function > and flow of the universe is to push us all to Enlightenment? That > seems like quite an "order" to things. So, who/what makes this > decision to put a specific person into this or that baby(?) to > further his/her Enlightenment? > > Anyway, I hope my questions make sense and are not too obvious or > unwelcomed. As always, I appreciate any and all insights you all can > give. > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20563 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/24/03 2:32:18 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Dave, > > I will try to give my response to point #1 for now. > > The idea "there is no self" is a big misconception about the Buddha's > teaching. > > The purpose of the Buddhist practice is not to realize impermanence. > The goal is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. > > Regards, > Victor > > ============================== I understand liberation to be two-fold: The liberation from tanha (both craving and aversion) and the liberation from avijja. 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) 20564 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 11:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa2 (Robert) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, All There Is > wrote: > > Hello Robert, > > > > In the study, what happens when there is no suitable body, to be > > transferred to, for the leaving person. > > > > > > Source > ____________ > Dear Source, > This is quite complex. Apart from that there are said to be an infinite number of beings in > the 10,000 fold universe so one might be born even somewhere outside > earth (I guess) if there was no suitable matter here. > This is all open to debate as - just going on some very brief > descritions in the texts. > RobertK Hi Robert and Source, If I may add my impressions, I believe this question is moot because the universe is a 'closed system'. In other words, the potentiality for 'death' in one area would not occur without the potentiality for 'birth' in a different area. Think of it like a teeter-tooter, one side doesn't go down without the other side going up. This is my understanding and may be mistaken. The Buddha didn't discuss this subject a great deal because it can result in 'conceptual fantasy.' However, people nowadays are not like people in his time and I believe we need more explanation to inspire resolve. Metta, James 20565 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:02pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Robert, Howard, James, Kom, Sukin, Swee Boon, Sarah, Victor and all, Thanks for your posts in the interesting Buddhaghosa thread. I'm taking my time to reflect upon them all and may respond to some points later in the week. metta, Christine 20566 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 0:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hello Victor, Dave and All, Victor, I've never seen you state this so clearly before - Can you tell me *what*, as you understand it, is typing this email? Can you tell me what you understand by the doctrine of No-self (Anatta) and how it has been misconceived? I have always been taught that Anatta "no-soul" or "no-self" is a cornerstone of the Buddha's Teaching. I understand that this is the most difficult teaching to accept as it is incomprhensible to some, and terrifying to others to consider that no permanent entity exists. At times it is both incomprehensible and terrifying to me, but, at other times it is beginning to feel O.K. - even a relief. The problem is, I fluctuate. :-) I'm satisfied with this excerpt from the longer definition in Nyanatiloka Thera's dictionary: http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_a.htm "anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The anattá doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, but the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, or 'Teacher of Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this impersonality of all existence, and does not comprehend that in reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his personality that walks on the Eightfold Path." I find the last six paragraphs of the long Alagagaddupama Sutta to be quite excellent in teaching about No-self. Majjhima Nikaya 22 'The Simile of the Snake' http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm I am also familiar with: Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 'Anatta-lakkhana Sutta' "The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" http://www.vipassana.com/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.php metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Dave, > > I will try to give my response to point #1 for now. > > The idea "there is no self" is a big misconception about the Buddha's > teaching. > > The purpose of the Buddhist practice is not to realize impermanence. > The goal is liberation, the cessation of dukkha. > > Regards, > Victor 20567 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:00pm Subject: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Dave (and all), I promised to provide you with a layman version of dependent origination. Sorry for the delay, but it is a much more difficult task than I thought and I have been caught up in making a living. In fact, the Buddha said that Dependent Origination was the most complex part of the teaching. Here are my comments on the first seven links; I hope that this stimulates some discussion. Each link of the chain of Dependent Origination depends on the existence of the previous link, but it is not a "cause and effect" type of relationship. We do not say that a seed caused a tree to grow; we say that a seed is a key factor that had to exist before a tree could grow. Similarly, each factor in the chain of dependent origination does not "cause" the subsequent factor to arise; it is something that must exist before the next factor can arise. The first link in the chain is "ignorance". Ignorance is the primary root of all evil and suffering in the world. Ignorance prevents one from seeing the true nature of things. However, ignorance should not be considered as the "causeless first-cause of the world". Ignorance arises because it is habitual. Whenever we do something, two things happen; firstly, we create a kammic seed with the potential to mature in the future and secondly, we create or reinforce a habit. With ignorance as a factor, conditions can allow "kammic actions" to arise. Kammic actions are the second link in dependent origination. Kammic actions mean any willed activity (all willed activities create kamma). We can see that kamma and dependent origination are not totally separate. Our actions spring from our habits. It is easy to see that habits based on ignorance (not seeing things as they truly are) can lead to negative kammic actions rooted in ignorance. Habits based on ignorance can also lead to positive kammic actions. For example, conceit or vanity can motivate one to do good things. With kammic actions as a factor, conditions can allow "consciousness" to arise. Consciousness is the third link in dependent origination. Kammic actions create kammic seeds, each with a potential (but not inevitability) to mature when other conditions allow. Kammic seed mature at two different time; at the moment of rebirth, a kammic seed with mature to determine the nature of your next existence (a new "rebirth-linking consciousness"). Kammic seeds also mature throughout our lifetime. Whenever something happens to us, this is because a kammic seed has matured. In the process of seeing, when a visible object strikes the sensitive part of the eye, this is a condition which, together with a kammic seed, allows "eye- consciousness" to arise. In other words, we do not "see" whatever strikes our retina; we only "see" when eye-consciousness is also present. The arising of eye consciousness depends on a past kammic seed maturing. With consciousness as a factor, conditions can allow "mind and matter". Mind and matter are the fourth link in dependent origination. Without consciousness, there can be no mental and physical process of existence. Consciousness is necessary for any of our mental processes (our mind) to arise. At the moment of rebirth, the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to arise. Buddhists also believe that consciousness is a factor that allows other conditions to impact the physical processes of the body. For example, when a person is frequently stressed, the body is weakened and you can see it on their faces. With mind and matter as a factor, conditions can allow "the six sense bases" to arise. The six sense bases are the fifth link in dependent origination. The six sense bases are the five physical sense organs and the mind-base (that which supports consciousness). Mind is a factor in the arising of the sense bases because, according to Buddhism, our sense bases arise because of our kamma. In other words, a person is blind because of their kamma. Matter is a factor in the arising of sense bases; because they are part of a living being, our sense bases need to be constantly nourished. With the six sense bases as a factor, conditions can allow "contact" to arise. Contact is the sixth link in dependent origination. Contact arises when three things coincide; an object (visible object, sound, smell, taste, touch or concept), the corresponding sense base and the corresponding consciousness. For example, "visual contact" arises when a visible object impinges on the eye and there is "seeing-consciousness" in the mind. With contact as a factor, conditions can allow "feeling" to arise. Feeling is the seventh link in dependent origination. In conventional usage, the term "feeling" is often associated with emotions. In Buddhism, feeling is limited to "pleasant mental", "unpleasant mental", "neutral mental", "pleasurable (physical)" or "painful (physical)". Touch can be pleasurable or painful, concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. Metta, Rob M :-) 20568 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, Dave and All, > > Victor, I've never seen you state this so clearly before - Can you > tell me *what*, as you understand it, is typing this email? Can you > tell me what you understand by the doctrine of No-self (Anatta) and > how it has been misconceived? Hi Christine, I can't speak for Victor, but I can speak for myself. I think maybe I know where he is coming from by recalling my own experience. I had the hardest time, for the longest time, with the concept of `no- self' because I didn't understand it. The reason I didn't understand it is because it is explaining what there is not, not what there is. A definition using the negative is not very effectual or clear. Not only that, the term `no self' assumes that there is already a firm concept of `self' which everyone holds and can agree on…but there isn't. It wasn't until I came across the definition of anatta as really meaning `no essence' that I then understood. You see, I am not sure I have a very strong sense of self in the first place. I seem to be more the people I come into contact with, who have a strong sense of self, than my own, individual self. So I had a very hard time with the concept with the way it was traditionally presented. Also, I believe some people mistakenly cling to this concept and create what I call a `Self Non-Self'. They are quite bizarre in their thinking and seem to have an over-fixation on `disappearing'. They remind me of the Cheshire Cat in "Alice In Wonderland" ;-). To some extent, Victor is correct. The Buddha didn't say that there is no self because that can become a quagmire of fixed views. He said that there is no permanent essence to anything...including what some view as themselves. Metta, James 20569 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:22pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James, > op 23-03-2003 07:11 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > N: Nina: not think of different camps, Dear Nina, Thank you so much for this post. It is filled with compassion. I wish you well with your father and appreciate the example you demonstrate. So often, even in the midst of our deepest practice, the common needs of those we love call us away. I wish you strength in your time of difficulty. Now is not the time to discuss these deep subjects at length; there are other needs more pressing for you. But let me state, with all confidence, that I have the highest respect for your personal motives and appreciate the honesty in which you present them. I realize that this may appear differently to some based on my past posts, but that is not important. While I do not and never will agree with everything you teach, I sincerely agree with the spirit with which you teach it. Metta, James 20570 From: Mom Bongkojpriya (Betty) Yugala Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:51pm Subject: Fw: [Soroptimists] Fwd: Announcement: Vietnam Travel Warning Dear Everyone, I normally don't like to pass messages around, but this is of such serious import that it was necessary to send it on. Please act accordingly, Betty > > > Announcement: Vietnam Travel Warning > > Dear AMCHAM Members, > > The following announcement was received from American Citizen Services, US > Embassy, Bangkok. > > ****************************** > > This Travel Warning is being issued to alert U.S. citizens that the Department > of State has authorized the departure, on a voluntary basis, of family members > at the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi and the Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City. Due > to health concerns in Vietnam regarding the presence of Severe Acute Respiratory > Syndrome (SARS), the lack of adequate medical care and facilities, as well as > non-availability of commercial means of medical evacuation for SARS patients, > the Department of State warns U.S. citizens to defer non-emergency travel to > Vietnam at this time. U.S. citizens in Vietnam should consider departing. This > Travel Warning supersedes the Public Announcement of March 21, 2003. On March > 22, 2003, the Department of State authorized the departure of family members, on > a voluntary basis, at the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi and the Consulate > General in Ho Chi Minh City. These facilities remain open to provide the full > range of services to American citizens and the general public. > > Because of reduced availability of adequate medical facilities, the Department > of State has suspended official travel to Vietnam until further notice. The > level of medical services in Hanoi is now ramatically diminished by the closure > of the only adequate hospital facility and reduced operations by the two main > outpatient facilities due to the SARS mergency. At present, no commercial > carriers are willing to transport patients with SARS. Even non-lethal medical > conditions are difficult to address because clinics are making initial > assessments by phone or screening patients outside the clinic facilities. On > March 21, 2003, the Department of State imposed restrictions on official travel > to Vietnam. The Department recommends that American citizens defer all > non-emergency travel to Vietnam, especially if traveling with young children, > until medical services have returned to normal. > > > > The Consular Section of the U.S. Embassy in Hanoi is located at 6 Ngoc Khanh, Ba > Dinh District, telephone number (84-4) 831-4590; after hours emergency telephone > number (84-4) 772-1500; fax (84-4) 831-4578. Additional information may be found > on the Embassy website at http://usembassy.state.gov/vietnam/. > > The U.S. Consulate General in Ho Chi Minh City is located at 4 Le Duan, District > 1, telephone (84-8) 822-9433; fax (84-8) 822-9434; website > http://www.uscongenhcmc.org. > > For the most up-to-date information regarding SARS, American citizens are > advised to monitor the website of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention > at http://www.cdc.gov and the website of the World Health Organization at > ttp://www.who.int. > > For further information on travel to Vietnam, U.S. citizens should also consult > the Department of State's Consular Information Sheet for Vietnam, and the Fact > Sheet on SARS which are located at http://www.travel.state.gov. > > Regards > Judy A. Benn > Executive Director > American Chamber of Commerce in Thailand > > Tel: +66 (0) 2251-9266/7 > Fax: +66 (0) 2651-4472 > Email: execdirector@a... > Website: www.amchamthailand.com > > > ----- End forwarded message ----- > > >> > > 20571 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:55pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, Well, who is not speaking conventionally? The mental distress/dissatisfaction is not the only type of dukkha. Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna break. Take a less concrete example: a pleasant feeling is dukkha. It is dukkha/unsatisfactory because it is impermanent. Pleasant feeling does not last forever. Computer and pleasant feeling are dukkha, whether one clings to them or not. Seeing things and situations as dukkha is not about looking more microscopically at what actually arises in the mind and its nature. One can certainly gain knowledge about the intricate mechanism of mind by doing so. But that per se is not direct "seeing". Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - > [snip] > I agree with you here, Victor. The dukkha, the mental > distress/dissatisfaction that arises is as real as real can be, and, > moreover, what it is useful to recognize is that it arises as the result of > clinging to what we perceive as people and things, regardless of what their > "ultimate" status may be. (Of course, more directly, we cling because we are > reacting to pleasant experience with a craving that habituates into clinging, > and this fact is to be seen by looking a bit more microscopically at what > actually arises in the mind, and its nature. That, as I see it, requires > going beyond concepts of things and directly "seeing".) > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > Also, by whom sati cannot be directed towards a selected object? > > by whom the object is selected? > > > ------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Speaking conventionally, the "whom" is you and me. I consider that > terminology a shorthand for what is actually going on, a useful shorthand. > You, perhaps, don't think of it that way. Okay. :-) > ------------------------------------------------- > > > > > Regards, > > Victor > > > ========================== > With metta, > Howard 20572 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 7:55pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Hi Christine, I find your question kind of funny. I am not sure what "this email" you are referring to. I assume "this email" refers to the message I am typing now. If you asked me "who is typing this email?" I would answer "I am typing this email." Eye is not my self. Ear is not my self. Nose is no my self. Tongue is not my self. Body is not my self. Intellect is not my self. They are not mine. They are not what I am. They are not my self. The problem with Nyanatiloka Thera's definition of anatta is that he assume self as self-existing real ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This assumption makes the definition invalid. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Victor, Dave and All, > > Victor, I've never seen you state this so clearly before - Can you > tell me *what*, as you understand it, is typing this email? Can you > tell me what you understand by the doctrine of No-self (Anatta) and > how it has been misconceived? > I have always been taught that Anatta "no-soul" or "no-self" is a > cornerstone of the Buddha's Teaching. I understand that this is the > most difficult teaching to accept as it is incomprhensible to some, > and terrifying to others to consider that no permanent entity > exists. At times it is both incomprehensible and terrifying to me, > but, at other times it is beginning to feel O.K. - even a relief. > The problem is, I fluctuate. :-) > I'm satisfied with this excerpt from the longer definition in > Nyanatiloka Thera's dictionary: > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_a.htm > "anattá: 'not-self', non-ego, egolessness, impersonality, is the last > of the three characteristics of existence (ti-lakkhana, q.v.) The > anattá doctrine teaches that neither within the bodily and mental > phenomena of existence, nor outside of them, can be found anything > that in the ultimate sense could be regarded as a self-existing real > ego-entity, soul or any other abiding substance. This is the central > doctrine of Buddhism, without understanding which a real knowledge of > Buddhism is altogether impossible. It is the only really specific > Buddhist doctrine, with which the entire Structure of the Buddhist > teaching stands or falls. All the remaining Buddhist doctrines may, > more or less, be found in other philosophic systems and religions, > but the anattá-doctrine has been clearly and unreservedly taught only > by the Buddha, wherefore the Buddha is known as the anattá-vádi, > or 'Teacher of Impersonality'. Whosoever has not penetrated this > impersonality of all existence, and does not comprehend that in > reality there exists only this continually self-consuming process of > arising and passing bodily and mental phenomena, and that there is no > separate ego-entity within or without this process, he will not be > able to understand Buddhism, i.e. the teaching of the 4 Noble Truths > (sacca, q.v.), in the right light. He will think that it is his ego, > his personality, that experiences suffering, his personality that > performs good and evil actions and will be reborn according to these > actions, his personality that will enter into Nibbána, his > personality that walks on the Eightfold Path." > > I find the last six paragraphs of the long Alagagaddupama Sutta to be > quite excellent in teaching about No-self. > Majjhima Nikaya 22 'The Simile of the Snake' > http://www.budsas.org/ebud/majjhima/022-alagagaddupama-sutta-e1.htm > I am also familiar with: Samyutta Nikaya XXII.59 'Anatta-lakkhana > Sutta' "The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic" > http://www.vipassana.com/canon/samyutta/sn22-59.php > > > metta, > Christine 20573 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 3:50pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/24/03 10:56:14 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > > Hi Howard, > > Well, who is not speaking conventionally? > > The mental distress/dissatisfaction is not the only type of dukkha. > > Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha > if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, > manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna break. > > Take a less concrete example: a pleasant feeling is dukkha. It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory because it is impermanent. Pleasant feeling > does not last forever. > > Computer and pleasant feeling are dukkha, whether one clings to them > or not. --------------------------------------------------- Howard: I disagree. Something is unsatisfactory onlty with respect to a person who finds it unsatisfactory. When it is okay that that things not remain, there is no dukkha in their not remaining. It is exactly tanha and upadana that are the cause of dukkha. For an arahant, dukkha is ended. ------------------------------------------------- > > Seeing things and situations as dukkha is not about looking more > microscopically at what actually arises in the mind and its nature. > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: The cessation of dukkha requires seeing the tilakhana in all conditioned dhammas, in cultivating disenchantment, and in letting go. This requires the development of mindfulness, sharp concentration, calm, and clear comprehension. It requires the direct seeing of what is and what is not. --------------------------------------------------- > > One can certainly gain knowledge about the intricate mechanism of > mind by doing so. But that per se is not direct "seeing". > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: It is commonplace observation that people age, get ill, and die, that we lose what we have and that we don't get what we want. That the world is a "place of woe" is well understood by many people. It's a biggy in Catholicism, for example. But that ordinary conventional knowledge, useful as it is, just doesn't do the job. What is required is to see that at the finest level, nothing remains for even a moment, that everything is empty, without essence, fleeting, and ungraspable, and that attempting to grasp the ungraspable is dukkha. ----------------------------------------------------- > > Regards, > Victor > ============================== With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20574 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: confession and forgiving Dear Howard, Do you know that I so much appreciate your attitude, this is as the Buddha taught. The monks had to make confessions of transgressions, and we also can do that to each other, it is kusala. It is also Abhidhamma applied. We realize more our different cittas. As I said to my friends, I become emotional when there are strong discussions on Abhidhamma. It is actually dosa, aversion. Why? conditioned by lobha. When things are not the way we want to, or people are not the way we want to, aversion, dosa arises. I am just glad to learn this, and see it. Now all this because of your apology, and I did not even know what it was about. I was reflecting about forgiving and confession and how beautiful and complete the Dhamma is. With appreciation, Nina. op 23-03-2003 23:51 schreef upasaka@a... op upasaka@a...: > ============================= > While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* > retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with annoyance, and > I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. > > With metta, > Howard 20575 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa, history Dear Sarah, I greatly appreciate your post on Buddhaghosa and will keep this in my files. Thank you very much, Nina op 24-03-2003 06:41 schreef Sarah op sarahdhhk@y...: >> It would be good to hear more about Buddhaghosa, and how >> his writings should be viewed. > 20576 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Dear Larry op 24-03-2003 02:22 schreef LBIDD@w... op LBIDD@w...: > I'm a little bewildered by the section on clear comprehension. Are the > seven parts of this section concerned with insight, aka "clear > comprehension" (sampaja~n~na) in four ways, i.e., purpose, suitability, > resort, non-delusion, into the body in the practice of body mindfulness > (kaya anupassana)? Purpose, suitability, and resort seem to be concerned > with maintaining purity and could possibly be characterized as > "awareness". This adds another dimension to insight. N: Non delusion is mentioned at the end: no self, Only elements, thus, also in the section on mindfulness of body: both nama and rupa are the objects of mindfulness and understanding. What use is it to only know rupa and not discern it as different from nama? Sati sampajanna is needed for this. As to bending and stretching, I remember A. Sujin explaining this to me, this is also a level of understanding: know what is suitable for the body. it conditions nama. Never sit too long, you get stiff. Do not torture yourself. The monks also have to walk now and then, not sitting the whole day. Nina. 20577 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:21pm Subject: Re: [dsg] The Promised Land Dear Dave, what you wrote is completely as I see it. I can find myself in your words. You wrote: Anyway, I hope my questions make sense and are not too obvious or unwelcomed. N: On the contrary, any question is good and helpful for all of us. Nina. op 24-03-2003 18:58 schreef dwlemen op dwlemen@y...: > 1.) I thought that there was "no self" and that was the purpose of > Buddhist practice was to realize the impermanence. (snip) > 20578 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 9:34pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Again! Dear Janice, Thx for writing. > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Dear Kom, > Thank you for answering my questions! Lately, > I am quite upset about the war which had just started > in Iraq! Believe me, I know a few people who are upset about this war, but we can learn something out of this upset. You see, whenever we hear or see something we don't like, we won't like it too much, and sometimes, we will even be upset over it. When you see somebody you don't like, do you feel annoyed or unhappy because of the seeing? Because of seeing, there can be either happiness, or upset on the account of seeing. In this case, you see the images of the war, hear about its stories, and then get upset. The more you think about it, the more you are likely to be upset. If you know this, you can find some other peaceful things to think about. Try thinking about being extra nice to your friends and family, and being extra nice to your friends and family. That may bring you (temporary) peace. > Here are a few questions: > Do you believe in war? The Buddha teaches that violence cannot end violence; violence only begets more violence. Even if we think this is true, sometimes we are still violent anyway. I think this war will bring more violence, hatred, and division among people. > do you support it? No. > Do you believe in the laughing Buddha? No, the real Buddha was said to smile only, never laugh. This is because laughing is born out of our attachment to something. Since the Buddha has no attachment, then there can't be a laughing Buddha (except in statutes and such). > Do you follow the mindfulness path? I believe this path is the only way out of suffering. I follow it whenever there is mindfulness. > Do you go to the temple every week? No, I do go to dicussions about the Buddha's teachings every week, though. Janice, how do you like what you learn about Buddhism so far? kom 20579 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:07pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice Dear Nina & James, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] I very much appreciate this post, but will include only to the section I would like to add. > You are really worried that the Abhidhamma leads > to believing that one knows > what one does not know. As I mentioned before, > the late Phra Dhammadaro used > to say: the dhamma is sobering up. One has > conceit, but at least realizes > it. Only the arahat has eradicated it, thus, of > course we have it. Lots of > it, clinging to the importance of self. Yes, it > must appear in our writing > and speech, I am so glad you remind me of this. A > reminder by a Dhamma > friend is so useful. But we learn through the > Abhidhamma that there are so > many moments which change very fast. Cittas are > extremely fast. > Example: when I was in Thailand I said, every > time I come here I realize > that I know so little. Not only studying the abhidhamma can bring conceit and false belief that we know a lot, studying the Sutta and the Vinayana (and other things as well). Don't we feel sometimes, on the account of knowing (only) one sutta, feel that I know this sutta and this other person doesn't? Conceit is so prevalent. That's why I find A. Sujin's reminder about the purpose of studying the dhamma so helpful. We study the stories about the dhamma so that we understand better, so that it becomes a condition to know dhamma that is arising now, not book knowledge. We don't study for the purpose of praise or reputation (because we know things that other people don't), but we study for the knowledge of the realities, and for taming the kilesa. Are we now discussing about dhamma for the sake of winning an argument, or for showing off that I know something that other people don't? If we are, then we should learn that this, too, is a conditioned reality, but it is reality that we should not develop, but a reality that we should "let go". There is still a long way to go: only arahants have eradicated this kind of defilement. Abhidhamma, and the suttas, can be helpful reminders to us about how little we still know about the true realities... kom 20580 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:23pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Rob, Speaking as a layman, this is a noble effort but unconvincing and confusing. First, what are you talking about; the evolution of several moments of consciousness or what? Diagramatically, it reads as: ignorance > kamma > consciousness > mind & matter > sense bases > contact > feeling... But kamma, consciousness, mind & matter, sense bases, contact, and feeling are all already fully functioning in ignorance. Where's the evolution? How can there be consciousness without sense bases first? What is the difference between consciousness and mind? Does kamma condition consciousness, mind & matter, sense bases, contact and feeling? How do you know? These are just a few questions off the top of my head. I'm sure we could come up with more, but this is a good beginning you have made. Maybe if we wrestle with it some more you could come up with a lesson plan. It's very thought provoking. Larry 20581 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:23pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Howard, You wrote: ----------- > You and others are correct in emphasizing the importance of pariyatti. > By studying and contemplating the Dhamma, a type of seed is planted, a > "recollection seed" serving, among other things, to remind one to pay > attention, to be mindful of what arises in the moment, to note its nature (as > impermanent, conditioned, impersonal, and unsatisfying) and also as useful, > harmful, or neutral (and affording one the opportunity to let go of the > akusala and foster the kusala). But reminders can be ignored, attention can > be let go of, and guarding the senses can be given short shrift. --------------- My thoughts exactly. In fact, I feel a fraud writing to dsg, proclaiming the wondrousness of the Dhamma -- how much of my day is actually spent overcoming akusala tendencies? Precious little. -------------- > What makes > the difference? As I see it, intention does. A little intention to "do the > right thing" can lead to more. If we ignore kusala intention and fail to act > on it, then, I think the Buddha's term of foolish/babyish/immature (I forget > the Pali) would rightly apply to us. -------------- I haven't noticed that term but I'm sure it applies to me. Where you use the word 'intention,' I think 'determination' (as in the Perfection), might be better, but we are still in agreement. -------------- Conventional volition is important. ----------------- It was too good to last:-) I think conventional volition is no volition at all. Whenever we do something right (or wrong), it is due to paramatta volition, not conventional volition. We don't know when kusala dhammas are about to arise but after they do, we invent stories to explain how WE were responsible. Determination to make Right Understanding our own, [not just the property of our teachers], is primarily important. But, I'm afraid it, [determination],arises when the conditions for its arising are present; conventional determination has no say in the matter. Kind regards, Ken H 20582 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:27pm Subject: War Hi James, I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was involed in a big middle school musical performance these few weeks. We had pratices everyday late at night, even on Saturday. Thats why I could not go to Mrs. Abbott. The musical is called "Joseph and the technicolor dreamcoat". Its a really nice movie as well,have you watched it before? Im sure the Nazis weren't bad or evil people. It's just the different influence around different people. What do you think of the war going on with America and Iraq? Do you agree with war or do you disagree with war? I'm kind of in the middle because if they don't dont start a war, the Iraq people won't know what's right and what's wrong but if they start a war, a lot of innocent people will die. Different people have different perceptions about stuffs. What will the Buddhists think about war? Do Buddhists go to church like Christians and Catholics? Take care, Love, JoJo~* 20583 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:29pm Subject: What is the most popular religion? Dear James, Thanks for your reply and I'm really glad that you answered my question! In Hong Kong, there is this terrible desiese that doesn't have a cure YET and its called " SARS Pneumonia". A lot of people here has it and some people already died. :'( I hope that they find a cure soon. I liked your funny quotes! HAHAAAA How old was Goethe when he died? And when was he born? I bet he must be REALLY old . . . hahaa* Is high school the same thing as Secondary? Well I'm in grade 6 (Year 7). I just got two new guinea pigs! One called Tiger and the other one is called Lion. I have a question, What does metta mean?!?!?!? You always say "metta James" Does it mean from? What language is it in? I also have another question, what is the most popular religion? From Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont Some of my funny quotes: Do you believe in love at first sight or should I walk by you again? Why do you have to practice to be perfect when nobody can be perfect? Always remember that you are unique, just like everybody else. ----------------END---------------- hahaaaa...well I have lots more, to much so I can't write them all 20584 From: kenhowardau Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:29pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Victor, You wrote: ------------ > I would think the dichotomy of being conventional and being ultimate is a rather useless division. > Association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. > -------------- You were not persuaded by Kom's answer to this question in message 20443; I don't know what I could possibly add. Kom began: "From the text, we learn that the first two noble truths are hard to know, because they are profound. Don't you find this statement to be interesting? What's so hard to know about death being suffering, illness being suffering, parting with the beloved is suffering, or that attachment brings sufferings? I think most people in this group would agree to this without discussions. What's hard? What's profound?" Do you agree with this Victor? Surely you must agree that the simple statement, "death is suffering, illness is suffering, . ." is banal.(?) Don't you agree there must be infinitely more to the noble truth of suffering than the banality of conventional truth? As Kom says, conventional truth is "the truth that can be denied"; "what kind of truth is that?" To put it mildly, our conventional world lacks certainty. We can't even say, eg, "stinking, putrid filth is unpleasant," without fear of contradiction (from ten billion flies, at least). Don't you long for certainty in the world? In absolute reality, everything is certain, absolute; there is no relative, subjective, deniable truth. Quoting again: "Not only the Buddha's truth cannot be denied, it absolutely exists in nature. This is not like logical truth or mathematical truth. We may learn to accept unquestionably that 1+1=2, but this kind of truth is not the profound truth taught by the Buddha. The Buddha taught about the absolute truths that appear to us everyday, yet we don't know what they are, making the truth of suffering (and its cause) very profound. What is absolute truth? The 5 kandhas, the sense bases (ayatana), and the elements (dhatus) are. When we begin to understand what the Buddha teaches, how subtle they are, and how very little we really know about them, then we begin to appreciate why the truth of suffering is profound and unique to the Buddha's teachings." (end quote) So, Victor, having read most of Kom's post again, do you still think that conventional/ultimate is, "a rather useless division?" I will not accept 'yes' for an answer :-) Kind regards, Ken H 20585 From: Star Kid Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 10:31pm Subject: WARNING: a lot of questions!!! Dear Everybody, WARNING! This letter is going to be extreamally boring, because it is full of questions. If you don't want to be bored to death then don't read this! . . . are you sure you still want to read it? oh well . . . if you are bored don't blame me! ------------------------------boring questions----------------------------are you ready? ------------------- 1. Who was the first Buddhist westerner? 2. Why is a Buddha called a Buddha? 3. Why is an elephant so holy in Thailand? 4. When was the Buddha born? 5. Is there proof about how Buddhism started? (About the Prince) 6. Is there a special symbol to represent Buddhism? 7. What percent of the world is Buddhist? 8. Why do people want to be Buddhist? 9. Are there a lot of western Buddhists? 10. This letter is boring right? --------------------------END-------------------------- Haha! Don't tell me I didn't warn you! From Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont PS: hahaaaaaaaa . . . I'm not going to be writing many of this type of letter so often, so if you read this, you are VERY lucky! 20586 From: Date: Mon Mar 24, 2003 5:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Ken - In a message dated 3/25/03 1:24:16 AM Eastern Standard Time, kenhowardau@y... writes: > > Hello Howard, > > You wrote: > ----------- > > You and others are correct in emphasizing the importance of > pariyatti. > >By studying and contemplating the Dhamma, a type of seed is > planted, a > >"recollection seed" serving, among other things, to remind one to > pay > >attention, to be mindful of what arises in the moment, to note its > nature (as > >impermanent, conditioned, impersonal, and unsatisfying) and also as > useful, > >harmful, or neutral (and affording one the opportunity to let go of > the > >akusala and foster the kusala). But reminders can be ignored, > attention can > >be let go of, and guarding the senses can be given short shrift. > > --------------- > > My thoughts exactly. In fact, I feel a fraud writing to > dsg, proclaiming the wondrousness of the Dhamma -- how > much of my day is actually spent overcoming akusala > tendencies? Precious little. > > -------------- > > What makes > >the difference? As I see it, intention does. A little intention > to "do the > >right thing" can lead to more. If we ignore kusala intention and > fail to act > >on it, then, I think the Buddha's term of foolish/babyish/immature > (I forget > >the Pali) would rightly apply to us. > > -------------- > I haven't noticed that term but I'm sure it applies to > me. Where you use the word 'intention,' I think > 'determination' (as in the Perfection), might be better, > but we are still in agreement. > -------------- --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Actually, I think also that 'determination' is better. --------------------------------------------------- > > Conventional volition is important. > ----------------- > > It was too good to last:-) I think conventional volition > is no volition at all. Whenever we do something right > (or wrong), it is due to paramatta volition, not > conventional volition. We don't know when kusala dhammas > are about to arise but after they do, we invent stories to > explain how WE were responsible. -------------------------------------------------- Howard: I'm not putting any "we" into this. Don't let my terminology cause a problem. So-called conventional volition possibly comprises a host of things including desire and including the more neutral chanda. Chanda, of a *good* sort, is pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote of "conventional volition". It is described by Nyanatiloka as follows: > > > As a good quality it [chanda] is a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) > and occurs, e.g. in the formula of the 4 right efforts (s. padhána): "The > monk rouses his will (chandam janeti)...." If intensified, it is one of the > 4 roads to power (s. iddhipáda). > BTW, notice the conventional speech "The monk rouses his will"! --------------------------------------------------------------- > > > Determination to make Right Understanding our own, [not > just the property of our teachers], is primarily > important. But, I'm afraid it, [determination],arises > when the conditions for its arising are present; > conventional determination has no say in the matter. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Ken, we walk to the store when the conditions for doing so are in place. That includes our determination to do so. If that determination were not there, we would not go. When there is the determination to attend mindfully to what arises from moment to moment, that determination, that decision, will come to mind from time to time and we *will* attend mindfully to what arises. But without the intention and determination to do so, we would simply coast through life in a state of unmindfulness - basically in a daze. Whether we call this "conventional volition" or "making a decision" or "making a vow" or "practicing right intention" or "rousing one's will" - whatever we call it, and whatever it is, *it is important*. Whether it is a complex of paramattha dhammas or is, itself a single paramattha dhamma, *it is important*. Without it there is no walking the path. -------------------------------------------------------- > > Kind regards, > Ken H > > ============================ With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20587 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:27am Subject: Arahants Dear All, As this seems to be the time for raising questions about any sticky points, may I, with respect, ask about Arahants? Many times in discussions the approval and support of Arahants, or the presence of Arahants, is seen as putting beyond question the fact that someone, some teaching, some action, is faultless. A few months back, I was searching the Tipitaka and related texts on the Internet for teachings on 'peace' and 'non-violence'. I came across what I consider to be an incomprehensible view (when attributed to Buddhists) of a Just War - times when war is acceptable, and classes of persons it is acceptable to kill. I have been thinking about this ever since - particularly now, with my country involved in this war on the Iraqi people. The Mahavamsa, written in the 6th century AD by a Buddhist monk portrays the Sinhalese King Dutthagamani Abhaya as the National Hero who defeated the Tamil King Ellala and unified the whole of Ceylon. Though Buddhism infinitely values human life as being a condition from which nibbana could be attained, Mahavamsa made a virtue of killing in defence of Buddhism. Indeed, the Mahavamsa even has an oft-repeated story of how the killing of Tamils during the drive to unify the country didn't really count as killing because, as non- Buddhists, they were less than human beings. "King Dutthagamani waged war with a Tamil ruler, Elala. After a series of battles, the Singalese king defeated Elala and killed him on the battlefield. According to Dutthagamani, this war was a holy war and the prince made it known by this proclamation: "This enterprise of mine is not for purpose of acquiring the pomp and advantages of royalty. This undertaking has always had for its object the re-establishment of the religion of the supreme Buddha."7 After his conquest, Dutthagamani reflected with dismay on innumerable lives sacrificed for the attainment of his end. Then he asked eight saints or arahants who come to console him: "Lord! What peace of mind can there be left to me, when I have been the means of destroying great armies?" And the arahants answered: "Supreme of men! From the commission of that act there will be no impediment in the road to salvation. Therein, no more than two human beings have been sacrificed; the rest are heretics and sinners, who are on a par with wild beasts. And as you will cause the religion of the Buddha to shine forth in great splendour, on that account, ruler of men, subdue your mental affliction."8 Thus was the king consoled." http://www.mcu.ac.th/e- book/English/manual/Buddhist_Worldview/Buddhist_Resolution/ Apart from raising doubt about the frequent assertion that Buddhism has had no wars in order to impose itself on others, this story raises another confusion for me. Either there were Arahants who said this (how can this possibly be?); or, they weren't 'really' Arahants but people thought they were? (How does one tell a genuine Arahant from a 'pretend' Arahant?); or, there were no Arahants and this was inserted into scripture (by whom?) to justify certain behaviours. It does make one wonder about Arahants, and the texts that speak of the presence of Arahants, don't you think? metta, Christine 20588 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:32am Subject: Re: temples --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > You know you said about the temple you go to.Is there > anything like going to the temple every Sunday? So > Buddhists are really different to both Christians and > Jews, where they sing to thank for the blessing or > anything similar. > > You said that said people go to the temple to > meditate. When you meditate what do you have in mind? > > Thanks for the poems! > > Metta > Hilary Hi Star Kid Hilary! Yes, at my temple they have special services every Sunday where many in the Asian community come to chant with the monks, listen to a dharma talk, and then eat lunch. I have been to the temple on a few Sundays. I don't like to go to the temple when there are a lot of people there. As a rule, I avoid crowds. I usually prefer to go to the temple on Saturdays or during the week…and for special events. When I meditate I first pay attention to my breathing in and out…so that I can observe what my body and my mind are really like. When my mind is more settled and focused, after about 20 or 25 minutes of paying attention to my breath, I then mentally scan my body from the top to the bottom, and then from the bottom to the top. I notice how my body feels on the surface of the skin, and underneath the skin. All during this process I mentally follow the Four Foundations of Mindfulness (Sati: Attention) that the Buddha taught: Mindfulness of the Body (Position), Feelings (Senses Contact), Mind (Thinking, Planning and Fantasy), and Mental Activity (Consciousness). In order to keep track of all of these things, I have to keep very still and not move a single muscle in my body. Moving will disrupt my attention to these things. I also keep my eyes half open so that my mind doesn't think it is time to sleep ;- ). I sit like this, paying attention to these things, on the bare floor, for usually 45 minutes to an hour total each time. Then I stand and do walking meditation…which is the same as above but it is walking very, very slowly…paying attention to each move. Imagine walking so slow that it takes 10 minutes to get from one side of a room to the other, then you will have a good idea of what it is like. So you see, even though meditation may seem boring and easy, it really isn't either one. There are too many things to try to notice for it to be boring and it isn't easy to notice all of them. But the benefits of meditation are very great! Thanks for writing and study hard in school! Metta, James Ps. You are very welcome for the poems, but things are a little too serious in the world right now for me to send more funny poems. Maybe next time. :-) 20589 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:33am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, What is impermanent is dukkha. "The cessation of dukkha requires seeing the tilakhana in all conditioned dhammas". One of the three characteristics of conditioned dhammas is that conditioned dhammas are dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - [snip] > > I disagree. Something is unsatisfactory onlty with respect to a person > who finds it unsatisfactory. When it is okay that that things not remain, > there is no dukkha in their not remaining. It is exactly tanha and upadana > that are the cause of dukkha. For an arahant, dukkha is ended. [snip] > The cessation of dukkha requires seeing the tilakhana in all > conditioned dhammas, in cultivating disenchantment, and in letting go. This > requires the development of mindfulness, sharp concentration, calm, and clear > comprehension. It requires the direct seeing of what is and what is not. [snip] > It is commonplace observation that people age, get ill, and die, that > we lose what we have and that we don't get what we want. That the world is a > "place of woe" is well understood by many people. It's a biggy in > Catholicism, for example. But that ordinary conventional knowledge, useful as > it is, just doesn't do the job. What is required is to see that at the finest > level, nothing remains for even a moment, that everything is empty, without > essence, fleeting, and ungraspable, and that attempting to grasp the > ungraspable is dukkha. > ----------------------------------------------------- > [snip] > With metta, > Howard 20590 From: abhidhammika Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: Buddhadasa : To Kom Dear Kom How are you? Thank you for your break-down of Buddhadasa's situation. At first, I thought, from the writing of Robert K, that his problems were limited to his misunderstandings of Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma. Now, from what you wrote, his problems turned out to be far worse than I previously thought. Did the Thai Sangha disrobe him for his misunderstandings of Pali Tipi.taka? If he questioned Pali Vinaya Pi.taka, he was no longer a Theravada monk because it amounted to him having lost confidnece and trust in Vinaya which demands a monk's total trust and faith (saddhaa). When a monk did not have his faith in Pali Vinaya, then he could not be expected to live by the rules of Vinaya. If a monk could not live by the rules of Pali Vinaya, he ceased to be a memeber of Theravada Sangha. In short, he must be disrobed. My impression is that his ideas came from Mahayana teachings (for example, one is already good, so no need to do anything). This type of attitude can also be traced back to misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Buddha's stamement on the radiant mind/ luminous mind, which has been discussed many times on this list. Now, the double standard of this ideologically corrupted and unsound monk, Buddhadasa, who no longer should remain in the Theravada Sangha! He criticized Pali commentaries via Buddhaghosa, yet he let himself influenced by Mahayana-like ideas. If my characterization of him were correct, then he was guilty of double standard because Mahayana schools totally rely on the teachings of their founders who are later interpreters or commentators of the Buddha's teachings. In short, his stance amounted to substituting Pali commentaries with Mahayana commentaries. Or worse still, he apparently was guilty of wanting to substitute Pali commentaries with his own misunderstandings and wrong interpretations. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: Dear Christine & Other, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > > Hi Robert and All, I was exposed to V. Buddhadhassa's work thru my parents' interests, so I am by no mean an expert on what he teaches. However, from my brief glimpses of his work, I have the following impressions: 1) his teachings, especially when it comes to rebirth, is substantially different from what's in the 3 tipitakas. To believe that what he teaches is right, one needs to believe in the supposition that the tipitakas have been heavily doctored to include fragments of other beliefs (you can see how much the texts refer to rebirth: this seems to amount to major overhaul, not just convenient modifications). He believes in the aberration in all three tipitakas, not just the commentaries or the abhidhamma tipitakas. 2) To believe in no rebirth seems to me amounting to belief in spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. How do we come to be like we are, even as babies? Babies have personalities and habits, how do those come to be? The venerable would explain it, "it is what it is". Although this sounds very alluring and calming, this points to spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. 3) To believe in no rebirth also negates the explanation of kamma and its results. He sometimes explained the results of kamma to mean what we receive in this very life. If you believe this, then there are people who commit evils, but who will receive no results, and there are people who receive (good and bad) results, without causes. Kamma that are conditioned by attachments (and therefore, wouldn't necessarily condition anger or anxiety, something he views as the punishment of this very life) may bear no fruit if the authority doesn't catch the crooks and punish them. People who are born rich and beautiful, miserable and disadvantaged, are put there without cause: stuffs happen. I don't think there are much disagreements that intellectual understandings about the dhamma alone cannot bring about enlightenment. It is the disagreement of what brings about the understanding at the pati-pati (practice) level, that is usually in questions. Are we firm in our understanding of anattaness of realities? Do you "choose" to see, hear, think about what is happening right now? Once we see that, we then understand anattaness better, and also that the understanding at the pati-pati level is the same way as any other realities: they are conditioned. Without the proper causes, they don't arise, and with the proper causes, they arise. The direct causes of wisdom at the pati-pati level is not the desire to know or to do or to be calm, it is the understanding at other levels. Kusala at all levels support development of panna, but desire, even though it is something that may motivate us at the beginning (to be out of misery, to have an explanation, for example), quickly becomes a hindrance for further development, and may very well lead us into the wrong practices. kom 20591 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:31am Subject: Re: War JoJo, Just a quick point, but Catholics ARE Christians. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: ...SNIP... > Do Buddhists go to church like Christians and > Catholics? > > Take care, Love, > JoJo~* > 20592 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants Hi, Christine - In a message dated 3/25/03 4:28:59 AM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > "King Dutthagamani waged war with a Tamil ruler, Elala. After a > series of battles, the Singalese king defeated Elala and killed him > on the battlefield. According to Dutthagamani, this war was a holy > war and the prince made it known by this proclamation: "This > enterprise of mine is not for purpose of acquiring the pomp and > advantages of royalty. This undertaking has always had for its object > the re-establishment of the religion of the supreme Buddha."7 After > his conquest, Dutthagamani reflected with dismay on innumerable lives > sacrificed for the attainment of his end. Then he asked eight saints > or arahants who come to console him: "Lord! What peace of mind can > there be left to me, when I have been the means of destroying great > armies?" And the arahants answered: "Supreme of men! From the > commission of that act there will be no impediment in the road to > salvation. Therein, no more than two human beings have been > sacrificed; the rest are heretics and sinners, who are on a par with > wild beasts. And as you will cause the religion of the Buddha to > shine forth in great splendour, on that account, ruler of men, subdue > your mental affliction."8 Thus was the king consoled." > http://www.mcu.ac.th/e- > book/English/manual/Buddhist_Worldview/Buddhist_Resolution/ > > Apart from raising doubt about the frequent assertion that Buddhism > has had no wars in order to impose itself on others, this story > raises another confusion for me. > Either there were Arahants who said this (how can this possibly be?); > or, they weren't 'really' Arahants but people thought they were? (How > does one tell a genuine Arahant from a 'pretend' Arahant?); or, there > were no Arahants and this was inserted into scripture (by whom?) to > justify certain behaviours. It does make one wonder about Arahants, > and the texts that speak of the presence of Arahants, don't you think? > > =============================== I think that you have probably well covered the plausible explanations, properly ruling out the first that there were arahants who considered it perfectly okay to kill people who were, from their perspective, "heretics and sinners" and thus less than human. Such a view sounds strangely modern in this day of fundamentalist terrorism. The Dhamma cautions against intentional killing of all sentient life, and most Buddhists I know avoid even the killing of insects. But why concern ourselves much with the Mahavamsa? I certainly don't consider this as "Buddhist scripture" of any variety. It is merely a Buddhist related historical work. I trust the Tipitaka to a great extent, and other Buddhist-related works with varying and diminishing force. 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) 20593 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:59am Subject: Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Rob, Wow... thanks for taking the time to put all this together. I'm sure it did take considerable time and effort. It is a lot to absorb. But, I do have a few initial thoughts. First, I think that I did not at all understand D.O. before. From what I understand from your text, D.O. is only specifically to the 7 items you listed, right? I had seen it as more "cause and effect" but realizing the vast complexities of the causes. Sort of like the "Chaos Theory" (remember Jurasic Park!) but with a moral / ethical thread included. It would seem that I was way off in my thoughts. Anyway, I've thrown a few quick questions below inline. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Dave (and all), > > I promised to provide you with a layman version of dependent > origination. Sorry for the delay, but it is a much more difficult > task than I thought and I have been caught up in making a living. > > In fact, the Buddha said that Dependent Origination was the most > complex part of the teaching. Here are my comments on the first > seven links; I hope that this stimulates some discussion. > > Each link of the chain of Dependent Origination depends on the > existence of the previous link, but it is not a "cause and effect" > type of relationship. We do not say that a seed caused a tree to > grow; we say that a seed is a key factor that had to exist before a > tree could grow. Similarly, each factor in the chain of dependent > origination does not "cause" the subsequent factor to arise; it is > something that must exist before the next factor can arise. > DAVE: So, do you mean that each element (link in the chain) is a factor required for the following. So, as an example, for fire to take place, there must be oxygen and a flammible substance. But, having those 2 items does not cause fire. The cause is the open flame. Do these operate the same way. That Ignorance is just a necissary condition to be present for "Kammic actions" to occur. But, the presence of Ignorance does not mean that Kamma will occur. There must be some other "cause" (the open flame)? > The first link in the chain is "ignorance". Ignorance is the primary > root of all evil and suffering in the world. Ignorance prevents one > from seeing the true nature of things. However, ignorance should not > be considered as the "causeless first-cause of the world". Ignorance > arises because it is habitual. Whenever we do something, two things > happen; firstly, we create a kammic seed with the potential to > mature in the future and secondly, we create or reinforce a habit. > > With ignorance as a factor, conditions can allow "kammic actions" to > arise. Kammic actions are the second link in dependent origination. > Kammic actions mean any willed activity (all willed activities > create kamma). We can see that kamma and dependent origination are > not totally separate. Our actions spring from our habits. It is easy > to see that habits based on ignorance (not seeing things as they > truly are) can lead to negative kammic actions rooted in ignorance. > Habits based on ignorance can also lead to positive kammic actions. > For example, conceit or vanity can motivate one to do good things. > > With kammic actions as a factor, conditions can > allow "consciousness" to arise. Consciousness is the third link in > dependent origination. Kammic actions create kammic seeds, each with > a potential (but not inevitability) to mature when other conditions > allow. Kammic seed mature at two different time; at the moment of > rebirth, a kammic seed with mature to determine the nature of your > next existence (a new "rebirth-linking consciousness"). Kammic seeds > also mature throughout our lifetime. Whenever something happens to > us, this is because a kammic seed has matured. In the process of > seeing, when a visible object strikes the sensitive part of the eye, > this is a condition which, together with a kammic seed, allows "eye- > consciousness" to arise. In other words, we do not "see" whatever > strikes our retina; we only "see" when eye-consciousness is also > present. The arising of eye consciousness depends on a past kammic > seed maturing. DAVE: How do you define "consciousness" in this context? Merriam- Webster defines Cosciousness as: 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern for some social or political cause 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, and thought : MIND 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual 4 : the normal state of conscious life 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as contrasted with unconscious processes It would seem that the term is not used in this way here, especially since it comes before mind and matter in the chain. > With consciousness as a factor, conditions can allow "mind and > matter". Mind and matter are the fourth link in dependent > origination. Without consciousness, there can be no mental and > physical process of existence. Consciousness is necessary for any of > our mental processes (our mind) to arise. At the moment of rebirth, > the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > arise. Buddhists also believe that consciousness is a factor that > allows other conditions to impact the physical processes of the > body. For example, when a person is frequently stressed, the body is > weakened and you can see it on their faces. > DAVE: When you say that there "Without consciousness, there can be no mental and physical process of existence. " what do you mean? Is there any physical reality apart from our ability to be aware of it? On a tangent, what is the Buddhist take on some of the recent discoveries in physics? Things like Waves, or quantum mechanics that suggest a much more fluid universe than what we see as the coarse, huge atomic groupings that we are! :-) > With mind and matter as a factor, conditions can allow "the six > sense bases" to arise. The six sense bases are the fifth link in > dependent origination. The six sense bases are the five physical > sense organs and the mind-base (that which supports consciousness). > Mind is a factor in the arising of the sense bases because, > according to Buddhism, our sense bases arise because of our kamma. > In other words, a person is blind because of their kamma. Matter is > a factor in the arising of sense bases; because they are part of a > living being, our sense bases need to be constantly nourished. > DAVE: I do not understand how consciousness comes before the senses? Especially since the mind-base is in the senses link. How does that which supports consiousness come after? Or, is this a "chicken or the egg" question? :-) > With the six sense bases as a factor, conditions can allow "contact" > to arise. Contact is the sixth link in dependent origination. > Contact arises when three things coincide; an object (visible > object, sound, smell, taste, touch or concept), the corresponding > sense base and the corresponding consciousness. For example, "visual > contact" arises when a visible object impinges on the eye and there > is "seeing-consciousness" in the mind. > > With contact as a factor, conditions can allow "feeling" to arise. > Feeling is the seventh link in dependent origination. In > conventional usage, the term "feeling" is often associated with > emotions. In Buddhism, feeling is limited to "pleasant > mental", "unpleasant mental", "neutral mental", "pleasurable > (physical)" or "painful (physical)". Touch can be pleasurable or > painful, concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. > > Metta, > Rob M :-) Hopefully, I'm not being too nitpicky with my followup questions. Again, I do appreciate you taking so much time to put this together. It is very helpful to my understanding this rather tricky subject. Peace, Dave 20594 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi, Dave (and Rob) - I'd like to express a couple of my thoughts about parts of your post. In a message dated 3/25/03 11:01:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, dwlemen@y... writes: > > >With consciousness as a factor, conditions can allow "mind and > >matter". Mind and matter are the fourth link in dependent > >origination. Without consciousness, there can be no mental and > >physical process of existence. Consciousness is necessary for any > of > >our mental processes (our mind) to arise. At the moment of rebirth, > >the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > >arise. Buddhists also believe that consciousness is a factor that > >allows other conditions to impact the physical processes of the > >body. For example, when a person is frequently stressed, the body > is > >weakened and you can see it on their faces. > > > > DAVE: When you say that there "Without consciousness, there can be > no mental and physical process of existence. " what do you mean? Is > there any physical reality apart from our ability to be aware of > it? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: From my perspective, an in-principle unknowable physical reality is exactly that - unknowable, and, from a pragmatic Occam's-razor point of view can be dismissed. I do think, however, that it may be plausible to admit of potentialities for future observability, these being conditions/seeds that may bear fruit when other needed supporting conditions arise. As a conventional example (treat it as a metaphor), just to suggest my meaning: At the moment I am seeing the front of my computer monitor. With the proper supporting conditions, I could see the back of it. That potentiality is not unreal. Operationally, that is pretty much what "the back of the monitor" may mean. [Warning: The foregoing is filled with conventional notions at multiple levels, and is only given to give an inkling of my meaning of a "potentiality".] ----------------------------------------------------- > > On a tangent, what is the Buddhist take on some of the recent > discoveries in physics? Things like Waves, or quantum mechanics that > suggest a much more fluid universe than what we see as the coarse, > huge atomic groupings that we are! :-) > > >With mind and matter as a factor, conditions can allow "the six > >sense bases" to arise. The six sense bases are the fifth link in > >dependent origination. The six sense bases are the five physical > >sense organs and the mind-base (that which supports consciousness). > >Mind is a factor in the arising of the sense bases because, > >according to Buddhism, our sense bases arise because of our kamma. > >In other words, a person is blind because of their kamma. Matter is > >a factor in the arising of sense bases; because they are part of a > >living being, our sense bases need to be constantly nourished. > > > > DAVE: I do not understand how consciousness comes before the senses? > Especially since the mind-base is in the senses link. How does that > which supports consiousness come after? Or, is this a "chicken or > the egg" question? :-) > ------------------------------------------------------- Howard: I think this is a *very* important question. Maybe it is possible to think of this as follows: An act of consciousness/discernment (vi~n~nana) is a requirement for the arising of a mental or physical object of consciousness (namarupa); the arising of an object of discernment [which one might understand as the actualization of a potentiality, to relate this matter back to what I discussed earlier] is a requirement for the activation of one of the six senses (salayatana); the occurrence of all these (vi~n~nana, namarupa, and salayatana) constitutes, or is a requirement for, contact (phassa). One further comment: It should be clear that just as an act of discernment is necessary for the arising of an object of discernment, also an object of discernment is necessary for the occurrence of an act of discernment. In the Sheaves of Reeds Sutta, this point is made clear in its presentation of dependent arising, with vi~n~nana and namarupa being given as mutually dependent, like two sheaves standing up, leaning against each other and supporting each other, so that should either fall so would the other. --------------------------------------------------------- > > >With the six sense bases as a factor, conditions can > allow "contact" > >to arise. Contact is the sixth link in dependent origination. > >Contact arises when three things coincide; an object (visible > >object, sound, smell, taste, touch or concept), the corresponding > >sense base and the corresponding consciousness. For > example, "visual > >contact" arises when a visible object impinges on the eye and there > >is "seeing-consciousness" in the mind. > > > >With contact as a factor, conditions can allow "feeling" to arise. > >Feeling is the seventh link in dependent origination. In > > >conventional usage, the term "feeling" is often associated with > >emotions. In Buddhism, feeling is limited to "pleasant > >mental", "unpleasant mental", "neutral mental", "pleasurable > >(physical)" or "painful (physical)". Touch can be pleasurable or > >painful, concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. > > ========================== 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) 20595 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:15am Subject: The Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 8 The Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 8 We read in the Commentary to the ³Itivuttaka², ³As it was said², The Ones, Ch 1, §1, Lobha Sutta, which was quoted above: Loyalty to the Buddha is loyalty with firm confidence. For a person with such confidence, be he monk, deity, måra or Brahma, it is impossible to steal. Someone who is steadfast in his loyalty would not give up his confidence in the Buddha or his teachings, even when in danger of life. Therefore, the Buddha said that a person with wisdom and gratefulness is a noble friend who is steadfast in loyalty. Loyalty to people other than the Buddha may be of different degrees and it may be limited: it may last long or it may last for only a moment. However, the loyalty of Buddhists towards the Buddha is forever, until the end of life. From the time of childhood until one has become an adult, one can from morning until night hear the chanting of texts recollecting the excellent qualities of the Triple Gem. This makes us realize the excellence of the Buddha¹s truthfulness in the development of the perfections so that he could penetrate the noble Truths and become a support beyond measure to living beings, to devas and mankind. We read in the Commentary to the ³Itivuttaka²: The Buddha is called bhagavå because people are steadfast in their loyalty towards him, and because the Buddha is always intent on the benefit of all living beings in the world, and hence considers in his great compassion to teach the Dhamma. He teaches the Dhamma so that all beings could acquire steadfastness in síla, in samådhi, the calm that is freedom from defilements, and in paññå. The Buddhist followers, both monks and layfollowers, should be sincere in their loyalty to the Buddha, and they can express this by offering all kinds of gifts, such as flowers, incense, unguents and other things by which they can honour him. We can see that the person who is truthful and sincere and who is intent on the welfare of other beings in the world has eradicated all defilements. People can see his great compassion and his wisdom, and hence their loyalty to the Buddha, the Exalted One, surpasses their loyalty to anybody else. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct², ³Miscellaneous Sayings²: Only the man of wisdom is skilful in providing for the welfare of all beings.... Not deceiving, undertaking to give support to others, and not uttering speech that deviates from the truth, this is called practice with truthfulness. This is the practice of the Sammasambuddha, the Exalted One. This is skilfulness in providing for the welfare of all beings, by teaching them the way to eradicate attachment. He shows the danger of akusala and explains the way to further develop kusala. He does not deceive, he tries to give support to others and does not utter speech that deviates from the truth. This is called practice with truthfulness. Weight Age Gender Female Male 20596 From: nina van gorkom Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:15am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa and practice Dear James, op 25-03-2003 02:22 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: > While I do not and never will > agree with everything you teach, I sincerely agree with the spirit > with which you teach it. N: I am really touched by your kind post. This is motivated by your kusala citta. Didn't we set the ball rolling by Buddhaghosa? But many things came out of this I find beneficial. I am glad about it. You really bring up excellent points worth of reflection. It brings me back to basics, let me realize more what Abhidhamma is. Even such basics as kusala and akusala. For example, kusala, the Atthasalini writes that its manifestation is purity. Worth reflecting on: it is not contaminated by ignorance that goes together with all akusala, no selfishness, no aversion. We have kusala so seldom compared with all the akusala we accumulated, but when it appears it is beautiful, pure. I appreciate it so much seeing it in others. As you said, you do not agree with what I teach (teach? rather propose), but this does not matter, because we are friends in the Dhamma. Thank you for your good wishes for my father. It is not easy, but we like to play for him. Just one interesting point about the practice you mentioned, and I want to elaborate on it a little, especially to remind myself: I believe this, when called away, is the practice, we have to develop all the perfections the Buddha taught us. And then, many opportunities to reflect on Dhamma, on the Buddha, and there are always the objects appearing through the senses or the mind-door, and there can be awareness of them, sometimes. But I have to learn this slowly. Any surroundings are suitable; where we are is all because of conditions. Moreover, there is also an opportunity for mindfulness of death to see him going so slowly, every day more. I still would like to go on with some of your useful points when I have time, with great appreciation, Nina. 20597 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:28am Subject: Re: War --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was > involed in a big middle school musical performance > these few weeks. We had pratices everyday Hi Star Kid JoJo: It is okay that you haven't written for a while. I am glad that you enjoyed working on that musical and I hope you did a good job! I have directed several musicals so I know the amount of work involved and the pleasure that comes from doing a good job. Did you perform or work behind the scenes? Actually, I haven't seen that movie or play because it is very Judeo/Christian and I am not of that faith… so I don't/wouldn't enjoy it as much as some other people. I am surprised you performed it in school because it is kind of a church musical, but I hope you enjoyed the experience and made a lot of friends. You ask me two types of questions in this letter: What do I think of the current war and what do Buddhists think of the current war and war in general. These are a lot of complicated questions, as is the current war, actually. I will try my best to answer them as honestly as I can. First, I do want to point out that the current war with Iraq is not just America vs. Iraq, there are some other countries involved and, I suspect, before it is over, a lot of other countries will get involved. With that said I do have to say that I am in favor of the war with Iraq and believe that it is being fought for relatively good reasons. Saddam is a ruthless dictator who steals the countries wealth belonging to the Iraqi people, he kills his own citizens who oppose him, and he supplies and harbors terrorists who cause great harm in other countries because that will bring him power. When someone has that much power, in the form of money and fear, it is difficult if not impossible to stop them without force. America, as far as I can tell, has no intention of kicking out Saddam, taking over the oil wells, and keeping the wealth for itself. America is rich and powerful enough without needing to do that…and the American people wouldn't allow that to happen because they would tell everyone! ;-) The countries who oppose the war are getting money from the oil in Iraq and they don't want to lose that investment when Saddam is no longer in control. So you see, it is a fight over money, which equals power. America relatively left Iraq alone, after the Gulf War, and didn't meddle in its affairs for many years; but since 9-11, America isn't going to let these types of situations, which can get worse and affect the world, continue to happen. Just like I believe Hitler needed to be taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight personally or kill people to do that. I am like you, I am in favor of the war but I am opposed to me personally killing anyone and don't like to see people get killed or hurt…on either side. This may seem hypocritical but it isn't. It relates to your next set of questions: Are Buddhists in favor of the war and/or war in general. Well, I cannot speak for all Buddhists… some will be in favor and some will be opposed; but I can try to speak for Buddhism itself. The Buddha taught that those who take refuge in the Triple Gem should avoid killing living beings. However, he didn't say that everyone in the world should take refuge in the Triple Gem nor was that likely to happen. Some people, because of their past lives, are going to be Buddhist and some are not. Consequently, some people are going to be soldiers and fight in wars and some are not. The Buddha personally never told a soldier that it was wrong for him to fight and kill in a war, unless that soldier directly asked him what he should do (therefore he probably shouldn't be a soldier). The Buddha also didn't say that Buddhists should oppose war in general with speech or actions, he said that they should not become involved. Actually, he told his monks that they shouldn't look at soldiers while they are in formation nor should they look at battles occurring. They are to remain relatively neutral and to not even look at such things. That is what I do with my life as well, I remain relatively neutral. I can have my opinions about the war, but I am not going to speak of them strongly (I only write this because you ask, otherwise I say nothing), nor do I try to persuade other people to think one way or another, and I am not going to personally get involved. I just hope for peace for everyone. Thank you for writing again JoJo and I hope you become involved in some more productions in your school. Take care and work hard in school. Metta, James 20598 From: Michael Newton Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:53am Subject: Re: [dsg] WARNING: a lot of questions!!! --- Star Kid wrote: > Hello!Star Kid; I wouldn't feel too bad about your questions,or even that they are stupid-as this is the way you learned- and you can draw on the experience of many members of this group-and I would encaurage you-to just keep asking question,till you feel that you got a satifactory answer-also I could recommend a very good book-It's called"Buddhism in a Nutshell"-by Narada Thera-published by the Buddhist Publication Society in Sri Lanka-but I bet this book(or pamphlet)is available in Hong Kong-at one of the many Buddhist Bookstores there-and I believe there is no fee for the book or small fee maybe-think many of your questions could be answered.I've never been to Hong Kong-but one of this groups moderators,lives there and she know a lot about the subject-and it's possible she might even answer many of your questions.Her name is Sarah and her email address is--sarahdhhk@y...--since you both live in Hong Kong and might even be involved in a study group new you.I'm half a world away in California,however,thru the internet-it's amazeing to me that you can communicate with anyone in the world so quikly-even within minutes-this never ceases to amaze me-years ago,I never ever thought I'd be doing what I'm doing now-communicating globally with so many people.Good luck on your search and don't hesitate to ask questions.Yours in good Faith,Peace in the World,MICHAEL > Dear Everybody, > > WARNING! > > This letter is going to be extreamally boring, > because > it is full of questions. If you don't want to be > bored > to death then don't read this! > . . . are you sure you still want to read it? > oh well . . . if you are bored don't blame me! > > ------------------------------boring > questions----------------------------are you ready? > ------------------- > > 1. Who was the first Buddhist westerner? > > 2. Why is a Buddha called a Buddha? > > 3. Why is an elephant so holy in Thailand? > > 4. When was the Buddha born? > > 5. Is there proof about how Buddhism started? (About > the Prince) > > 6. Is there a special symbol to represent Buddhism? > > 7. What percent of the world is Buddhist? > > 8. Why do people want to be Buddhist? > > 9. Are there a lot of western Buddhists? > > 10. This letter is boring right? > > --------------------------END-------------------------- > > Haha! > Don't tell me I didn't warn you! > > From > Jan Tanyatip Chearavanont > > PS: hahaaaaaaaa . . . I'm not going to be writing > many > of this type of letter so often, so if you read > this, > you are VERY lucky! > 20599 From: dwlemen Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:33am Subject: Re: War James, It is with great hesitation that I must chime in here. I always hate to get into political discussions, but, like a moth drawn to a flame... I'll start by saying that I am 100% totally against this war. There are many reasons, for my feelings, but I'll spare you the details. Perhaps to focus this thread into Buddhism vs. politics, what are the "rules" for dealing with enemies. Are we to, as Jesus said "Love your enemies?" Or as Moses said "Life for a Life?" Can there ever be a just war for Buddhism? From a Buddhist point of view, will killing even your enemy bring about good Karma? Will we all as individuals, and as a nation, move closer to living in accordance with the Precepts by going to war? Would it not be better to bestow loving-kindness upon them all, even Hussien? Perhaps if we showed love, compassion, and respect, to the Iraqi or afgani people, they may find it harder to want to kill us. Maybe not, but I think we would have at least done the honorable thing, regardless of its apparent effects. But, as I've said many times before here, I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so perhaps there is justification for killing in certain circumstances... and perhaps those include pre-emptive strikes. Anyway, it seems that this war is going to continue. There are not enough people protesting to warrent a real concern for Bush. So, the best I think we can hope for is a quick war with minimal loss of life on either side. Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid > wrote: > > > > Hi James, > > > > I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was > > involed in a big middle school musical performance > > these few weeks. We had pratices everyday > > Hi Star Kid JoJo: > > It is okay that you haven't written for a while. I am glad that you > enjoyed working on that musical and I hope you did a good job! I > have directed several musicals so I know the amount of work involved > and the pleasure that comes from doing a good job. Did you perform > or work behind the scenes? Actually, I haven't seen that movie or > play because it is very Judeo/Christian and I am not of that faith… > so I don't/wouldn't enjoy it as much as some other people. I am > surprised you performed it in school because it is kind of a church > musical, but I hope you enjoyed the experience and made a lot of > friends. > > You ask me two types of questions in this letter: What do I think of > the current war and what do Buddhists think of the current war and > war in general. These are a lot of complicated questions, as is the > current war, actually. I will try my best to answer them as > honestly as I can. First, I do want to point out that the current > war with Iraq is not just America vs. Iraq, there are some other > countries involved and, I suspect, before it is over, a lot of other > countries will get involved. With that said I do have to say that I > am in favor of the war with Iraq and believe that it is being fought > for relatively good reasons. Saddam is a ruthless dictator who > steals the countries wealth belonging to the Iraqi people, he kills > his own citizens who oppose him, and he supplies and harbors > terrorists who cause great harm in other countries because that will > bring him power. When someone has that much power, in the form of > money and fear, it is difficult if not impossible to stop them > without force. America, as far as I can tell, has no intention of > kicking out Saddam, taking over the oil wells, and keeping the > wealth for itself. America is rich and powerful enough without > needing to do that…and the American people wouldn't allow that to > happen because they would tell everyone! ;-) The countries who > oppose the war are getting money from the oil in Iraq and they don't > want to lose that investment when Saddam is no longer in control. > So you see, it is a fight over money, which equals power. America > relatively left Iraq alone, after the Gulf War, and didn't meddle in > its affairs for many years; but since 9-11, America isn't going to > let these types of situations, which can get worse and affect the > world, continue to happen. Just like I believe Hitler needed to be > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken > out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight > personally or kill people to do that. > > I am like you, I am in favor of the war but I am opposed to me > personally killing anyone and don't like to see people get killed or > hurt…on either side. This may seem hypocritical but it isn't. It > relates to your next set of questions: Are Buddhists in favor of the > war and/or war in general. Well, I cannot speak for all Buddhists… > some will be in favor and some will be opposed; but I can try to > speak for Buddhism itself. The Buddha taught that those who take > refuge in the Triple Gem should avoid killing living beings. > However, he didn't say that everyone in the world should take refuge > in the Triple Gem nor was that likely to happen. Some people, > because of their past lives, are going to be Buddhist and some are > not. Consequently, some people are going to be soldiers and fight > in wars and some are not. The Buddha personally never told a > soldier that it was wrong for him to fight and kill in a war, unless > that soldier directly asked him what he should do (therefore he > probably shouldn't be a soldier). The Buddha also didn't say that > Buddhists should oppose war in general with speech or actions, he > said that they should not become involved. Actually, he told his > monks that they shouldn't look at soldiers while they are in > formation nor should they look at battles occurring. They are to > remain relatively neutral and to not even look at such things. That > is what I do with my life as well, I remain relatively neutral. I > can have my opinions about the war, but I am not going to speak of > them strongly (I only write this because you ask, otherwise I say > nothing), nor do I try to persuade other people to think one way or > another, and I am not going to personally get involved. I just hope > for peace for everyone. > > Thank you for writing again JoJo and I hope you become involved in > some more productions in your school. Take care and work hard in > school. > > Metta, James 20600 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 0:28pm Subject: Re: War Hello Dave, You may find this article by a Bhikkhu gives an accurate portrayal of Buddhist thoughts on violence and war: "Just War" is an Oxymoron http://www.liberationpark.org/bpf/jw_oxy.htm The pervasive conditioning of our culture leads people to ask variations of the question, "What is the Buddhist position on "Just War"? The answer is simple, bewilderingly simple for many. There is no Buddhist position or doctrine of "Just War." None. Zero. "Just War" makes no sense in a tradition dedicated to moral decency, non-harming, compassion, and wisdom. War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes war as necessary or "just." One naturally defends oneself when attacked. One may prevent someone from doing harm to others. Neither, however, justify harming the alleged or imagined perpetrator/aggressor. Kings, rulers, ministers, and governments often fall back on war as a crude means to their ends. This reflects a lack of intelligence, creativity, and courage in solving problems. The ends, even when decent and just, never justify the violence of war. Since the Buddha's time, Buddhist societies have indulged in war, yet no serious attempt has been made to legitimize or justify such wars. Buddhism understands them as motivated by anger and hatred, fear, greed (e.g., for land, oil, power), and ideology, but never wisdom or justice. Scriptures show the Buddha … Ó Intervening between two sides to prevent bloodshed, then reconciling them (Rohini River). Ó Arguing to to a king that a planned invasion will fail and not achieve the king's goals (Ajatasatru's invasion of the Vajjian Confederacy). Ó Recommending non-violent policies as a wiser solution than war (Kutadanta Sutta). Ó Analyzing the sources of conflict and showing how to remove or transform the causes (numerous cases). Never is war recommended, justified, or blessed. That is left to the sort of priests who perform animal sacrifices and practice magic. Over the centuries, the Buddhist hierarchies that have entangled themselves with state patronage and failed to ethically critique the abuse of power have nonetheless never stooped so low as to pervert the Buddha's basic message on the subject. Hatred is never appeased by hatred. By love alone is hatred conquered. War happens. It is never desirable or beneficial. Too many innocents die, property is wasted, hatreds and feuds are prolonged, and we accustom ourselves to beastly behavior. There is no place in the Buddhist concept of "nobility" for war. It is never morally legit. It isn't even a "necessary evil." It is merely the bad policy of shortsighted, cowardly, selfish, and ill-informed leadership. Santikaro Bhikkhu early March 2003 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > James, > > It is with great hesitation that I must chime in here. I always hate > to get into political discussions, but, like a moth drawn to a > flame... > > I'll start by saying that I am 100% totally against this war. There > are many reasons, for my feelings, but I'll spare you the details. > > Perhaps to focus this thread into Buddhism vs. politics, what are > the "rules" for dealing with enemies. Are we to, as Jesus said "Love > your enemies?" Or as Moses said "Life for a Life?" Can there ever be > a just war for Buddhism? > > From a Buddhist point of view, will killing even your enemy bring > about good Karma? Will we all as individuals, and as a nation, move > closer to living in accordance with the Precepts by going to war? > Would it not be better to bestow loving-kindness upon them all, even > Hussien? Perhaps if we showed love, compassion, and respect, to the > Iraqi or afgani people, they may find it harder to want to kill us. > Maybe not, but I think we would have at least done the honorable > thing, regardless of its apparent effects. But, as I've said many > times before here, I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so perhaps there is > justification for killing in certain circumstances... and perhaps > those include pre-emptive strikes. > > Anyway, it seems that this war is going to continue. There are not > enough people protesting to warrent a real concern for Bush. So, the > best I think we can hope for is a quick war with minimal loss of life > on either side. > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20601 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 0:59pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dear Christine, We may have ideals and wish that the countries of thailand, Burma and Sri lanka never had armies, that they should never have fought wars, that Sri lanka they should have been pacifist and handed the kingdom to the invaders from India. But this is not the case. They fought, they made unwholesome kamma, it is true. The great King Dutthagamani was on his death bed. He had done so much to keep the sangha and Dhamma going in Sri Lanka. I think it is no exaggeration to say without his help the Dhamma would have under great threat. Both Burma and Thailand relied on Sri lanka during the millenia to provide copies of lost teachings and reinstate the Sangha. This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time when mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had killed hundreds of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana could see his worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to concentrate on the Dhamma sermon. He asked the man: "Did you do the killing because you wanted to or because it was your job/duty" The man replied that it was his job. And Mahamoggalana said in that case , don't worry about it, it won't impede you - or something like that. The man took huge consolation from this, was able to listen intently to the sermon and was reborn as deva. It reminds me also of a story Nina tells of when she was in Sri lanka with Khun Sujin and a Judge asked about the death penalty. He had - according to the duties of office - to hand down this harsh judgement from time to time. A. Sujin asked him: "Did you want to?" . You see the kamma also depends on the mindstate at the time. Some people positively enjoy killing, others would only kill in extreme circumstances. Both make bad kamma but the one who enjoys it makes worse. It is said that giving even the washings of a teacup to some fish will bring great merit. And then giving to a normal human much more. But giving to someone who has just the beginning of faith in the Dhamma much more than that. Giving to someone who understands Dhamma and keeps the precepts much more again , giving to a sotapanna much much more and so on. Likewise it is much worse to kill a sotapanna (from the point of view of the kammic results) than to kill a normal human being. Worse to kill a person of average morality than a bad man. That is not to say that any killing is good - simply that the texts say that there are variations in kammic result. Those arahants assembled at the death bed of the great King had compassion for the King and- knowing that death bed kamma can effect ones destination- wanted to console him. They did not say that killing was good. As it was he took heart, remembered the good deeds he had done and was reborn in a deva world (may he remain long) according to the Mahavamsa. I hope when I am on my deathbed if Buddhists visit me it is the type who will try to help me. Hopefully if I am worried and bring up my many, many bad deeds they will downplay these and remind me of the few good ones(if they can find some). Forbid I get some idealistic Buddhist who wants me to know that even telling a fib or killing a mosquito can land me in hell (even though it may be true). RobertK --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear All, > > As this seems to be the time for raising questions about any sticky > points, may I, with respect, ask about Arahants? Many times in > discussions the approval and support of Arahants, or the presence of > Arahants, is seen as putting beyond question the fact that someone, > some teaching, some action, is faultless. A few months back, I was > searching the Tipitaka and related texts on the Internet for > teachings on 'peace' and 'non-violence'. I came across what I > consider to be an incomprehensible view (when attributed to > Buddhists) of a Just War - times when war is acceptable, and classes > of persons it is acceptable to kill. I have been thinking about this > ever since - particularly now, with my country involved in this war > on the Iraqi people. > > The Mahavamsa, written in the 6th century AD by a Buddhist monk > portrays the Sinhalese King Dutthagamani Abhaya as the National Hero > who defeated the Tamil King Ellala and unified the whole of Ceylon. > Though Buddhism infinitely values human life as being a condition > from which nibbana could be attained, Mahavamsa made a virtue of > killing in defence of Buddhism. Indeed, the Mahavamsa even has an > oft-repeated story of how the killing of Tamils during the drive to > unify the country didn't really count as killing because, as non- > Buddhists, they were less than human beings. > > "King Dutthagamani waged war with a Tamil ruler, Elala. After a > series of battles, the Singalese king defeated Elala and killed him > on the battlefield. According to Dutthagamani, this war was a holy > war and the prince made it known by this proclamation: "This > enterprise of mine is not for purpose of acquiring the pomp and > advantages of royalty. This undertaking has always had for its object > the re-establishment of the religion of the supreme Buddha."7 After > his conquest, Dutthagamani reflected with dismay on innumerable lives > sacrificed for the attainment of his end. Then he asked eight saints > or arahants who come to console him: "Lord! What peace of mind can > there be left to me, when I have been the means of destroying great > armies?" And the arahants answered: "Supreme of men! From the > commission of that act there will be no impediment in the road to > salvation. Therein, no more than two human beings have been > sacrificed; the rest are heretics and sinners, who are on a par with > wild beasts. And as you will cause the religion of the Buddha to > shine forth in great splendour, on that account, ruler of men, subdue > your mental affliction."8 Thus was the king consoled." > http://www.mcu.ac.th/e- > book/English/manual/Buddhist_Worldview/Buddhist_Resolution/ > > Apart from raising doubt about the frequent assertion that Buddhism > has had no wars in order to impose itself on others, this story > raises another confusion for me. > Either there were Arahants who said this (how can this possibly be?); > or, they weren't 'really' Arahants but people thought they were? (How > does one tell a genuine Arahant from a 'pretend' Arahant?); or, there > were no Arahants and this was inserted into scripture (by whom?) to > justify certain behaviours. It does make one wonder about Arahants, > and the texts that speak of the presence of Arahants, don't you think? > > > metta, > Christine 20602 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 0:59pm Subject: Re: War Dear James, You did have another alternative - not politicising your reply to someone so young in a group clearly so influenced by you. You could have tried a version of skillful means, you could have tried a version of noble silence. Your letter is your own opinion - but it is full of naive (I hope), ignorant distortions and untruths - it is one of the saddest letters I have ever seen written to a child. I ask the Moderators NOT to pass this letter on to the child, or at least let her parents see it first. James, I am amazed that you could either be so unaware of the true facts of the situation - or think that the rest of the List is. Surely you must know that most of the world regards the United States of America as the Rogue State in this obscene pretense of a Just War, forcing compliance from unwilling allies by a mixture of bribes and subtle threats, and attempting (so far unsuccessfully) to pervert the purpose and direction of the United Nations. Surely you could not be unaware that in this war that you publicly support, there are 12,000,000 million Iraqi children under the American bombs and missiles. Surely you could not be unaware that most of the world is vehemently opposed to this aggression of America and it's subservient Client States. Surely you could not be unaware that America the Beautiful has squandered the good-will built up over the last hundred years by this greedy, hatefilled, delusive grab for empire and oil? Why not have a look here James and see some of the JoJo's of Iraq? This is a link to photos taken at Al Kindi hospital yesterday. Click beneath the child's photo to see a few of them. http://iraqpeaceteam.org./ You say: "I believe Hitler needed to be > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken > out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight > personally or kill people to do that." CF: Is that so James? Just send someone else's son do it for you? Shades of Pontius Pilate ... Just don't call it neutrality. I thank those on this List whom I know are working for peace, speaking for peace at every opportunity. Please don't be discouraged - don't be downhearted, there are people working for peace everywhere, some of them are Buddhists, but there are many of all faiths or none. At work, I supervise a young Muslim woman who wears traditional dress. She is gentle and kind and bears no hate - though another two of her close relatives were killed last week. She has lost many others, adults and children. I, who have lost no- one personally in this war, admire and respect her, and try to follow her example. Anger towards anyone should be overcome - this is Samsara, this is Dukkha. We are told all will reap the fruits of their own kamma, so let us not create new kamma by reacting with aversion (dosa). It is wonderful to see members of the Sangha speaking out, setting an example, and teaching us the Blessed One's Teachings - that in Buddism all violence is Anathema. In particular, I thank Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo for his tireless efforts for peace. metta, Christine 'Don't Export Regime Change, try it at home first.' --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" 20603 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 1:28pm Subject: Re: War Dear Christine, The article you gave says: "Arguing to to a king that a planned invasion will fail and > not achieve the king's goals (Ajatasatru's invasion of the Vajjian > Confederacy)."" I think this is not quite right. Ajatasattu wasn't at the metting with the Buddha. He asked his minister to go to the Buddha what would happen if he waged war at this time. The Buddha explained to the minister that while the Vajjinas were doing this and that they would be too strong to defeat. So based on this information King Ajatasattu waited for a more opportune time. Later he did go into battle and defeat the Vajians as he wished. I think that is basically right although I'm just working from memory. RobertK - In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hello Dave, > > You may find this article by a Bhikkhu gives an accurate portrayal of > Buddhist thoughts on violence and war: > > "Just War" is an Oxymoron > http://www.liberationpark.org/bpf/jw_oxy.htm > > The pervasive conditioning of our culture leads people to ask > variations of the question, "What is the Buddhist position on "Just > War"? The answer is simple, bewilderingly simple for many. > There is no Buddhist position or doctrine of "Just War." None. > Zero. "Just War" makes no sense in a tradition dedicated to moral > decency, non-harming, compassion, and wisdom. > War happens. Buddhism does not deny such facts. It tries to > understand how war happens. But Buddhism never accepts or legitimizes > war as necessary or "just." One naturally defends oneself when > attacked. One may prevent someone from doing harm to others. Neither, > however, justify harming the alleged or imagined > perpetrator/aggressor. > Kings, rulers, ministers, and governments often fall back on war as a > crude means to their ends. This reflects a lack of intelligence, > creativity, and courage in solving problems. The ends, even when > decent and just, never justify the violence of war. > Since the Buddha's time, Buddhist societies have indulged in war, yet > no serious attempt has been made to legitimize or justify such wars. > Buddhism understands them as motivated by anger and hatred, fear, > greed (e.g., for land, oil, power), and ideology, but never wisdom or > justice. > Scriptures show the Buddha … > Ó Intervening between two sides to prevent bloodshed, then > reconciling them (Rohini River). > Ó Arguing to to a king that a planned invasion will fail and > not achieve the king's goals (Ajatasatru's invasion of the Vajjian > Confederacy). > Ó Recommending non-violent policies as a wiser solution than > war (Kutadanta Sutta). > Ó Analyzing the sources of conflict and showing how to remove > or transform the causes (numerous cases). > Never is war recommended, justified, or blessed. That is left to the > sort of priests who perform animal sacrifices and practice magic. > Over the centuries, the Buddhist hierarchies that have entangled > themselves with state patronage and failed to ethically critique the > abuse of power have nonetheless never stooped so low as to pervert > the Buddha's basic message on the subject. > Hatred is never appeased by hatred. > By love alone is hatred conquered. > War happens. It is never desirable or beneficial. Too many innocents > die, property is wasted, hatreds and feuds are prolonged, and we > accustom ourselves to beastly behavior. There is no place in the > Buddhist concept of "nobility" for war. It is never morally legit. It > isn't even a "necessary evil." It is merely the bad policy of > shortsighted, cowardly, selfish, and ill-informed leadership. > > Santikaro Bhikkhu > early March 2003 > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" > wrote: > > James, > > > > It is with great hesitation that I must chime in here. I always > hate > > to get into political discussions, but, like a moth drawn to a > > flame... > > > > I'll start by saying that I am 100% totally against this war. > There > > are many reasons, for my feelings, but I'll spare you the details. > > > > Perhaps to focus this thread into Buddhism vs. politics, what are > > the "rules" for dealing with enemies. Are we to, as Jesus > said "Love > > your enemies?" Or as Moses said "Life for a Life?" Can there ever > be > > a just war for Buddhism? > > > > From a Buddhist point of view, will killing even your enemy bring > > about good Karma? Will we all as individuals, and as a nation, > move > > closer to living in accordance with the Precepts by going to war? > > Would it not be better to bestow loving-kindness upon them all, > even > > Hussien? Perhaps if we showed love, compassion, and respect, to > the > > Iraqi or afgani people, they may find it harder to want to kill > us. > > Maybe not, but I think we would have at least done the honorable > > thing, regardless of its apparent effects. But, as I've said many > > times before here, I'm pretty new to Buddhism, so perhaps there is > > justification for killing in certain circumstances... and perhaps > > those include pre-emptive strikes. > > > > Anyway, it seems that this war is going to continue. There are not > > enough people protesting to warrent a real concern for Bush. So, > the > > best I think we can hope for is a quick war with minimal loss of > life > > on either side. > > > > > > Peace, > > > > > > Dave 20604 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:05pm Subject: Re: War --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear James, > > You did have another alternative - not politicising your reply to > someone so young in a group clearly so influenced by you. Dear Christine, Many of the things in this post of yours should not have been stated in the way you state them. But that is okay…no big deal. I am not offended or upset. I replied to this letter, in the manner that I did, because I felt that the writer and many others wanted to know my thoughts. That was all there was to it. You are being hypocritical to state that I should maintain noble silence when you have not done that at all. I got a letter, from a sweet little girl, who wanted to know the details of this war and wanted to know what I thought. I gave her my thoughts…end of story. I only have influence in this group because I post, as do you. I am by no means in complete control here, nor do I wish to be. Actually, I would like to have complete autonomity and not post at all, and I keep quitting because that is what I would truly like, but I keep being called back…by forces I cannot identify as of yet. Christine, you identify far too much with being Australian. It isn't healthy. The slant you have been receiving about the war and its reasons are distorted. I can easily identify this from your reaction. I, of course, agree with you that my posts to the Star Kids should be presented to the parents of the children before being presented to them. That is common sense. I would not want to step in the middle of that bond between parent and child and don't think that is what this is about at all. You have chosen many `hot button' topics to address in this post because you are angry and disappointed with me…which I don't mind at all and actually expected. Many people can join in this thread, as is happening already, and expect me to quickly jump to my own defense, bolster my ego, and attempt to rally solidarity. Sorry, but that isn't going to happen. I know that many people feel like they want to fight with someone, but that someone isn't going to be me. I deflate and devalue what I have to say. Don't listen to me for one second. I don't have any answers. Listen to yourselves. Metta, James 20605 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 2:42pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dear Rob K. The concept of the law of kamma predates Buddhism. Therefore it is perplexing how a hierarchy of kammic result is described specifically for killing a sotapanna, various levels of Dhamma adherents etc. Is this a post-hoc ammendment to the initial draft? Further, is there any hint of self-service in this newer version? Similar to worst result for killing a Brahmin, least for an untouchable? Funny that the lawmakers were themselves Brahmins or Bhikkus. Is it surprising that a Tamil is of much less consequence when a Sinhala dictates the rules? Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling along? The story of the King is a nice exercise in rationalization, where even after killing ++, one can be born into a higher realm of devas. Did not all those prior accumulations that tipped the balance in the King's favor, also not influence him to not kill in the first place? No. Precisely because his actions were valuable to propagation of the Dhamma. It's not so bad to kill in that circumstance, the amended Law of Kamma will help you out. No worries, sire, only the best for you. So much for hyperrationality. When the eternal Law of Kamma can be tailored to fit the needs of "Self", what can be left untouched? Take comfort, reluctance during the act of either ordering execution or killing will substantially mitigate your kammic result. By how much? RK: "Forbid I get some idealistic Buddhist who wants me to know that even telling a fib or killing a mosquito can land me in hell (even though it may be true)." D: Should be nothing to get concerned about since there is no 'me' to arrive anywhere is there? Alternately, the ammended law should provide relatively special treatment. Win-win, don't you think? u.w. dharam 20606 From: Sarah and Jonothan Abbott Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:01pm Subject: War Dear All Just a reminder that the pro-war/anti-war debate is off-topic for this list. We ask members to keep the discussion to dhamma issues. Thanks very much for your cooperation. Any comments off-list only, please. Jon and Sarah 20607 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:11pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhadasa : To Kom Hi Suan, > -----Original Message----- > From: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] > > At first, I thought, from the writing of Robert K, that his problems > were limited to his misunderstandings of Buddhaghosa and Abhidhamma. I think the venerable mostly doesn't believe anything that cannot be proven at the moment. He is immensely popular among certain groups of people who think that people who believe in rebirth and such have blind faith in something that is not immediately provable. His teachings appeal to many intellectuals of our days who don't believe in such things. > Did the Thai Sangha disrobe him for his misunderstandings of Pali > Tipi.taka? If he questioned Pali Vinaya Pi.taka, he was no longer a > Theravada monk because it amounted to him having lost confidnece and > trust in Vinaya which demands a monk's total trust and faith > (saddhaa). When a monk did not have his faith in Pali Vinaya, then he > could not be expected to live by the rules of Vinaya. If a monk could > not live by the rules of Pali Vinaya, he ceased to be a memeber of > Theravada Sangha. In short, he must be disrobed. No, he wasn't disrobed and nobody lodged a complaint against what he taught. Since he has already passed away, this issue is currently moot. In fact, he is hold in such high regard in certain communities, that his funeral had a representation from the royalty. > My impression is that his ideas came from Mahayana teachings (for > example, one is already good, so no need to do anything). This type > of attitude can also be traced back to misunderstanding and > misinterpretation of the Buddha's stamement on the radiant mind/ > luminous mind, which has been discussed many times on this list. I think his analysis on the aberration of the tipitaka were influenced by Mahayana writers, but I don't think he takes from them in a wholesale manner. He took what made sense to him. > In short, his stance amounted to substituting Pali commentaries with > Mahayana commentaries. Or worse still, he apparently was guilty of > wanting to substitute Pali commentaries with his own > misunderstandings and wrong interpretations. > I think this is a good reminder for us about whom we should learn from. We shouldn't believe things blindly, even our own thoughts/analysis, until we develop wisdom to see the teachings for ourselves. Fame and logical thinking doesn't indicate the truth of the teaching. Only one with wisdom can truly teach the truth. kom 20608 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants Hi Howard, You say: "But why concern ourselves much with the Mahavamsa? I certainly don't consider this as "Buddhist scripture" of any variety. It is merely a Buddhist related historical work. I trust the Tipitaka to a great extent, and other Buddhist-related works with varying and diminishing force." Now I'm confused, though perhaps a little relieved... I thought the Mahavamsa was an important Scripture, rather than a Buddhist related historical work, after reading Sarah's post on Buddhaghosa - Sarah: "When I read comments and articles about Buddhaghosa it seems that all paths lead to the Culavamsa (the last part of the Mahavamsa, PTS transl by W.Geiger) and to extracts from Buddhaghosa's own writings." - so, I was particularly concerned that the alleged "Arahants" words to King Dutthagamani were in this text. Thanks for your assistance. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: 20609 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 3:51pm Subject: Way 67, Clear Comprehension 3 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), 3. Clear comprehension in the bending and the stretching of the limbs, p. 87 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.htm Clear comprehension of resort should indeed be illustrated by the story of the senior bhikkhu called Great Elder. It is said that Great Elder seated in his day-quarters bent his arm quickly whilst talking to his resident pupils and then after putting back his arm to the position in which it first was, bent it again slowly. The resident pupils questioned him thus: "Reverend Sir, why, after bending the arm quickly, did you, having placed it in the position in which it first was, bend it slowly?" "Friends, until now I did not bend this arm with a mind separate from the subject of meditation ever since I began to attend to the subject of meditation. Therefore, having put back the arm in the place it was first in, I bent." "Good! Reverend Sir. A bhikkhu should be one who acts thus." Here, too, it should be understood that the non-abandoning of the subject of meditation is clear comprehension of resort. [Tika] Subject of meditation -- The subject of meditation of the elements (modes or processes) that is according to the method about to be stated with the words "Within there is no soul" and so forth. Within there is no soul that bends or stretches. By the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, bending and stretching occur. Indeed, here, it should be understood that the knowing in this way is clear comprehension of non-delusion. 4. Clear comprehension in wearing shoulder-cloak and so forth Sanghati patta civara dharane = "In wearing the shoulder-cloak, the other (two) robes and the bowl." In this connection, purpose is what accrues materially to one, on the almsround, and what is stated by the Blessed One according to the method beginning with the words, "for keeping out cold, for keeping out heat." Suitable to one who is naturally warm-bodied is fine clothing, and that is suitable to one who is weak, too. To the susceptible to cold is suitable thick clothing made of two pieces of cloth laid one over the other and stitched together (called also a double cloth), Non-suitable to these is clothing contrary to the kind mentioned above. A worn-out robe is indeed not suitable as that robe will even be hindrance-causing when one patches and sews or darns it. Likewise, hindrance-causing are robes of silk, fine hemp and similar material that stimulate cupidity. For, to the lone-dweller in the forest such robes are productive of loss of clothing and of life. [T] With the words, to the lone-dweller in the forest such robes are productive of loss of clothing, the commentator mentioned in part what constitutes the loss of (or destruction of) the life of purity and it is stated so because clothing is properly free to be taken or used by or accessible to thieves and the like. The robe acquired by wrong means of livelihood and the robe which decreases the good and increases the bad in the one who wears it, are irreversibly not suitable. [T] Just by that statement (or irreversibility) the commentator shows that the non-suitable mentioned earlier is not non-suitable absolutely because of the possibility of the non-suitable mentioned earlier becoming suitable to someone, at some time, owing to this or that reason. This pair (of robes mentioned) here is however absolutely non-suitable, on account of the absence of suitability to anyone at any time 20610 From: Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Arahants Hi, Christine - As far as I can tell, the Mahavamsa is a Buddhist-oriented historical chronicle of Sri Lanka. See, for example http://serendib.org/mahavamsa/editorsnote.html With metta. Howard In a message dated 3/25/03 6:18:06 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: Hi Howard,> > > You say: "But why concern ourselves much with the Mahavamsa? I > certainly don't > consider this as "Buddhist scripture" of any variety. It is merely a > Buddhist > related historical work. I trust the Tipitaka to a great extent, and > other > Buddhist-related works with varying and diminishing force." > > Now I'm confused, though perhaps a little relieved... > I thought the Mahavamsa was an important Scripture, rather than a > Buddhist related historical work, after reading Sarah's post on > Buddhaghosa - > Sarah: "When I read comments and articles about Buddhaghosa it seems > that all > paths lead to the Culavamsa (the last part of the Mahavamsa, PTS > transl by > W.Geiger) and to extracts from Buddhaghosa's own writings." > - so, I was particularly concerned that the alleged "Arahants" words > to King Dutthagamani were in this text. > > Thanks for your assistance. > > metta, > 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) 20611 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:38pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dharam: The concept of the law of kamma predates Buddhism. Therefore it is > perplexing how a hierarchy of kammic result is described specifically > for killing a sotapanna, various levels of Dhamma adherents etc. > Is this a post-hoc ammendment to the initial draft? Further, is > there any hint of self-service in this newer version? Similar to > worst result for killing a Brahmin, least for an untouchable? ________ Dear Dharam, It may look that way depending on our perspective. I think it is standard Dhamma though. For example, in the Velama sutta it says that giving to those who are buddhist saints is better than giving to normal people: "If he had fed a hundred people who had Perfect View, it would have had a greater effect. If he had fed a hundred Once-Returners, the effect would have been greater still. If he had fed a hundred Non- Returners, the effect would have been greater than this. If he had fed a hundred Noble Ones, it would have been greater than this." And the Mahaparinibbana sutta notes that only among followers of the Buddha are there genuine wise ones: "In whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, there is not found the Noble Eightfold Path, neither is there found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, or fourth degree of saintliness. But in whatsoever Dhamma and Discipline there is found the Noble Eightfold Path, there is found a true ascetic of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness.Now in this Dhamma and Discipline, Subhadda, is found the Noble Eightfold Path; and in it alone are also found true ascetics of the first, second, third, and fourth degrees of saintliness. Devoid of true ascetics are the systems of other teachers."""" In fact killing an arahant is said to be so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life. Whereas someone like Angulima killed 999 normal people but still became enlightened after just one talk by the Buddha. So many degrees of good and bad kamma. _____________________________ > > Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why > worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling > along? Ø _________________ Kamma is an important condition, how could anyone not be concerned to understand it. Wisdom – if it develops- sees the danger of kamma, especially bad kamma and gradually turns away from it. Otherwise one behaves like a crazy man who keeps trying to jump in a fire, not caring whether they come to pain or not. ___________ > The story of the King is a nice exercise in rationalization, where > even after killing ++, one can be born into a higher realm of > devas. Did not all those prior accumulations that tipped the > balance in the King's favor, also not influence him to not kill in Ø the first place? Ø ________________________- I think all of us have many accumulations to do good and bad. If we think we have gone past doing bad then we are truly conceited. The King was not a sotapanna (first stage of enlightenement) so he had not eradicated the tendency to kill. ____________________ > > When the eternal Law of Kamma can be tailored to fit the needs > of "Self", what can be left untouched? Take comfort, reluctance > during the act of either ordering execution or killing will > substantially mitigate your kammic result. By how much? Z______________ It is not the right attitude , if hearing this, one becomes like an accountant always weighing up how much merit one can get from each act of giving, or only giving to those one thinks are wise. Or think that one will kill people – but try to avoid – killing arahants . Still life goes in many strange ways, who knows when time is such that the Dhamma is neglected and we do bad. Does it help if afterwards we are told by wise monks that we deserve hell for it. Even King Ajatasattu, who murdered his own father the chief supporter of the Buddha (and a sotapanna), and who also tried to kill the Buddha was welcomed when he later wanted to see the Buddha. Afeter gaining faith he became a main supporter himself and prepared the hall where the 500 arahants recited the Dhamma at the first council and is revered by faithfull Buddhists all over the world for his great acts of merit. --------------- > > RK: "Forbid I get some idealistic Buddhist who wants me to know that > even telling a fib or killing a mosquito can land me in hell (even > though it may be true)." > ----------- > D: Should be nothing to get concerned about since there is no 'me' to Ø arrive anywhere is there? Ø __________ Kamma will give its result without any self. Some gives beneficial result, some painful. Sometimes there is kamma near the time of death that can condition a better or worse rebirth. If one is, say, born as an animal then one will not be able to understand the Dhamma during that life. So kamma is very important. RobertK 20612 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Larry, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, LBIDD@w... wrote: > Speaking as a layman, this is a noble effort but unconvincing and > confusing. First, what are you talking about; the evolution of several > moments of consciousness or what? Diagramatically, it reads as: > ignorance > kamma > consciousness > mind & matter > sense bases > > contact > feeling... But kamma, consciousness, mind & matter, sense > bases, contact, and feeling are all already fully functioning in > ignorance. Where's the evolution? How can there be consciousness without > sense bases first? What is the difference between consciousness and > mind? Does kamma condition consciousness, mind & matter, sense bases, > contact and feeling? How do you know? These are just a few questions off > the top of my head. I'm sure we could come up with more, but this is a > good beginning you have made. Maybe if we wrestle with it some more you > could come up with a lesson plan. It's very thought provoking. Thanks for responding, I've missed our chats. Your comments are spot on. There needs to be an introductory section that describes: - What Dependent Origination is - What Dependent Origination is not - Why Dependent Origination is important - How Dependent Origination can be put to practical use Without this introductory section to put things into perspective (i.e. the big picture first), without context, what I have written can be unconvincing and confusing. Developing this piece is becoming a pet project so I am going to stick with it for a while. Stay tuned for an updated version of Part I. Without answering all of your questions directly, the most important thing to appreciate is that dependent origination is not meant to be a model for the universe; dependent origination gives an answer to the question, "why are we continually bound to samsara and how do we get off?". Metta, Rob :-) 20613 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 4:52pm Subject: Re: Arahants (Tambadathika) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time when > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had killed hundreds > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana could see his > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to concentrate on the > Dhamma sermon. He asked the man: "Did you do the killing because you > wanted to or because it was your job/duty" ____________ Dear Group, I made a mistake, it was Sariputta not mogallana. Here is the full story from the Dhammapada attakatha: http://www.vipassana.info/f.htm ""Tambadathika served the king as an executioner of thieves for fifty-five years; he had just retired from that post. One day, after preparing rice gruel at his house, he went to the river for a bath; he had intended to take the specially prepared rice gruel on his return. As he was about to take the rice gruel, Thera Sariputta, who had just arisen from sustained absorption in Concentration (jhana samapatti), stood at his door for alms-food. Seeing the thera, Tambadathika thought to himself, "Throughout my life, I have been executing thieves; now I should offer this food to the thera." So, he invited Thera Sariputta to come in and respectfully offered the rice gruel. After the meal, the thera taught him the Dhamma, but Tambadathika could not pay attention, because he was so agitated as he recollected his past life as an executioner. When the thera knew this, he decided to ask Tambadathika tactfully whether he killed the thieves because he wished to kill them or because he was ordered to do so. Tambadathika answered that he was ordered to kill them by the king and that he had no wish to kill. Then the thera asked, "If that is so, would you be guilty or not ?" Tambadathika then concluded that, as he was not responsible for the evil deeds, he was not guilty. He, therefore, calmed down, and requested the thera to continue his exposition. As he listened to the Dhamma with proper attention, he came very close to attaining Sotapatti Magga, and reached as far as anuloma nana.[*] After the discourse, Tambadathika accompanied Thera Sariputta for some distance and then returned home. On his way home a cow (actually a demon in the guise of a cow) gored him to death. When the Buddha came to the congregation of the bhikkhus in the evening, they informed him about the death of Tambadathika. When asked where Tambadathika was reborn, the Buddha told them that although Tambadathika had committed evil deeds throughout his life, because he comprehended the Dhamma after hearing it from Thera Sariputta and had already attained anuloma nana before he died, he was reborn in the Tusita deva world. The bhikkhus wondered how such an evil-doer could have such great benefit after listening to the Dhamma just once. To them the Buddha said that the length of a discourse is of no consequence, for one single word of sense can produce much benefit. Then the Buddha spoke in verse as follows: Verse 100. Better than a thousand words that are senseless and unconnected with the realization of Nibbana, is a single word of sense, if on hearing it one is calmed. [*] anuloma nana: Vipassana Insight which causes the namarupa process of the yogi to become fully adapted for Magga Insight."' RobertK 20614 From: Michael Newton Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 5:45pm Subject: Re: [dsg] War --- Star Kid wrote: > > Hi James, > > I'm sorry I didn't reply for quite a while, I was > involed in a big middle school musical performance > these few weeks. We had pratices everyday late at > night, even on Saturday. Thats why I could not go to > Mrs. Abbott. The musical is called "Joseph and the > technicolor dreamcoat". Its a really nice movie > as well,have you watched it before? > > Im sure the Nazis weren't bad or evil people. > It's just the different influence around different > people. What do you think of the war going on with > America and Iraq? Do you agree with war or do > you disagree with war? I'm kind of in the middle > because if they don't dont start a war, the Iraq > people won't know what's right and what's wrong but > if > they start a war, a lot of innocent people will die. > > Different people have different perceptions about > stuffs. > > What will the Buddhists think about war? > Do Buddhists go to church like Christians and > Catholics? > > Take care, Love, > JoJo~* > Hi star kid; The group moderators have asked us not to discuss this war because it brings up certain emotions.either for or against the war.I happen to not agree with James on the War-but that is my opinion and it is shared with most of the world-even the Pope too-so I will say no more.Peace be with you,MICHAEL > 20615 From: bodhi342 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:22pm Subject: Re: Arahants Dear Robert K, Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless it is uncomfortable. To address your current responses: RK: ...in the Velama sutta it says that giving to those who are buddhist saints is better than giving to normal people. D: Why do *you* think giving to Buddhist saints is more meritorious than commoners? There do not seem to be any such hierarchical social distinctions in the Noble Eightfold Path. --------------------------------------------------------------------- RK: And the Mahaparinibbana sutta notes that only among followers of the Buddha are there genuine wise ones. D: I suppose there is no mana in limiting the existence of genuine wise ones to exclusively being followers of the Buddha? --------------------------------------------------------------------- RK: In fact killing an arahant is said to be so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life. Whereas someone like Angulima killed 999 normal people but still became enlightened after just one talk by the Buddha. So many degrees of good and bad kamma. D: Why do *you* think killing an arahant is so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life? This seems to be a social insurance policy rather than profound scriptural truth, especially when the penalty is contrasted against that meted out to the King. What type of kamma is it that conditions Angulima to kill 999, yet still become enlightened after just one talk. Does this seem logical to you? Where would his kammic seeds go, despite such sin?? --------------------------------------------------------------------- d: > Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why > worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling > along? RK:Kamma is an important condition, how could anyone not be concerned to understand it. Wisdom – if it develops- sees the danger of kamma, especially bad kamma and gradually turns away from it. Otherwise one behaves like a crazy man who keeps trying to jump in a fire, not caring whether they come to pain or not. D: You have not addressed the issue of anatta that I pose here. How does anatta relate to kamma? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- d: > When the eternal Law of Kamma can be tailored to fit the needs > of "Self", what can be left untouched? Take comfort, reluctance > during the act of either ordering execution or killing will > substantially mitigate your kammic result. By how much? RK:It is not the right attitude, if hearing this, one becomes like an accountant always weighing up how much merit one can get from each act of giving, or only giving to those one thinks are wise. Or think that one will kill people – but try to avoid – killing arahants . D: The point here was that reluctance when ordering execution or killing seemed to be a large mitigating factor related to kammic result. This despite knowing they were killing, and having ways to avoid it. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RK: Kamma will give its result without any self. Some gives beneficial result, some painful. Sometimes there is kamma near the time of death that can condition a better or worse rebirth. If one is, say, born as an animal then one will not be able to understand the Dhamma during that life. So kamma is very important. D: Sorry, I must be rather dim, because I just don't get this. If you are reborn an animal or deva, how is that of any concern to you now? There is no self, let alone soul; there is no memory; why all this proactive hand-wringging about something beyond your control, beyond your verification, and beyond your knowing? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You're right - I must have a severe case of uninstructed worldling~itis! The hell realms for me for sure :) Better start understanding before the brimstone makes contact! u.w. dharam 20616 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:27pm Subject: Apology (Re: War) Dear James, You are correct when you say "Many of the things in this post of yours should not have been stated in the way you state them." "you are angry and disappointed with me…." My letter should have been put in the drafts folder but wasn't, as a result you (and others) had to endure my discourteous reactive post. I unreservedly apologise to you for the tone and manner of the post. Behaviour on the world stage is simply a larger mirror of behaviour at a personal level. If I want peace for all, I need to look internally first. I'm sorry James, and I hope you will accept my apology. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: 20617 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 7:55pm Subject: Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Dave, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > From what I understand from your text, D.O. is only specifically to the 7 > items you listed, right? ===== Dependent origination explains why we are bound to continuous rebirth; it is not a model for the universe. There are twelve links, I stopped the first part after seven; eight to twelve will be in Part II (still under development). ===== > DAVE: So, do you mean that each element (link in the chain) is a > factor required for the following. So, as an example, for fire to > take place, there must be oxygen and a flammible substance. But, > having those 2 items does not cause fire. The cause is the open > flame. ===== Almost correct; the cause is not the open flame. Multiple factors (oxygen, flamable substance, open flame) arose to condition the result (fire). It is not correct to say that one factor caused the result; in fact, according to Dhamma Theory, there is never a single cause to a result. ===== > Do these operate the same way. That Ignorance is just a > necissary condition to be present for "Kammic actions" to occur. > But, the presence of Ignorance does not mean that Kamma will occur. > There must be some other "cause" (the open flame)? ===== Yes. ===== > DAVE: How do you define "consciousness" in this context? Merriam- > Webster defines Cosciousness as: > 1 a : the quality or state of being aware especially of something > within oneself b : the state or fact of being conscious of an > external object, state, or fact c : AWARENESS; especially : concern > for some social or political cause > 2 : the state of being characterized by sensation, emotion, volition, > and thought : MIND > 3 : the totality of conscious states of an individual > 4 : the normal state of conscious life > 5 : the upper level of mental life of which the person is aware as > contrasted with unconscious processes > > It would seem that the term is not used in this way here, especially > since it comes before mind and matter in the chain. ===== When writing this, I am torn between using English terms and using Pali terms. English terms have a lot of associated baggage that leads to confusion. "Consciousness" is an excellent example of this; in English, "conscious" gets tied to terms like "unconscious" and "subconscious". In the Pali text, the term vinnana (sometimes citta) is used. In Buddhism, consciousness is a momentary awareness of an object. In this sense, it is like an activity, except that there is no "doer" behind the activity. Consciousness is also an agent; that which is aware of an object. Consciousness is also an instrument; the means by which other mental factors (attachment, aversion, delusion, etc.) are aware of the object. Consciousness is "pure awareness" separate from but inseparable from the other mental factors. To explain what is meant by "separate from but inseparable from", consider a soup with too much salt. The saltiness is "separate from but inseparable from" the other flavours in the soup. ===== > DAVE: When you say that there "Without consciousness, there can be > no mental and physical process of existence. " what do you mean? Is > there any physical reality apart from our ability to be aware of > it? ===== Howard and I are both phenomenologists. Physical reality that impacts the senses has relevance to Buddhist studies. "Physical reality" that does not impact the senses is outside the scope of Buddhist Studies. I take this point further (and give Sutta references) in my comments to your tangential question below. ===== > > On a tangent, what is the Buddhist take on some of the recent > discoveries in physics? Things like Waves, or quantum mechanics that > suggest a much more fluid universe than what we see as the coarse, > huge atomic groupings that we are! :-) ===== Science looks "outward" (objective) and focuses on creating models for the universe (theory). Buddhism looks "inward" (subjective) and focuses on freeing us from suffering (practical). In the Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta, Malunkyaputta asked the Buddha a number of theoretical questions; the Buddha refused to answer because the Buddha's teaching is practical in nature: "Why have I left [answers to speculative questions] undeclared? Because it is unbeneficial, it does not belong to the fundamentals of the holy life, it does not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have left it undeclared. And what have I declared? 'This is suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the origin of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the cessation of suffering' - I have declared. 'This is the way to the cessation of suffering' - I have declared. Why have I declared that? Because it is beneficial, it belongs to the fundamentals of the holy life, it leads to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to peace, to direct knowledge, to enlightenment, to Nibbana. That is why I have declared it. Therefore, Malunkyaputta, remember what I have left undeclared as undeclared, and remember what I have declared as declared." In this Sutta, the Buddha gives the analogy of a man pierced with a poison arrow who refuses to allow the surgeon to remove the arrow until he is told the name, height, caste, etc. of the archer who shot the arrow. The man would die before he could learn all of these things. The Simsapa Sutta has a similar message: Once the Blessed One was staying at Kosambi in the Simsapa forest. Then, picking up a few Simsapa leaves with his hand, he asked the monks, "How do you construe this, monks: Which are more numerous, the few Simsapa leaves in my hand or those overhead in the Simsapa forest?" "The leaves in the hand of the Blessed One are few in number, lord. Those overhead in the forest are far more numerous." "In the same way, monks, those things that I have known with direct knowledge but have not taught are far more numerous [than what I have taught]. And why haven't I taught them? Because they are not connected with the goal, do not relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and do not lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. That is why I have not taught them. "And what have I taught? 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress... This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress': This is what I have taught. And why have I taught these things? Because they are connected with the goal, relate to the rudiments of the holy life, and lead to disenchantment, to dispassion, to cessation, to calm, to direct knowledge, to self-awakening, to Unbinding. This is why I have taught them. "Therefore your duty is the contemplation, 'This is stress... This is the origination of stress... This is the cessation of stress.' Your duty is the contemplation, 'This is the path of practice leading to the cessation of stress.'" ===== > DAVE: I do not understand how consciousness comes before the senses? > Especially since the mind-base is in the senses link. How does that > which supports consiousness come after? Or, is this a "chicken or > the egg" question? :-) ===== This is not a linear progression of this comes before that... There is an element of "chicken and egg". Past life consciousness gives rise to kamma, which at time of rebirth conditions the formation of the six sense bases, which of course are a platform for current life consciousness. Does this help? ===== > Hopefully, I'm not being too nitpicky with my followup questions. ===== I hope you don't mind my being even more nitpicky in my replies. Metta, Rob M :-) 20618 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 8:05pm Subject: Re: Buddhadasa : To Kom --- dear Suan, Just to note, from what I've heard and read venerable Buddhadasa was impeccable in his keeping of the vinaya. Personally I suspect he wanted people to question and investigate the Dhamma rather than just beleive it. And his method - right or wrong- was to critise some of the texts. Unfortunately it may have happened that his followers simply believed him (instead of the texts) without the real investigation he had probably hoped for. I still appreciate many of his writings. RobertK In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > When a monk did not have his faith in Pali Vinaya, then he > could not be expected to live by the rules of Vinaya. If a monk could > not live by the rules of Pali Vinaya, he ceased to be a memeber of > Theravada Sangha. > > My 20619 From: dragonwriter2 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 8:43pm Subject: Book Suggestions For Newbie Hi to everyone on list :) I'd like to ask for any book recommendations on the Abhidhamma that the memebers found helpful when they first started to explore/study this section of the tipitaka (sp?). Thanking you in advanced, Simon 20620 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:06pm Subject: anatta, kamma, rebirth (Re: Buddhaghosa) Dear Robert, I'm appreciating your recent posts and am learning a lot... In this one, I'm grateful for the quotes on Dependent Origination from the Visuddimagga. I, too, remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth - though there is so much confusion around just what rebirth is, what is reborn. And how it fits with anatta and kamma, what inherits kamma, and how nibanna fits. I see in daily life a little of the truth of conditionality, through this I get a slight glimpse of the truth of anatta. I like your quote from Vis. 172 "Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka)". I can reason intellectually about anatta, but I find this quote from Nyanatiloka difficult to understand. The major difficulty for me is that the results of akusala kamma usually HURTS - either physically or emotionally. Hard to think there is 'no-self' "No one who ever reaps their fruits" when 'one' is hurting. http://www.budsas.org/ebud/bud-dict/dic3_k.htm "A real, and in the ultimate sense true, understanding of Buddhist karma doctrine is possible only through a deep insight into the impersonality (s. anattá) and conditionality (s. paticcasamuppáda, paccaya) of all phenomena of existence. "Everywhere, in all the forms of existence ... such a one is beholding merely mental and physical phenomena kept going by their being bound up through causes and effects. "No doer does he see behind the deeds, no recipient apart from the karma-fruit. And with full insight he clearly understands that the wise ones are using merely conventional terms when, with regard to the taking place of any action, they speak of a doer, or when they speak of a receiver of the karma-results at their arising. Therefore the ancient masters have said: 'No doer of the deeds is found, No one who ever reaps their fruits; Empty phenomena roll on: This view alone is right and true. 'And whilst the deeds and their results Roll on, based on conditions all, There no beginning can be seen, Just as it is with seed and tree.' " (Vis.M. XIX) Metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > 20621 From: christine_forsyth Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:17pm Subject: Aversion (dosa) Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Robert, Another part of your post that I found particularly helpful, was this (below) about the six sense doors. I think my reacting to a post on the list is exactly what you experienced with the tax bill - though you had it sorted within a minute or two and I took several hours (and a reminder from the dhamma friend concerned): "All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts." There must be a 'method' :-) to seeing it earlier than the aversion stage. Once lost in aversion, or any other strong emotion, it can be ages before the 'seeing' of it arises. By then, akusala thoughts, words and actions have occurred. (I think my 'kamma account' must be well and truly in the red ).) metta, Christine ------------------------------ > To me the whole of the Abhidhamma - and much of the commentaries- is > pointing to the anattaness (no selfness, no soul anywhere) of each > moment. It is so real and helpful. > I was explaining to a friend who had some worries today. I said if > one can start- just a little - to see the difference between the 6 > doors then life becomes more understandable and handleable. You see > it is always the thinking that causes our upsets. What appears > through the senses is merely different objects. > Yesterday I got tax bill out the blue for an apartment I own. I > thought I was exempt because I live in another country but apparently > not. I have to pay about 5000 dollars. It took me back for about a > minute - until I saw that it was only thinking that was causing the > pain. > All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble > object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then > papanca that conditioned aversion. > Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No > need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there > weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts. > This is basic Abhidhamma. > RobertK 20622 From: robmoult Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:20pm Subject: Re: Book Suggestions For Newbie Hi Simon, "Buddhism in Daily Life" gives an overview of Buddhism with a bit of an Abhidhammic twist. "Abhidhamma in Daily Life" is an excellent book for those who know some Buddhism but want to focus on Abhidhamma. They are both written by Nina van Gorkom (who also contributes regularly to this group). They can be downloaded from http://www.zolag.co.uk/ "Comprehensive Manual of Abhidhamma" compiled by Bhikkhu Bodhi is an excellent translation of the Abhidhammatthasangaha with commentaries. This book is not available on-line. Hope this helps. Please ask questions on the DSG as they arise. There are many people here willing to help. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dragonwriter2" wrote: > Hi to everyone on list :) > > I'd like to ask for any book recommendations on the Abhidhamma that > the memebers found helpful when they first started to explore/study > this section of the tipitaka (sp?). > > Thanking you in advanced, > > Simon 20623 From: rjkjp1 Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:47pm Subject: Anatta and kamma1 --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" wrote: > Dear Robert K, > > Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, > not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not > sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless > it is uncomfortable. _________________________ Dear Dharam, My purpose in this thread was to establish that there are different degrees of good and bad kamma and that this is a theme that is found not only in commentaries and auxiallary works but also the canon itself. I wasn't trying to explain the deeper reasons for this. I certainly don't mind discussing it further with you, especially as I've been appreciating the depth of your thinking in your recent conversations with Sarah, Mike and Nina. Because your questions and comments need careful explanation I break the letter into 2. I'm tailoring the response so that I can also partially answer Christine's query about Paticcasamuppada. ---------------------------------------------------------- > d: > Why worry about preventing bad kamma when there is no self? Why > > worry about bad kamma, when it is dependant on conditions rolling > > along? > RK:Kamma is an important condition, how could anyone not be concerned > to understand it. Wisdom – if it develops- sees the danger of kamma, > especially bad kamma and gradually turns away from it. Otherwise one > behaves like a crazy man who keeps trying to jump in a fire, not > caring whether they come to pain or not. > > D: You have not addressed the issue of anatta that I pose here. How > does anatta relate to kamma? _____________________________________________ It is hard to know where to begin as you are asking about two main aspects of the Dhamma , kamma and anatta. We can make a start: The Dhamma can be summed up as "this being that comes to be; with the arising of this that arises. This not being that does not come to be; with the cessation of this, that ceases". Assaji said to sariputta "Of things that arise from a cause, their cause the tathagatha has told and also their cessation, thus teaches the great monk" Ye dhamma hetuppabhava tesm hetum tathagato aha tesanca yo nirodho evamvadi mahasamano For Sariputta upon hearing this short verse he became a sotapanna. For us more aspects need to be investigated so that we start to see conditionality everywhere and in all things. The 24 modes of conditions explained in teh last book of the Abhidhamma (a very LARGE book): 1. Hetu Paccaya ;- root condition 2. Arammana Paccaya :- object condition 3. adhipati Paccaya :- Predominance condition 4: Anantara Paccaya :- Priority condition 5. Smanantara Paccaya :- Contiguity condition 6. Sahajata Paccaya :-Co-nascence condition 7. Annamanna Paccaya :- Mutuality 8. Nissaya Paccaya :- Support 9. Upanissaya Paccaya :- Decisive Support 10. Purejata Paccaya :- Pre-nascence 11. Pacchajata Paccaya :- Post-nascence 12. Asevana Paccaya :- Repetition 13. KAMMA Paccaya :- KAMMA 14. Vipaka Paccaya :- KAMMA-result 15. Ahara Paccaya :- Nutriment 16. Indriya Paccaya :- Faculty 17. Jhana Paccaya :- Jhana 18. Magga Paccaya :- Path 19. Sampayutta Paccaya :- Association 20. Vippayutta Paccaya :- Dissociation 21. Atthi Paccaya :- Presence 22. Natthi Paccaya :- Absence 23. Vigata Paccaya :-Disappearance 24. Avigata Paccaya :-Non-disappearance All these Paccaya can be understood when we really understand Paramatha Dhamma :- the 5 khandhas(aggregates), the ayatanas , the elements. Some people don't want to learn about these conditions because they find it complex. But if we see that the Abhidhamma is happening now we can learn to 'study' directly and then it becomes very relevant. Take object-condition (arammana -paccaya), each moment has an object. What is the object now? Some objects are pleasant, others are unpleasant, but either way it is only an object conditioning the citta to experience it, it is a condition by being its object. That is all, and then gone immediately. It may seem that it lasts along time but really it has fallen away , even before we think about it and a new one - perhaps similar to the earlier one - has arisen. There is so quickly reaction to the object with kusala citta(wholesome mindstate) or akusala citta (unwholesome): these are sankhara link(formations) of the Paticcasamuppada and this 'reaction' is conditioned by root-condition, hetu-paccaya, and by other conditions. We may find it important what types of hetus(roots) arise in a day, and try to have more 'good' roots but it is all conditioned and conditioning. It is through seeing into conditions that the wrong view of self is being erased. In the beginning we may be confused about conditions and anatta and kamma and Paticcasamuppada. Some wonder how there can be the result of kamma if there is no self. Mahapunnama Sutta (majjhima Nikaya 109): "It is possible, bhikkhus, that some misguided man here, obtuse and ignorant, with his mind dominated by craving, might think that he can outstrip the Teacher's Dispensation thus: `So, it seems, material form is not self, feeling is not self, perception is not self, formations are not self consciousness is not self. What self, then, will actions done by the not-self affect?" The Buddha knew the mind of a monk who had been listening to a profound discourse about anatta and who had had this thought. The Buddha then said: "Now, bhikkhus, you have been trained by me in dependent (conditionality) in various instances." And the sutta continues to reinforce that all the khandhas are anatta. "seeing thus, a well taught noble disciple becomes disenchanted with material form..feeling..perception..formations..consciousness... ..now while this discourse was being spoken ..the minds of sixty bhikkhus were liberated from the taints" So to summarize: anatta is really only another word for conditionality. And because kamma is an important condition it must be understood so that anatta can be understood. The two are integral. I said to Howard recently how I admired a zen woman - Toni Packer- who writes very clearly about the present moment. Nevertheless I feel something missing in her writing in that there isn't the stress on conditionality found in the Theravada. You see there are 2 main aspects to insighting the present moment: 1. with understanding of the causes and; 2. without, simply knowing the moment. The Dhammapada pradipaya (see p457 of carter ) speaks about the development of insight into characteristics: "[1.]to consider the coming into being of rupa on account of ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition, [2.]and ALSO to see the mere characteristics of its instantaneous coming into being, WITHOUT looking for causative aspect; thus one should consider the rise of rupa in five ways. Likewise to consider the rise of the other 4 khandas in the same way...Thus the rise of the pancakkhanda (five aggregates )is seen in 25 ways. To see that the rise of the khandas is stopped by abolishing the causes:ignorance, craving, kamma and nutrition..in this way the cessation of the agregates should be seen" end quote So I think even this zen teacher could benefit from learning some of the conditions laid out in the Tipitaka. I think this is an excellent topic - kamma and anatta- and we should discuss more. RobertK > 20624 From: buddhatrue Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 9:53pm Subject: Apology (Re: War) Dear Christine, No problem. You are a sweetheart. I can't even count the number of times I have done the same, or worse. ;-) Take care. Metta, James --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear James, > > You are correct when you say "Many of the things in this post of > yours should not have been stated in the way you state them." > "you are angry and disappointed with me…." > > My letter should have been put in the drafts folder but wasn't, as a > result you (and others) had to endure my discourteous reactive post. > I unreservedly apologise to you for the tone and manner of the > post. Behaviour on the world stage is simply a larger mirror of > behaviour at a personal level. If I want peace for all, I need to > look internally first. I'm sorry James, and I hope you will accept my > apology. > > metta, > Christine > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" > wrote: 20625 From: Lim Song Teng Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:28pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arahants Dear Robert K., --- rjkjp1 wrote: > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time > when > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had > killed hundreds > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana > could see his > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to > concentrate on the > Dhamma sermon. I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. But I thought I should point out that it was Ven. Sariputta, not Ven. Mahamoggalana, who calmed the mind of the executioner and helped him to attain Sotapanna, if my (conventional) memory serves me (conventional)well. smallchap 20626 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Love (Sarah) Dear Source, Welcome to DSG. Perhaps you’d kindly also share a little more about yourself (preferably including a real name;-)) and your interest in the Dhamma. Where do you live? Thank you for your additional comments and careful consideration of what I wrote. I think I agree with your comments about possible misunderstandings of the Teachings and this is where some of us find the ancient commentaries particularly helpful. Still, according to our wrong views accumulated, there can still be plenty of misunderstanding regardless of what we read or what teacher we listen to. I don’t understand “open to personal exploration” to mean “any interpretation is equally valid”. Do you? I hope you find DSG useful. Metta, Sarah ====== --- All There Is wrote: Sarah:> > Don’t we all respond differently to every aspect of daily life? ..... Source:> One needs to realize that at the time of Buddha's lessons, there > were > concepts that were incomprehensible. These concepts needed to be > explained > in a pictorial way, through examples and actions. These are always open > for > a different understanding of different people. There are virtually no > translations that do not carry the feelings, knowledge and belief of the > translator. Finally a written word is notorious for not conveying the > meaning that is intended by the speaker. Such important parts as voice > intonation and body language have no way to be recorded. Hence, what may > bo > meant as a pun may be taken very seriously in written form. This may > have > happened even in the scriptures. It is also the very reason why Buddha > had > left everything open to personal exploration. ..... 20627 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:04pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Book Suggestions For Newbie Hi Simon, Good to see you back :) :) --- dragonwriter2 wrote: > Hi to everyone on list :) > > I'd like to ask for any book recommendations on the Abhidhamma that > the memebers found helpful when they first started to explore/study > this section of the tipitaka (sp?). ..... ....and good to read of your interest here:) You may also find it useful to look at a few posts saved under 'Abidhamma-beginners' in the Useful Posts section of the Files: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts When you look at the books recommended or other articles, it may be helpful to have a printed out simple glossary of common Pali terms used. One such simple glossary is this one also in the files: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Glossary_of_pali_terms My other suggestion is to keep asking questions here - none are too basic and often the basic ones are the best. They do us all a favour. Metta, Sarah ======= 20628 From: Sarah Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] WARNING: a lot of questions!!! Dear Michael, Good to see you around again after quite a break too.... :) --- Michael Newton wrote: > --- Star Kid wrote: > > Hello!Star Kid; > I wouldn't feel too bad about your questions,or even > that they are stupid-as this is the way you learned- > and you can draw on the experience of many members of > this group-and I would encaurage you-to just keep > asking question,till you feel that you got a > satifactory answer-also I could recommend a very good > book-It's called"Buddhism in a Nutshell"-by Narada > Thera-published by the Buddhist Publication Society in > Sri Lanka-but I bet this book(or pamphlet)is available > in Hong Kong-at one of the many Buddhist Bookstores > there-and I believe there is no fee for the book or > small fee maybe-think many of your questions could be > answered. ..... It's a good suggestion and I'll show it to StarKid Jan when she sees your kind letter, though I have to say the kids have an in-built resistance to Buddhist books without pictures or glossy covers;-( .... >I've never been to Hong Kong-but one of this > groups moderators,lives there and she know a lot about > the subject-and it's possible she might even answer > many of your questions.Her name is Sarah and her email > address is--sarahdhhk@y...--since you both > live in Hong Kong and might even be involved in a > study group new you. ..... Thanks, Michael. Please read this post which you probably missed (also any DSG newbies) as it gives a bit more background to the Starkids: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m15147.html ..... >I'm half a world away in > California,however,thru the internet-it's amazeing to > me that you can communicate with anyone in the world > so quikly-even within minutes-this never ceases to > amaze me-years ago,I never ever thought I'd be doing > what I'm doing now-communicating globally with so many > people.Good luck on your search and don't hesitate to > ask questions.Yours in good Faith,Peace in the > World,MICHAEL ..... I know Kom, James, myself and the kids in particular will be very glad of any help you or anyone else gives in answering their questions! Metta, Sarah ===== 20629 From: kenhowardau Date: Tue Mar 25, 2003 11:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Howard, You wrote: ---------- > Don't let my terminology cause a problem. So-called conventional volition possibly comprises a host of things including desire and including the more neutral chanda. > Chanda, of a *good* sort, is pretty much what I had in mind when I wrote of "conventional volition". It is described by Nyanatiloka as follows: > > > > As a good quality it [chanda] is a righteous will or zeal (dhamma-chanda) > and occurs, e.g. in the formula of the 4 right efforts (s. padhána): "The > monk rouses his will (chandam janeti)...." If intensified, it is one of the > 4 roads to power (s. iddhipáda). > ----------------- For once, the confusion has not been my fault :-) Let's not refer to paramattha dhammas, as 'conventional,' that word is best reserved for pannatti. ------------------ > BTW, notice the conventional speech "The monk rouses his will"! > ----------- As you have often said yourself, words are concepts that can refer to realities, or to other concepts. When the Buddha uses words to refer to concepts, eg, "the monk," I think we should always read them as referring to realities. This, after all, is what makes the Dhamma unique. When we become Sotapanas, we will be able to say, "the monk rouses his will," without any [subtle] misconception of a self who is doing the rousing. In the meantime, we can try to bear in mind that whenever a living being is mentioned in the suttas, it is the five khandhas that are meant. ---------------- > Ken, we walk to the store when the conditions for doing so are in place. That includes our determination to do so. If that determination were not there, we would not go. When there is the determination to attend mindfully to what arises from moment to moment, that determination, that decision, will come to mind from time to time and we *will* attend mindfully to what arises. But without the intention and determination to do so, we would simply coast through life in a state of unmindfulness - basically in a daze. > ----------------- Up until this point, we are clearly discussing conditioned realities. I have to admit I don't understand how chandha and cetana operate in the scheme of conditionality. May I say, quite seriously, that I have sometimes been clearly determined to go to the store ('shop' in Australia), and have completely forgotten. I dare say I may, on other occasions, have gone there without clear intention -- absent-mindedly. So perhaps the efficacy and necessity of intention is not as clear- cut as it may seem. ----------------- > Whether we call this "conventional volition" or "making a decision" or "making a vow" or "practicing right intention" or "rousing one's will" - whatever we call it, and whatever it is, *it is important*. > ----------------- Here, you are mixing conventional realities with absolute realities. But I am trying, as you say, not to let your terminology cause a problem :-) --------------- > Whether it is a complex of paramattha dhammas or is, itself a single paramattha dhamma, *it is important*. Without it there is no walking the path. > ------------------ A complex of paramattha dhammas? It sounds to me as though you are referring to several different cetasikas in several different cittas, taken as a whole. This is not a paramattha dhamma; I think it can only be a concept. In that case, no, it isn't important, it can't condition anything. When we are talking about paramattha determination, then I agree that it can be vitally important. It is instrumental in whether we will be like the spoon that can't taste the curry, or like the tongue that can. From reading The Perfections (thanks to Nina), I gather it is determination -- to understand the Dhamma we are studying -- that makes the difference. Kind regards, Ken H 20630 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 0:19am Subject: anatta, kamma, rebirth (Re: Buddhaghosa) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > . > I like your quote from Vis. 172 "Experiencer is a convention for > mere arising of fruit (vipaka)". > > I can reason intellectually about anatta, but I find this quote from > Nyanatiloka difficult to understand. The major difficulty for me is > that the results of akusala kamma usually HURTS - either physically > or emotionally. Hard to think there is 'no-self' "No one who ever > reaps their fruits" when 'one' is hurting. > > +++++++++++++++ Dear Christine, Sometimes life is going to throw more at us than we feel comfortable with, that goes with the territory of being born. When it is 'me' hurting that shows that there is not understanding. No surprise - ignorance is accumulated and must arise more than insight. I know I say this so often but anyway: the more there is understanding of the present moment, the different dhammas at the 6 doors, the more handleable life becomes. When you write 'the results of akusala kamma hurt'. Remember only through the bodysense does vipaka (result) come with pain. Through all other doors it arises with nuetral feeling. And painful bodily feeling doesn't last - it can't unless there are the conditions for it. So most of our pain in life comes from thinking rooted in ignorance and dosa- which is not vipaka (result of kamma). And that type of pain can be reduced to an amazing degree (gradually) as the anattaness of conditions and the difference between vipaka and thinking is comprehended. There is only dosa (aversion) when insight is on holiday (as it so often is of course). RobertK 20631 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 0:33am Subject: Aversion (dosa) Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > > Robert:> "All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble > object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then > papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and > thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the > thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for > clinging to these concepts." > _________________________________________________________ > There must be a 'method' :-) to seeing it earlier than the aversion > stage. Once lost in aversion, or any other strong emotion, it can be > ages before the 'seeing' of it arises. By then, akusala thoughts, > words and actions have occurred. (I think my 'kamma account' must be > well and truly in the red ).) > >_______________________ Dear Christine, What about now? Are you still holding to the memory, the concept, of this action that happened hours ago? Can you see that it is simply thinking that is causing any sadness or guilt you feel now. Anyone who can see this thinking while it is occuring will understand what the present moment is and why it is profound and liberating. The thinking still occurs but it can be seen to occur without 'me' being behind it. Then the concepts are not grasped at. I love your questions Christine - they are the same ones I've asked myself a thousand times. BTW I phoned the tax office and it turns out they didn't know my circumstance and the bill is being wiped. Imagine, I could have worried all weekend about a non-existant problem. RobertK 20632 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Rob M, I appreciated the Part One and look forward to others. A few comments in context with much snipping of parts I agree with.... --- robmoult wrote: > grow; we say that a seed is a key factor that had to exist before a > tree could grow. Similarly, each factor in the chain of dependent > origination does not "cause" the subsequent factor to arise; it is > something that must exist before the next factor can arise. ..... Perhaps I’d put it ‘that must exist before or at the same time (or both), conditioning the subsequent factor or link in many diverse ways.....’ I’d also stress it may be a predominant condition, but is by no means the only condition. ..... .... >....Whenever we do something, two things > happen; firstly, we create a kammic seed with the potential to > mature in the future and secondly, we create or reinforce a habit. ..... I know these ‘we’ here are just meant conventionally but it might be more useful from the start to say ‘a kammic seed is created.....and the habit is reinforced’. A quibble, perhaps;-) ..... ..... > In the process of > seeing, when a visible object strikes the sensitive part of the eye, > this is a condition which, together with a kammic seed, allows "eye- > consciousness" to arise. In other words, we do not "see" whatever > strikes our retina; we only "see" when eye-consciousness is also > present. The arising of eye consciousness depends on a past kammic > seed maturing. .... I like the way you’ve put this, Rob. Clearer and clearer (or rather, closer and closer to how I see it;-)) ..... >At the moment of rebirth, > the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > arise. .... Instead of ‘arise’, I’d prefer ‘to be experienced’. Rupas arise regardless. ..... > With contact as a factor, conditions can allow >"feeling" to arise. .... Contact, eg eye-contact, is a condition in many ways for the co-arising feeling and decisive support condition for other feelings in the process. ‘Can allow’ might be confusing. ..... > concepts can be pleasant, unpleasant or neutral. ..... I don’t think so. The thinking or consciousness that takes concepts as object is accompanied by pleasant, unpleasant or neutral feeling, but the concepts are not real and so don’t have any characteristics. **** Rob, no guarantee that there are no mistakes in my comments on this tricky topic;-)Look f/w to more. While I’m talking to you, there are many passages of relevance to discussions we’ve had on DSG in recent Way extracts. I hope you don’t mind if I use this post to you as an excuse to add a couple. Here is one passage from Way 64 relating to the extent of kilesa (defilements)and kamma in sense-door and mind-door processes: .... QUOTE Way 64 [T] “ .... This passage has been stated concerning the absence (in a definite way) of lust, hate and ignorance with the thought: This is a woman or This is a man, in the course of cognition at the five doors of sense. In this matter, indeed, owing to the existence of mental states, by way of adverting and the rest up to determining, without radical reflection, on account of reflecting unwisely prior to adverting-determining, impulsion that is with a bare semblance of greed arises in regard to a liked object such as a female form, and impulsion that is with a bare semblance of hate arises in regard to an object not liked. There is however no occurrence of lust, hate and ignorance in an extreme way, with strong moral consequences in the course of sense-door cognition. Only in the course of mind-door cognition lust, hate and ignorance occur absolutely, that is, with strong moral consequences. But impulsion of the course of sense-door cognition is the root of lust, hate and ignorance of mind-door course of cognition.” ..... More simply, whilst the defilements arise in the sense door processes (with the javana cittas), they only carry strength in subsequent mind door processes. However, it’s apparent that without the sense door processes, including moments of seeing, hearing and so forth, there cannot be the subsequent accumulation of defilements and kamma likely to bring results in the mind door processes. Hence the reminders about guarding the sense doors, the importance of understanding seeing and visible object and so on and not confusing concepts (eg ‘the computer’, ‘the post’, ‘the war’) as being the causes of suffering in any absolute sense. I’d also like to requote a passage from Way 66 recently posted which gives an example of the complexity of the conditions, which I know you are very aware of Rob. One may well say ‘So what?’ and I’m not saying one needs to know about all these factors. However, as the last two sentences clarify, by understanding that all our conventional actions, such as looking on, are merely a combination of namas and rupas conditioning each other in complex ways, there will be less and less inclination to take them for self. (I’m not suggesting these are suitable for your Layman D.O. series;-)) QUOTE from Way 66 “There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Likewise, eye is eye-process; visible object is materiality-process; seeing is eye-consciousness-process; and the things beginning with feeling associated with eye-consciousness are mind-process. Thus, looking-straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the-front is seen in the combination of these four processes. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front? Exactly, in the manner already stated, eye is support-condition; visible object is object-condition; adverting is condition of proximity, contiguity, decisive-support, absence and disappearance; light is condition of decisive-support and those beginning with feeling are conascence-condition. Thus looking straight-on-and-looking-away-from-the front is seen in the combination of these conditions. There, who, singly, looks straight on? Who looks away from the front?” ***** Metta, Sarah ======= 20633 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 65, Comm, Clear Comprehension 2 Hi Larry & All, The following is one of my favourite passages in the commentary because is is such a clear analogy and helpful use of abhidhamma in daily life or of the same phenomena discussed in different parts of the Tipitaka which are so relevant to this moment: “As it is not fit for a visitor who has arrived at a strange house for the purpose of getting some assistance from the owners of the house to do any kind of ordering when the owners themselves are silent, so it is unfit for impulsion to be involved in lust, hate and ignorance, at the eyedoor house of adverting and the other states of mind, when those states of mind are themselves not lusting, hating or bound up with ignorance. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should thus be known by way of the casual state.” ..... I find it such a clear reminder. There is no lust, hate or ignorance until these visitors arrive and start to cause havoc where there is none before their arrival. The passage continues: ..... “As it is not fit for a visitor who has arrived at a strange house for the purpose of getting some assistance from the owners of the house to do any kind of ordering when the owners themselves are silent, so it is unfit for impulsion to be involved in lust, hate and ignorance, at the eyedoor house of adverting and the other states of mind, when those states of mind are themselves not lusting, hating or bound up with ignorance. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should thus be known by way of the casual state.” ..... So these ‘visitors’ arriving with the javana cittas (impulsion moments of consciousness) need to be trained in sati-sampaja~n~na (clear comprehension)and learn to behave! Metta, Sarah ====== 20634 From: rjkjp1 Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:20am Subject: Anatta and kamma2 Dear Dharam, I continue on our discussion about anatta and kamma. One way to comprehend it is by knowing something of the Dependent 0rigination – Paticcasamuppada. Which, like the Patthana (24 conditions) in my last letter also explains conditionality, with kamma and result (vipaka) being important factors. In this there are three rounds : KAMMA-vatta(action), VIPAKA-vatta(result) and kilesa-vatta (defilements ). These three cover all 12 links of the Paticcasamuppada. Kilesa vatta consists of avijja(ignorance), tanha(desire), and upadana (grasping). Kamma vatta consists of sankhara (formations)and kamma-bhava. Vipaka vatta connsists of vinnana (consciousness), nama-rupa, salayatana (six bases), phassa (contact), vedana(feeling), jati (birth), upapatti-bhava, jara-marana (decay and death). The Paticcasamuppada overturns the idea that it is the same consciousness (vinnana, citta) 'that travels and traverses' the round of rebirths (M.38). Instead a series of discrete moments, eye-conciousness (cakkhu-vinnana), ear-consciousness, nose-consciouness, tongue-consciousness, body-consciouness, and mind consciousness arise; each different than the preceeding one. The person uninstructed in the Buddha's law assumes that he is consciousness (or any of the other khandas) or consciousness is apart from him, or is in him, or is not 'him'but'him' is something else. This is hard to comprehend and so even some who have heard the Buddha's teaching misunderstand and assume (perhaps in disguised ways) that feelings or kamma or death or the other links on the path are something happening to 'them' or... (Samyuttanikaya Nidana Moliyaphagguna p541 bodhi) "'With the six bases (salayatana)as condition contact comes to be'. Ven. Moliyaphagguna: 'Venerable sir, who makes contact?' Buddha: 'I do not say 'One makes contact'. If I should say 'One makes contact' in that case this would be a valid question.....In this case the valid answer is 'With the six sense bases as condition, contact [comes to be]; with contact as condition feeling'. Moliyaphagguna: 'venerable sir, who feels?.." endquote And so the sutta carries on with venerable Moliyaphagguna searching for a self in the Paticcasamuppada. He feels that there should be 'someone' who craves, 'someone' who clings, who makes kamma, who feels, who ages, who has sorrow, who dies. He can't accept that these factors all happen without any self. The Buddha says (SN 12:35 Bodhi p.575) that with the eradication of ignorance such ideas and vacillations as "what now are volitional formations (sankhara) , and for 'whom' are there volitional formations? Or 'Volitional formations are one thing, the one for whom there are these volitional formations is another'--all these are abandoned, cut off at the root...."endquote. The Visuddhimagga notes about the development of vipassana: "there is no removal of false view in one who takes it thus "I see with insight, my insight'..there is removal of false view in one who takes it thus 'only formations see formations with insight, comprehend, define, discern and delimit them." XX83 Anyway I hope this gives a glimpse of how essential kamma is to any proper understanding of anatta. RobertK 20635 From: robmoult Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Sarah, Thanks a lot for your input. I agree with everything you have written; I think I will use the passive voice throughout to remove the "self". On an unrelated topic, my boss has called for a big meeting on the 25th in Singapore, so I won't be able to meet you in Bangkok for the DSG get-together :-( I am upset. Metta, Rob M :-) 20636 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:44am Subject: Re: [dsg] Way 66, Clear Comprehension 2 Dear Nina & Larry (& Frank), --- nina van gorkom wrote: > > As to bending and stretching, I remember A. Sujin explaining this to me, > this is also a level of understanding: know what is suitable for the > body. > it conditions nama. Never sit too long, you get stiff. Do not torture > yourself. The monks also have to walk now and then, not sitting the > whole > day. ..... I’ve always found this an interesting topic - sappaya sampaja~n~na, clear comprehension of suitability. Just as we read at the beginning of the commentary that the Kuru people were blessed with a good climate and were healthy in mind and body, all which (by natural decisive condition) meant they were capable of listening to the Teachings. Of course, we could all live in the same climate, be healthy and not capable of understanding what was heard;-) I’m in ‘Way’ quoting mood, so let me quote the section that is relevant to this discussion which I’ve always found very practical, especially when there is a little understanding of conditions and the following isn’t taken as ‘steps to enlightenment’;-): “Clear comprehension of suitability is the comprehension of the suitable after considering the suitable and the non-suitable even in a matter that is purposeful. In this connection, the following is the method of explanation: It is said that on the terrace of the Great Relic Shrine, while young bhikkhus were rehearsing the doctrine, young bhikkhunis standing at the back of the bhikkhus were listening to the rehearsal. Then a young bhikkhu came into bodily contact with a bhikkhuni while stretching out his hand, and, by just that fact, became a layman. Another bhikkhu in stretching his foot stretched it into fire and his foot got burnt to the bone. Another stretched his foot on an ant-hill and was bitten in the foot by a poisonous snake. Another bhikkhu stretched out his hand till it rested on the pole of a robe-tent, a ribbon-snake on the pole bit the hand of that bhikkhu.” ..... As with any conventionally worded actions, such as my swimming or yoga or Tai chi, there are so very many different kinds of consciousness, intentions and aims involved. Only sati and panna can know at any moment whether they are wholesome or unwholesome. This reminds me of a discussion with Frank on food and exercise - knowing what is most suitable, but being aware of the attachment and clinging to self as well. Metta, Sarah ====== 20637 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 1:51am Subject: Photo Opportunity Dear Group, Welcome Darcy, and thank you for posting your photo, another ornament for the Album. :-) This is to remind all members that we would love to 'see' you all, as well as 'talk' to you. Please don't be shy - Most of us are in there and we come in all shapes and sizes. :-) You can have a look at us all, in one of four albums (little yellow suitcases) at: http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst Album 1 is for photos of Members - and the Starkids are members too. Album 2 is for photos of Significant Others. This album is truly Buddhist - we include more than one species of sentient being. Album 3 is for photos of Meetings of Members. Some from Thailand, Sri Lanka, Australia - and there is also one photo of K. Sujin in Cambodia. Album 4 is for photos of Others. (Sarah, Jon, Kom - are we discriminating against Bhikkhu Bodhi and Dr. Ma by putting them in with the old ruins? Couldn't they be 'promoted' to Significant Others? They are all fairly significant to me .. :-) Anyone who would like to put a photo in but doesn't know how - contact Kom or I off-list and we'll be glad to advise. metta, Christine 20638 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:13am Subject: A reply Dear James, How are you, no more sick? Well I have something to ask you, what do you mean by according to Buddhism, this ignorance will create five things that made up the person form, feeling, perception, fabrications, and consciousness. Please explain. Janet 20639 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:15am Subject: Letter for you! Dear James, Thankyou for the letter you sent me and thankyou for the situation you told me about the Moslems who can't touch a dog or else they have to rub the spot eight times with dirt and rinse it off eight times in water! Besides I have never heard of it before! Thankyou for the explanation of my question. Did you get my letter to everyone? (metta?/Love?) (20314) When did you become a Buddhist? Are your parents/family Buddhists? Do you like being a Buddhist all the time? metta?/Love? Sandy 20640 From: Star Kid Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:18am Subject: War Hi Kom, Sorry I haven't replied for quite a while, I was involved in a big middle school musical performance. I had pratices everyday late at night, even on Saturday. Thats why I could not go to Mrs. Abbott for the last few weeks. The musical performance is called "Joseph and the technicolor dreamcoat" Its a good movie actually. Have you watched it before? I think you are Thai & Chinese? But I'm sure happiness and sadness doesn't come from either Thai, American or Chinese. Yes, I have visited Canada before. I go to Canada during my summer holidays. All my relatives used to live in Hong Kong but now live in Toronto, Canada. I'm all alone in Hong Kong. What do you think about the war going on with America and Iraq? I'm kind of in the middle because if the war does not start, Iraq will never know what's right and what's wrong. If the war starts, then a lot of innocent people will die. What does Buddhist teach? Can you tell me about something that the Buddhist teach? Take care, Joanne (Call me JoJo) ~~*It takes a minute to find a special person, an hour to appreciate them, a day to love them, an entire life to forget them*~~I love you all~~ 20641 From: smallchap Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 3:25am Subject: [dsg] Re: Arahants --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Lim Song Teng wrote: > Dear Robert K., > > > --- rjkjp1 wrote: > > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time > > when > > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had > > killed hundreds > > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana > > could see his > > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to > > concentrate on the > > Dhamma sermon. > > I have nothing to contribute to this discussion. But > I thought I should point out that it was Ven. > Sariputta, not Ven. Mahamoggalana, who calmed the mind > of the executioner and helped him to attain Sotapanna, > if my (conventional) memory serves me > (conventional)well. > > smallchap --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > > > This story from the Mahavamsa is similar to the time when > mahamoggalana consoled the Kings Executioner. He had killed hundreds > of men and was perturbed about this. Mahamoggalana could see his > worry and knew that the man wouldn't be able to concentrate on the > Dhamma sermon. He asked the man: "Did you do the killing because you > wanted to or because it was your job/duty" ____________ Dear Group, I made a mistake, it was Sariputta not mogallana. Here is the full story from the Dhammapada attakatha: ------------ S: Sorry! I miss this post of yours. S,allchap 20642 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:13am Subject: Re: Anatta and kamma1 Hi Robert K and all, The word "anatta" does not mean conditionality. Regards, Victor > So to summarize: anatta is really only another word for > conditionality. And because kamma is an important condition it must > be understood so that anatta can be understood. The two are integral. 20643 From: Sarah Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 5:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Rob M, --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks a lot for your input. I agree with everything you have > written; I think I will use the passive voice throughout to remove > the "self". ..... However, there's one of my comments I don't agree with - I had misread sth you wrote. Pls ignore my comment here and keep yours: R:> >At the moment of rebirth, > > the rebirth linking consciousness allows a physical existence to > > arise. > .... S:> Instead of ‘arise’, I’d prefer ‘to be experienced’. Rupas arise > regardless ..... > On an unrelated topic, my boss has called for a big meeting on the > 25th in Singapore, so I won't be able to meet you in Bangkok for the > DSG get-together :-( I am upset. .... Us too:-( Are you quite sure your boss wouldn't prefer Bkk or another date in Sing? Metta, Sarah ====== 20644 From: dwlemen Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:18am Subject: Location of DSG members? Everyone, I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake all night posting messages! :-) Also, how often do you get together? I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! Peace, Dave > > ROB WROTE: > > On an unrelated topic, my boss has called for a big meeting on the > > 25th in Singapore, so I won't be able to meet you in Bangkok for the > > DSG get-together :-( I am upset. > .... > SARAH REPLIED: > Us too:-( > Are you quite sure your boss wouldn't prefer Bkk or another date in Sing? > 20645 From: m. nease Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:33am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: War (Mods--my apologies if I've overstepped the lines, here...) Dear Chris, Right you are, Mate! "Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is well-spoken, not ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by knowledgeable people. Which five? "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in truth. It is spoken affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is spoken with a mind of good-will." -- AN V.198 Of course, these are conventional, rather than 'abhidhammic' expressions of right speech (addressed specifically to bhikkhus also, by the way, for whom the standards of moral purity are necessarily much higher than those of laypeople)--not 'right speech of the eightfold path', which is an infinitessimal instant of abstention from wrong speech (as I understand it). This comes closer and hints at the 'real' (paramattha) meaning of the path-factor: "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, from divisive speech, from abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called right speech. Digha Nikaya 22 Maha-Satipatthana Sutta Anyway your posts, always imbued with friendliness (my favorite translation of mettaa, as I think you know), are always a welcome relief from the perpetual storm of malicious, greedy, deluded and 'self'-justifying propaganda emanating especially from my country (empire?) these days. mike p.s. Even wrong speech and the unpleasant feeling and aversion it may condition arise and subside instantaneously amid the arisings and subsidings of so many other phenomena--and can be the bases of insight. Wish I could express this more plainly for the young people. p.p.s. Sorry this is so parenthetical and rambling. ----- Original Message ----- From: christine_forsyth To: Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:59 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: War > Dear James, > > You did have another alternative - not politicising your reply to > someone so young in a group clearly so influenced by you. You could > have tried a version of skillful means, you could have tried a > version of noble silence. Your letter is your own opinion - but it > is full of naive (I hope), ignorant distortions and untruths - it is > one of the saddest letters I have ever seen written to a child. I ask > the Moderators NOT to pass this letter on to the child, or at least > let her parents see it first. > > James, I am amazed that you could either be so unaware of the true > facts of the situation - or think that the rest of the List is. > Surely you must know that most of the world regards the United States > of America as the Rogue State in this obscene pretense of a Just War, > forcing compliance from unwilling allies by a mixture of bribes and > subtle threats, and attempting (so far unsuccessfully) to pervert the > purpose and direction of the United Nations. Surely you could not be > unaware that in this war that you publicly support, there are > 12,000,000 million Iraqi children under the American bombs and > missiles. Surely you could not be unaware that most of the world is > vehemently opposed to this aggression of America and it's subservient > Client States. Surely you could not be unaware that America the > Beautiful has squandered the good-will built up over the last hundred > years by this greedy, hatefilled, delusive grab for empire and oil? > Why not have a look here James and see some of the JoJo's of Iraq? > This is a link to photos taken at Al Kindi hospital yesterday. Click > beneath the child's photo to see a few of them. > http://iraqpeaceteam.org./ > > You say: "I believe Hitler needed to be > > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam needs to be taken > > out of power with the same means. However, I would not fight > > personally or kill people to do that." > CF: Is that so James? Just send someone else's son do it for you? > Shades of Pontius Pilate ... Just don't call it neutrality. > > I thank those on this List whom I know are working for peace, > speaking for peace at every opportunity. Please don't be discouraged - > don't be downhearted, there are people working for peace everywhere, > some of them are Buddhists, but there are many of all faiths or none. > At work, I supervise a young Muslim woman who wears traditional > dress. She is gentle and kind and bears no hate - though > another two of her close relatives were killed last week. She has > lost many others, adults and children. I, who have lost no- > one personally in this war, admire and respect her, and try to follow > her example. Anger towards anyone should be overcome - this is > Samsara, this is Dukkha. We are told all will reap the fruits of > their own kamma, so let us not create new kamma by reacting with > aversion (dosa). > It is wonderful to see members of the Sangha speaking out, setting an > example, and teaching us the Blessed One's Teachings - that in > Buddism all violence is Anathema. > In particular, I thank Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo for his tireless > efforts for peace. > > metta, > Christine > 'Don't Export Regime Change, try it at home first.' 20646 From: nidive Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi James, Looking at your reply, all that I am going to say is that whatever speech that is made by you, that is your own kamma. As far as I am concerned, I do not think that I made a wrong speech in that post of mine (after reflection). Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20647 From: Jose Angel Lopez Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 6:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi, I just joined. My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. Metta José dwlemen wrote:Everyone, I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake all night posting messages! :-) Also, how often do you get together? I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! Peace, Dave 20648 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:21am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi, Rob (and Dave, and Larry, and all) - Just a couple more thoughts on D.O., and some ambiguity in it: The Sheaves of Reeds formulation includes the following: vi~n~nana <--> namarupa --> salayatana --> phassa --> vedana. On the other hand, one can interpret, without a stretch (I think) the Honeyball Sutta to include the following: (namarupa <--> salayatana) --> vi~n~nana --> phassa --> vedana [ e.g., eye & forms ] This Honeyball formulation, incidentally, does present sense doors preceding discernment, an issue I believe one of you raised. It strikes me that the discernment, the activation (or opening) of a sense door, and the arising of an object of discernment are all interdependent, and that an act of cognition actually involves all of these, perhaps even simultaneously, with a *full* act of cognition also including the phassa and vedana steps, and even the sa~n~na operation which follows. But whether this hypothesis about a "full act of cognition" is correct or not, it does seem to me that one can justifiably modify the Sheaves of Reeds formulation by the Honeyball formulation to obtain the following: ... vi~n~nana <--> namarupa <--> salayatana --> phassa --> vedana, where at least the first three events here are co-occurring (and for which the order of presentation could be changed to any of the other five alternatives). 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) 20649 From: nidive Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 7:44am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Ken H, > There is no control over dhammas; sati cannot be directed > towards a selected object. There can be the idea of > directed mindfulness but that is not sati. As the > objects of an imitation sati, conventional things and > activities can be thought of as impermanent and not-self > but that is not what the Buddha taught. He taught > ultimate realities with ultimate qualities and > characteristics. Only paramattha dhammas have the > characteristics, anicca, dukkha and anatta. If you could rightly proclaim that you have experienced a rupa or a cetasika or a citta individually, then I salute you. If sati cannot be directed towards selected objects, then don't bother about vipassana training. It would be impossible. I do not endorse this "no control" viewpoint. Dhammas are able to control dhammas. Dhammas do not need an 'external force' to be controlled. > This third type includes being mindful of (concentrating > on), daily activities; eg, 'while you are washing the > dishes, know you are washing the dishes.' This third type supports vipassana. It strengthens concentration. This is by my own experience. > If you know of any vipassana developing techniques found > in the ancient texts, please say so; these discussions > are valuable to all of us. To tell you frankly, I don't even have a single hardcopy of any Buddhism book. I read ADL because I hit upon it by chance in my local community library. Not to disappoint you, the only KNOWN ANCIENT TEXT I know is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html [4] "Furthermore, the monk remains focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening. And how does he remain focused on mental qualities in & of themselves with reference to the seven factors for Awakening? There is the case where, there being mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is present within me.' Or, there being no mindfulness as a factor for Awakening present within, he discerns that 'Mindfulness as a factor for Awakening is not present within me.' He discerns how there is the arising of unarisen mindfulness as a factor for Awakening. And he discerns how there is the culmination of the development of mindfulness as a factor for Awakening once it has arisen. It's interesting to note that it is possible to be mindful of mindfulness itself. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20650 From: nidive Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:52am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi Howard, > While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* > retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with > annoyance, and I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. I am not bothered about your annoyance. If there is any untruth in my statements, please point out. Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20651 From: nina van gorkom Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:18am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Dear James, Dharam and all friends, and at end: for newcomers, James's remarks touch also on "what is dhamma", what I was discussing with Dharam, and I shall answer more to Dharam later on. The subject of "where is the practice"I spoke about with James yesterday, reminded me of the practice when I had an Email crash this morning. Strong aversion, dosa, but also remembering: dosa is conditioned. There is not only aversion, there is also seeing to be understood, hearing, many realities. When there is seeing, no aversion at the same time. We can verify this for ourselves. Good reminders I get here, that is why I cherish my friendships on this list. If I had not had Email exchange with James, I sure would forget and just have dosa again and again. So we see how the development of understanding is conditioned by studying, considering and yes, also the reminders from friends. James is worried that knowledge of citta, cetasika, rupa, sense-doors and mind-doors do not lead to enlightenment. First of all, these are very essential points, good to exchange views here. He wrote: op 21-03-2003 21:06 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: Knowing these things aren't going a make a person > any more enlightened than classes on chemistry, physics, and > psychology, and isn't that what this is all about? If it doesn't > lead to enlightenment, what point is it? It doesn't have any point > and its result is to make people believe they know more than they > actually do. (snip) Nina: Knowing more about sense-doors and mind-door and the objects experienced through them is completely in accordance with the suttas and I feel, it is so helpful for daily life. Just one sutta among the countless ones, I quoted before: We read in the Gradual Sayings (Book of the Threes, Ch II, § 16, The Sure Course) that a monk who possesses three qualities is ³proficient in the practice leading to the Sure Course² and ³has strong grounds for the destruction of the åsavas². These three qualities are moderation in eating, the guarding of the six doors and vigilance. We read concerning the guarding of the six doors: And how does he keep watch over the door of his sense faculties? Herein, a monk, seeing an object with the eye, does not grasp at the general features or at the details thereof. Since coveting and dejection, evil, unprofitable states might overwhelm one who dwells with the faculty of the eye uncontrolled, he applies himself to such control, sets a guard over the faculty of the eye, attains control thereof....> Six doorways all the time. See all the suttas in Kindred Sayings IV, for example. Not the person, not the situation, only different objects experienced one at a time through six doorways. That is what the Abhidhamma and its practice, that is, application in life, vipassana, is all about. It is natural to have grief about the loss of a dear person, but the suttas and the abhidhamma teach me that grief is conditioned by attachment, by selfishness: we cling to our own pleasant feeling we derived from being in the company of the dear person. It sounds crude, but we have to be honest to ourselves. The Abhidhamma teaches the same as the suttas, but it gives more details about the six doors, the processes of citta, the conditions for realities. We do not have to learn all details, but the Abhidhamma can help us to see just the moment, the present moment. See my example about the computer crash: there is not only aversion, also seeing, and hearing in between. All realities should be known as they are: impermanent, dukkha, non-self. Enough for today, but I am not finished with this subject yet. I want to say more about the noble Truths. Nina. P.S. What Christine wrote is so true: "Behaviour on the world stage is simply a larger mirror of > behaviour at a personal level. If I want peace for all, I need to > look internally first." And then reading about apologies of Christine and of James: again, I had to think of the Buddha's time: the monks forgiving each other. Forgiving is a kind of dana, generosity, and I just want to express my appreciation of the kusala of both of you. Now for the newcomers: I forgot that this may be a new subject for you. Giving, dana, is not only material giving, it can also be spiritual. I learnt this in Thailand and it comes so naturally: you see someone else's kusala and appreciate: you can say: anumodana, meaning, thanksgiving or appreciation. Expressing this is also kusala citta. In Thailand we "wai", clasped hands, we bend our head, or even we are kneeling. Very spontaneously. Also forgiving: asking forgiveness and giving it, it is a kind of dana to forgive: abhaya dana: a-bhaya, free from fear. You wish the other person to be free from danger, unrest, fear. It also comes so naturally and spontaneously: you ask forgiveness with clasped hands and you forgive also the other person. All part of the practice, realizing your cittas more: kusala (wholesome) as kusala, akusala (unwholesome) as akusala. Nobody else can do this for you, this is the meaning of being your own refuge, having no outward refuge. 20652 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:22am Subject: Re: Location of DSG members? Hi Dave and Jose, Welcome Jose - I'm glad you've joined and hope to hear more from our Swiss connection. :-) Dave, there are North American, European and British members, and many others who are citizens of Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia and Hong Kong, a few are ex-patriates living in those countries. As well there are members in India and Sri Lanka. Only one member from Iceland as far as I recall. And there's a mob from the east coast of Australia and at least one New Zealander (who mostly lives and works in Japan) and one in Hawaii. I've probably missed out some members and their countries -not all members are currently actively posting - but they do come out of hibernation now and then, if something peaks their interest. I'm one of the Australians - from Brisbane, Queensland. Members in Bangkok seem to see each other regularly for Dhamma Discussions at the Foundation. Others of us try to get to Bangkok once a year at least (for anything from a few days to a few weeks) - it is a herculean task in itself to find dates in common. Members elsewhere - say, in South East Queensland where I live - occasionally have a weekend away (maybe three times a year) by being included in a mixed group of dsg and non-dsg dhammafarers. There are one-off occasions - e.g. a group (incl. Khun Sujin) are also going on a cruise to Alaska out of Seattle in early September. There is lots of wonderful Dhamma discussion as well as camaraderie and renewal and building of friendships at these times. I expect this urge to meet other members comes out of wanting contact with others who are serious about the Path, as much as from living in areas where we don't have easy access to Sangha and other Buddhists. It would be interesting to hear from others, for the edification of new members, about just where they are now. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? > In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, > with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. > Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. > It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake > all night posting messages! :-) > > Also, how often do you get together? > > I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to > Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into > moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! > > > > Peace, > > > Dave 20653 From: Michael Newton Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:25am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: War --- "m. nease" wrote: > (Mods--my apologies if I've overstepped the lines, > here...) > > Dear Chris, > > Right you are, Mate! > > "Monks, a statement endowed with five factors is > well-spoken, not > ill-spoken. It is blameless & unfaulted by > knowledgeable people. Which five? > > "It is spoken at the right time. It is spoken in > truth. It is spoken > affectionately. It is spoken beneficially. It is > spoken with a mind of > good-will." > > -- AN V.198 > > Of course, these are conventional, rather than > 'abhidhammic' expressions of > right speech (addressed specifically to bhikkhus > also, by the way, for whom > the standards of moral purity are necessarily much > higher than those of > laypeople)--not 'right speech of the eightfold > path', which is an > infinitessimal instant of abstention from wrong > speech (as I understand it). > This comes closer and hints at the 'real' > (paramattha) meaning of the > path-factor: > > "And what is right speech? Abstaining from lying, > from divisive speech, from > abusive speech, & from idle chatter: This is called > right speech. > > Digha Nikaya 22 > Maha-Satipatthana Sutta > > Anyway your posts, always imbued with friendliness > (my favorite translation > of mettaa, as I think you know), are always a > welcome relief from the > perpetual storm of malicious, greedy, deluded and > 'self'-justifying > propaganda emanating especially from my country > (empire?) these days. > > mike > > p.s. Even wrong speech and the unpleasant feeling > and aversion it may > condition arise and subside instantaneously amid the > arisings and subsidings > of so many other phenomena--and can be the bases of > insight. Wish I could > express this more plainly for the young people. > > p.p.s. Sorry this is so parenthetical and rambling. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: christine_forsyth > To: > Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:59 PM > Subject: [dsg] Re: War > > > > Dear James, > > > > You did have another alternative - not > politicising your reply to > > someone so young in a group clearly so influenced > by you. You could > > have tried a version of skillful means, you could > have tried a > > version of noble silence. Your letter is your own > opinion - but it > > is full of naive (I hope), ignorant distortions > and untruths - it is > > one of the saddest letters I have ever seen > written to a child. I ask > > the Moderators NOT to pass this letter on to the > child, or at least > > let her parents see it first. > > > > James, I am amazed that you could either be so > unaware of the true > > facts of the situation - or think that the rest of > the List is. > > Surely you must know that most of the world > regards the United States > > of America as the Rogue State in this obscene > pretense of a Just War, > > forcing compliance from unwilling allies by a > mixture of bribes and > > subtle threats, and attempting (so far > unsuccessfully) to pervert the > > purpose and direction of the United Nations. > Surely you could not be > > unaware that in this war that you publicly > support, there are > > 12,000,000 million Iraqi children under the > American bombs and > > missiles. Surely you could not be unaware that > most of the world is > > vehemently opposed to this aggression of America > and it's subservient > > Client States. Surely you could not be unaware > that America the > > Beautiful has squandered the good-will built up > over the last hundred > > years by this greedy, hatefilled, delusive grab > for empire and oil? > > Why not have a look here James and see some of the > JoJo's of Iraq? > > This is a link to photos taken at Al Kindi > hospital yesterday. Click > > beneath the child's photo to see a few of them. > > http://iraqpeaceteam.org./ > > > > You say: "I believe Hitler needed to be > > > taken out of power using force, I believe Saddam > needs to be taken > > > out of power with the same means. However, I > would not fight > > > personally or kill people to do that." > > CF: Is that so James? Just send someone else's > son do it for you? > > Shades of Pontius Pilate ... Just don't call it > neutrality. > > > > I thank those on this List whom I know are working > for peace, > > speaking for peace at every opportunity. Please > don't be discouraged - > > don't be downhearted, there are people working > for peace everywhere, > > some of them are Buddhists, but there are many of > all faiths or none. > > At work, I supervise a young Muslim woman who > wears traditional > > dress. She is gentle and kind and bears no hate - > though > > another two of her close relatives were killed > last week. She has > > lost many others, adults and children. I, who > have lost no- > > one personally in this war, admire and respect > her, and try to follow > > her example. Anger towards anyone should be > overcome - this is > > Samsara, this is Dukkha. We are told all will reap > the fruits of > > their own kamma, so let us not create new kamma by > reacting with > > aversion (dosa). > > It is wonderful to see members of the Sangha > speaking out, setting an > > example, and teaching us the Blessed One's > Teachings - that in > > Buddism all violence is Anathema. > > In particular, I thank Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo > for his tireless > > efforts for peace. > > > > metta, > > Christine > > 'Don't Export Regime Change, try it at home > first.' > > Dear Christine; Right you are!Keep up the good work!LOVE AND PEACE,MICHAEL > 20654 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:30am Subject: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: > Dear James, Dharam and all friends, and at end: for newcomers, > > James's remarks touch also on "what is dhamma", what I was discussing with > Dharam, and I shall answer more to Dharam later on. > The subject of "where is the practice"I spoke about with James yesterday, > reminded me of the practice when I had an Email crash this morning. Hi Nina, I want to address, from my perspective, why the knowledge of dhammas isn't comparable to the knowledge that arises from vipassana practice. The mind states, and thoughts, and consciousness factors that you are talking about occur very fast, so fast that they cannot be caught without intense concentration and mindfulness of them. If one tries to catch them, with everyday mind, in order to be aware of their influence, it is too late. With everyday mind the most you can hope to be aware of is a mind state after it has already occurred, not while it is occuring. By then, it is too late, the damage has already been done. The type of negative mind states that you are describing are of only the grossest and most obvious types. Of course you can notice the aversion that comes when your e-mail crashes; that is easy to notice and doesn't require any knowledge of the Abhidhamma. But can you notice the aversion that comes second after second from just the most basic of things as sitting in the chair, hearing the starting music, reading a word, hitting a key, hitting more keys, entering your password, seeing the screen change, seeing the little AOL charater run, hearing "You've Got Mail"etc., etc., etc.,...can you really be aware of the aversions, attractions, and neutral reactions that occur during each of these moments while they are happening? Not with everyday mind. How about after they have already happened? Not possible because there are more reactions taking your attention. What you are describing is noticing the type of mind states that have reached a critical mass, and by then it is too late. The damage is already done, the ego has already been reinforced, the karma has been created anew. The only way to get to the root of the problem, to be mindful and aware of the reactions as they occur, to cease those reactions simply from observation of them, is during Vipassana practice. This cannot be done with everyday mindfulness. Now, what is the difference between someone who just lets their reactions occur and someone who labels them with Abhidhamma terms after they have already occured? The person who labels the events after they occur believes that he/she have a knowledge of something which others don't have. They also believed that have stopped the influence of something negative when they really haven't. Because this person truly hasn't elimated the root of desire, this thinking that they know something special and have done something special grows into a very strong conceit. So the first type of person has suffering, while the second type of person has suffering and conceit. If the roots are not destroyed through Vipassana meditation practice, Abhidhamma knowledge results in more ignorance than non- Abhidhamma knowledge. I hope I have made this clear without being offensive, but I don't know any other way to put it. This is my perspective, and, as always, could be mistaken. Metta, James ps. Thank you for your kind words. 20655 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 0:36pm Subject: Re: Photo Opportunity Hi Mike, I really like your self portrait Mike, I wasn't aware that you had such a particular talent! I think you are included in a couple of group photos in the Meetings album. Nice to have an individual view of you in the Members album -. Hopefully more members will be encouraged to follow your great example. Onya, mate! :-) metta, Chris --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > Welcome Darcy, and thank you for posting your photo, another ornament > for the Album. :-) > > This is to remind all members that we would love to 'see' you all, > as well as 'talk' to you. Please don't be shy - Most of us are in > there and we come in all shapes and sizes. :-) > You can have a look at us all, in one of four albums (little yellow > suitcases) at: > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst > > Album 1 is for photos of Members - and the Starkids are members too. > Album 2 is for photos of Significant Others. This album is truly > Buddhist - we include more than one species of sentient being. > Album 3 is for photos of Meetings of Members. Some from Thailand, Sri > Lanka, Australia - and there is also one photo of K. Sujin in > Cambodia. > Album 4 is for photos of Others. Weight Age Gender Female Male 20656 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 2:26pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa: To Robert Kirkpatrick Hi, Swee Boon - In a message dated 3/26/03 11:55:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, nidive@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > >While I don't retract the basic content of what I wrote, I *do* > >retract the manner in which I formulated it. I responded with > >annoyance, and I regret that and apologize for it. I'm very sorry. > > I am not bothered about your annoyance. ------------------------------------------- Howard: Thank you for saying so. It pleases me that the tone of my post was not hurtful. ------------------------------------------- > > If there is any untruth in my statements, please point out. > ------------------------------------------ Howard: My personal prejudice is that it takes more than (possible) wrong view to consign one to hell, and I certainly don't think that any of us is in a position to guess the rebirth-destinations of beings. In any case, I would prefer to let this matter go, as I don't think it will be useful to pursue it. ----------------------------------------- > > 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) 20657 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 7:47pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: Kom Tukovinit [mailto:kom@a...] > > I am more interested in what you have to say about Dukkha, > besides showing me the texts. I think we may understand > what the texts say differently, but I can never figure out > from what you say, as you often quote from the texts. I > don't believe you have the same understanding as the Buddha, > as nobody does, so just quoting from the texts don't tell me > what you understand, or what I could learn from you. > > If you insist that it is better for me to just read from the > texts, then we don't need a discussion at all, as things > stand as they are: you have what you believe is right, and I > have another, and neither may be even close to what the > Buddha has taught. Also, your telling me that what is said > is a distortion is not at all useful, because you don't > explain what the non-distorted version to be. > > I think the wise can be known by discussions, not by quoting > from the texts. > > > -----Original Message----- I would like to apologize for the tone of this message. It is written out of certain assumptions which aren't true. I think we could have gotten more useful discussions out of this topic, but I think I have botched it. Perhaps I will do better in the future. kom 20658 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:33pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Howard, I looked up the answer to this question and found that the very unintuitive abhidhamma does in fact confirm your intuition, with a few qualifications. I'm using for my source an essay on paticcasamuppada by Nyanatiloka in his "Guide Through the Abhidhamma Pitaka". To start with, the Consciousness link is resultant consciousness only. Nama, in the dependent arising formula does not include consciousness; it is only feeling, perception, and mental formations. The 6 sense bases are the 5 physical-sense organs and the mind base which is "a collective term for all the different classes of consciousness." So the consciousness of the Consciousness link is included in the mind base. The 5 physical-sense organs are also included in the rupa of Namarupa link, as is the mind organ (heart base?). The following I quote from Nyanatiloka (I believe he is quoting from Visuddhimagga): (Consciousness and Mentality [nama]) - The kamma-resultant classes of Consciousness are to the simultaneously arising 3 Mental groups [nama]--during life continuity, as well as at birth, etc.--a condition by way of Co-nascence, Mutuality, Support, Association, Faculty, Prescence, and Non-disappearance. (Consciousness and Corporeality [rupa])--Consciousness is to the 6 physical sense organs, only at the moment when they come into existence, a condition by way of Co-nascence, Kamma-result, Nutriment, Faclty, Dissociation, Presence, Non-disappearance, and Mutualty. To the remaining corporeal phenomena it is a condition in the same ways, excepting only Mutuality. (Mentality [nama] and Mind-base)--At the moment of conception, as well as during life-continuity, the 3 Mental groups [nama] are to the Mind-base (Consciousness) a conition in at least 7 ways, i.e., by way of Co-nascence, Mutuality, Support, Association, Kamma-result, Presence, and Non-disapparance; some mental phenomena (e.g. greedlessness etc.) also by way of Root; some (e.g. Mind-volition, and Mind-impression [phassa]) by way of Nutriment. (Mentality [nama] and the 5 physical sense-organ Bases)--Kamma resultant mental phenomena dependent on the 5 sensitive organs (i.e. those mental phenomena associated with eye-consciousness, ear-consciousness etc.) are, during life-continuity, to the 5 physical sense-organ Bases a condition by way of POST-nascence, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-disappearance. (Corporeality and Mind-Base)--The physical organ of the mind is, at the moment of conception, to the Mind-Base a condition by way of Co-nascence, Mutuality, Support, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-diappearance. The mind, namely, is functioning in the embryo from the very first moment of conception. Hence, only at conception does the physical organ of mind arise 'simultaneously' with consciousness, both being conditions 'to one another', whilst the physical organ of mind is a support (foundation) to consciousness by its 'presence' and 'non-disappearance'. (Corporeality and the 5 sense-organ Bases)--The 4 primary physical elements are to any of the 5 physical sense-organ Bases (eye, ear etc.)--but only at the very moment when they first come into existence--a condition by way of Co-nascence, Presence and Non-disappearance. Of the 5 sentient organs, body-sensitivity appears first in the human embryo while the other organs arise later. During life-continuity, the 4 elements are to the 5 sense-organs a condition by way of Support, Presence, and Non-disappearance. (Corporeality and Mind-Base)--The 5 physical sense organs are, during life continuity, to the 5 kinds of sense consciousness, as eye-consciousness etc., a condition by way of Support, PRE-nascence, Faculty, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-disappearance. In other words, these 5 kinds of sensuous consciousness cannot arise without the pre-arising, presence, and the faculty of the 5 physical sense-organs as Support. The physical Organ of Mind is, during life-continuity, to the Mind-Base (consciousness) a condition by way of Support, PRE-nascence, Dissociation, Presence, and Non-disappearance. In other words, consciousness, during life-continuity, depends on the Support, PRE-arising and Presence of the physical Organ of Mind. L: So, to answer the question of sequence in the consciousness, namarupa, sense base formula, it is all mostly co-nascent, with a few pre-nascences, and one post-nascence. Additionally, they all three include aspects of one another. Larry 20659 From: kenhowardau Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Swee Boon, You wrote: ---------------- > If you could rightly proclaim that you have experienced a rupa or a cetasika or a citta individually, then I salute you. > ----------------- Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every second. In amongst them, we experience illusory realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. --------------- > If sati cannot be directed towards selected objects, then don't bother about vipassana training. It would be impossible. > --------------- These days, I don't bother about formal practices. However, when I asked if you knew of any that would develop vipassana, I was genuinely interested. It is important to know whether or not there is a sequence of steps that lead to, or condition, vipassana. The nearest thing that dsg members have found in the texts, is that we need to associate with wise friends, listen to the Dhamma, consider it and follow it. Even here, these steps can be genuine or a poor imitation. If they are undertaken with wrong view or with akusala motives, then they are not the real thing. All conventional courses of training -- eg, cookery, archery, meditation -- can be followed with or without the kusala motives. It is not the same for vipassana. To digress for a moment; if it was the same, then we all know who would be most likely make the grade: It would be those gifted individuals whom people like me used to envy at school. But a natural scholar and athlete, endowed with great determination and fortitude, is not neccessarily a good and wise person. I'm happy to know that vipassana development is not a matter of mastering a technique. --------------- > I do not endorse this "no control" viewpoint. Dhammas are able to control dhammas. > -------------- Fair enough, but is that just your opinion? Until enlightenment, we are pretty much restricted to matters of opinion. The Suttas are open to a variety of them; as is seen even in this small ds-group. Your opinion is valid and so is mine, but I think the opinions of the ancient commentators would the most beneficial to obtain. --------------- > Dhammas do not need an 'external force' to be controlled. > --------------- Can any of the present dhammas dictate which dhammas will arise next? I don't think so. The nature of a sense-door citta, for example, is likely to be governed by kamma accumulated from the very, very distant past. Even a Buddha has to experience dhammas that are 'burdensome.' ---------------- > Not to disappoint you, the only KNOWN ANCIENT TEXT I know is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html > ----------------- Thanks for answering my question, but what you have quoted should not be seen as a prescribed course of action. The Dhamma is descriptive; it describes the many ways in which the five khandhas can arise in the form of either a worldling, a learner, an arahant or a tathagatha. Understanding these descriptions is the prime conditioning factor for vipassana. IMO :-) --------- > It's interesting to note that it is possible to be mindful of > mindfulness itself. ---------- Yes, and that it is possible to be mindful of un-mindfulness. That would have to be mindfulness of a dhamma that has just fallen away would it not? Kind regards, Ken H 20660 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 8:40pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Hi Christine and Kom, What a lovely collection of photos! I uploaded some photos but could not get them into the member photo album. Perhaps one of you could do this on behalf, please? Thanks! Metta, Dhammapiyo Bhante ----- Original Message ----- From: "christine_forsyth" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 4:51 AM Subject: [dsg] Photo Opportunity > Dear Group, > > Welcome Darcy, and thank you for posting your photo, another ornament > for the Album. :-) > > This is to remind all members that we would love to 'see' you all, > as well as 'talk' to you. Please don't be shy - Most of us are in > there and we come in all shapes and sizes. :-) > You can have a look at us all, in one of four albums (little yellow > suitcases) at: > http://photos.groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/lst > > Album 1 is for photos of Members - and the Starkids are members too. > Album 2 is for photos of Significant Others. This album is truly > Buddhist - we include more than one species of sentient being. > Album 3 is for photos of Meetings of Members. Some from Thailand, Sri > Lanka, Australia - and there is also one photo of K. Sujin in > Cambodia. > Album 4 is for photos of Others. (Sarah, Jon, Kom - are we > discriminating against Bhikkhu Bodhi and Dr. Ma by putting them in > with the old ruins? Couldn't they be 'promoted' to Significant > Others? They are all fairly significant to me .. :-) > > Anyone who would like to put a photo in but doesn't know how - > contact Kom or I off-list and we'll be glad to advise. > > metta, > Christine 20661 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:36pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hello Jose! ;-) Guess who? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jose Angel Lopez" To: Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 9:42 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi, I just joined. My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. Metta José dwlemen wrote:Everyone, I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? In Asia? I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake all night posting messages! :-) Also, how often do you get together? I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! Peace, Dave 20662 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 9:45pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Dear Ven. Dhammapiyo, I have moved the pictures into the Members folder. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo > [mailto:vinmardeb@e...] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2003 8:41 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity > > > Hi Christine and Kom, 20663 From: Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 4:46pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Thank you, Larry! With metta, Howard In a message dated 3/26/03 11:34:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, LBIDD@w... writes: > L: So, to answer the question of sequence in the consciousness, > namarupa, sense base formula, it is all mostly co-nascent, with a few > pre-nascences, and one post-nascence. Additionally, they all three > include aspects of one another. > /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) 20664 From: buddhatrue Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:08pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi Swee Boon, > > You wrote: > ---------------- Hi Ken H, This post isn't addressed to me, but I feel compelled to reply to some of your observations and thoughts. Other than being alarmed by them, I am genuinely curious as to how you came up with them. I will comment in-text (Note: some of my comments are somewhat humorous, but that doesn't mean I don't take this or you seriously. I just thought some levity was in order ;-) : Hi Swee Boon, You wrote: ---------------- > If you could rightly proclaim that you have experienced a rupa or a cetasika or a citta individually, then I salute you. > ----------------- Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every second. In amongst them, we experience illusory realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. (James: First, this number is far too high. It is not even in the ballpark of trillions occurring every second. That would be so many and so fast that probably all of our heads would explode! ;-) Not only that, time isn't a constant, it is relative. You can't say that trillions occur every second when there isn't even such a thing as a second. Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to meditate. --------------- > If sati cannot be directed towards selected objects, then don't bother about vipassana training. It would be impossible. > --------------- These days, I don't bother about formal practices. However, when I asked if you knew of any that would develop vipassana, I was genuinely interested. It is important to know whether or not there is a sequence of steps that lead to, or condition, vipassana. (James: Ummm…I hate to be obvious, but here are the steps that lead to and condition vipassana: 1. Learn how to do it, 2. Make the decision to do it, 3. Set aside some time to do it, 4. Do it. Those steps seem pretty simple to me. What exactly do you not know?) The nearest thing that dsg members have found in the texts, is that we need to associate with wise friends, listen to the Dhamma, consider it and follow it. Even here, these steps can be genuine or a poor imitation. If they are undertaken with wrong view or with akusala motives, then they are not the real thing. (James: The Buddha didn't give pep talks or assume that anyone would need them. He simply said, "Listen Monks, this is what you are to do. Find a quiet spot, sit down, and direct your attention to the breath…" He didn't say, "Listen Monks, this is the game plan, I want you all to become aware of reality through meditation, but you all have to be with me. Are you all with me? I CAN'T HEAR YOU! Are you all with me? Good. You all have to have the right motivation and reasons before we can all do this thing!…" ;-) Motives aren't not the deciding factor you seem to believe they are, and motives change. The point is just to do the practice and not worry about motives.) All conventional courses of training -- eg, cookery, archery, meditation -- can be followed with or without the kusala motives. It is not the same for vipassana. (James: Of course it is. Like Nike states: Just do it! ;-) To digress for a moment; if it was the same, then we all know who would be most likely make the grade: It would be those gifted individuals whom people like me used to envy at school. But a natural scholar and athlete, endowed with great determination and fortitude, is not neccessarily a good and wise person. I'm happy to know that vipassana development is not a matter of mastering a technique. (James: You are comparing apples and oranges. Vipassana practice does improve as one does it more…just as golf, cooking, etc. You appear to be giving a lofty status to vipassana that would make it impossible for anyone to do it unless already enlightened. That is putting the cart before the horse, to use a cliché ;-) --------------- > I do not endorse this "no control" viewpoint. Dhammas are able to control dhammas. > -------------- Fair enough, but is that just your opinion? Until enlightenment, we are pretty much restricted to matters of opinion. The Suttas are open to a variety of them; as is seen even in this small ds-group. Your opinion is valid and so is mine, but I think the opinions of the ancient commentators would the most beneficial to obtain. (James: No, the opinions of the Lord Buddha are the most beneficial to obtain. Check out what he was to say on this matter again. I don't need to give links, you know where to go.) --------------- > Dhammas do not need an 'external force' to be controlled. > --------------- Can any of the present dhammas dictate which dhammas will arise next? I don't think so. The nature of a sense-door citta, for example, is likely to be governed by kamma accumulated from the very, very distant past. Even a Buddha has to experience dhammas that are 'burdensome.' (James: My advice is to not worry about what Buddhas have to experience and just focus on yourself. You can affect dhammas simply by seeing them for what they really are. I hope you realize that what you are stating here is in opposition to the Third Noble Truth, that suffering can be eliminated.) ---------------- > Not to disappoint you, the only KNOWN ANCIENT TEXT I know is: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn22.html > ----------------- Thanks for answering my question, but what you have quoted should not be seen as a prescribed course of action. The Dhamma is descriptive; it describes the many ways in which the five khandhas can arise in the form of either a worldling, a learner, an arahant or a tathagatha. Understanding these descriptions is the prime conditioning factor for vipassana. IMO :-) (James: Of course it isn't, the prime conditioning factor for vipassana is just doing it. Knowing all of what you have just listed is only a conditioning factor for winning at `Buddhist Trivial Pursuit'. ;-) --------- > It's interesting to note that it is possible to be mindful of > mindfulness itself. ---------- Yes, and that it is possible to be mindful of un-mindfulness. That would have to be mindfulness of a dhamma that has just fallen away would it not? (James: Yes, one can be aware of un-mindfulness, but it has nothing to do with noticing that a dhamma has fallen away; it is simply being aware that the mind has become dull and lethargic.) Kind regards, Ken H Metta, James 20665 From: christine_forsyth Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:14pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Venerable Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Sir, Thank you for providing some photos. After 'talking' with you for so long in a number of internet Buddhist communities, it is delightful to 'see' you at last. You, Bhikkhu Bodhi and Ven. Yanatharo are the only monks I 'know'. How fortunate that you all grace the Dhammastudygroup photo album as well! :-) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote: > Hi Christine and Kom, > > What a lovely collection of photos! > 20666 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 10:36pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Hi... Dear Darcy, > -----Original Message----- > From: Darcy [mailto:the_jade_beetle@y...] > Sent: Thursday, March 20, 2003 4:52 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] Hi... > > > Greetings to all, > > My name is Darcy, and I just wanted to introduce > myself to the group. > I'm a non-traditional university student studying > history and > languages. I enjoy all of your posts immensely, > they are wise and > compassionate. I'm a beginner, but I've learned a > great deal, both > from posts here and on a few other groups I > joined. Thank you. :-) > Welcome to DSG. I am glad you have enjoyed your time here. Nothing quite like good dhamma friends. As you probably can already see, there are all sorts of discussions going on at any points of time. Please feel free to join in any one of them. kom 20667 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Wed Mar 26, 2003 11:00pm Subject: RE: [dsg] War Hi JoJo, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > > Hi Kom, > > Sorry I haven't replied for quite a while, I was > involved in a big middle school musical performance. I > had pratices everyday late at night, even on Saturday. > Thats why I could not go to Mrs. Abbott for the last > few weeks. The musical performance is called "Joseph > and the technicolor dreamcoat" Its a good movie > actually. Have you watched it before? No, I haven't heard about it before, but I did look it up on the web. It sounds like a big accomplishment for a middle school play (lots of songs). What part did you play? > I think you are Thai & Chinese? But I'm sure happiness > and sadness doesn't come from either Thai, American or > Chinese. That's right. Sadness is sadness is sadness, and greed is greed is greed. It has no nationality, and it could happen to anyone, except very few wise ones. When there is sadness, what nationality is it? --- none, there is only sadness. > Yes, I have visited Canada before. I go to Canada > during my summer holidays. All my relatives used to > live in Hong Kong but now live in Toronto, Canada. I'm > all alone in Hong Kong. You know Jo Jo. In a way, we are all alone. Whoever you are with (be your parents, your best friends, etc), are you with them all the time? When you are fast asleep, do you think of all the people around you, do you *know* that they are still all around you? Even when you are among a million people, nobody is experiencing things exactly like you do. Only you know what you are experiencing, and only you experience exactly like you do. > What do you think about the war going on with America > and Iraq? I'm kind of in the middle because if the war > does not start, Iraq will never know what's right and > what's wrong. If the war starts, then a lot of > innocent people will die. War is always like this, some people will die. As long as there is greed, hatred, and violence, there will always be wars. > > What does Buddhist teach? Can you tell me about > something that the Buddhist teach? Anger is appeased by kindness. We should be kind, as much as we can, to other people. You can see it for yourself. When you are angry, if you remember to be kind, isn't kindness more peaceful than anger? Metta, kom 20668 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi Jose (& Dave), --- Jose Angel Lopez wrote: > > Hi, > I just joined. > My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. .... Thanks for introducing yourself and welcome from me to DSG too. Whereabouts do you live in Switzerland? We love hiking there. Please let us know anything you care to share about your interest in the Buddha’s Teachings and how you found your way here. The list is quite busy at the moment, so you may wish to pick and choose posts ‘til you are more familiar with the various threads. Let us know if you need any help. ..... > dwlemen wrote:Everyone, > > I'm curious, are the majority of the folks on this list in Thailand? .... Very few that I can think of (Sukin, Num, Betty...), but some of us tend to meet there, esp. those of us who study with A.Sujin. .... > In Asia? .... Quite a lot of us - Jon & I in Hong Kong, Rob M in Malaysia, Swee Boon in Singapore, others who are quiet for now, but in Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India, Brunei..... ..... >I guess that I, in my national-centric view, figured that, > with a few notable exceptions, everyone on this list was American. .... As Chris said, also quite a contingent in Oz (herself, Ken H, Azita, Andrew, Suan....),Europe (Nina....), Israel, S.America, Canada....,Iceland Still plenty of room for the Americans (Mike N, Howard, James, Victor, Kom, Dan, Dharam,Ven Dhammapiyo, Michael N....) Just adding a few names of present posters that come quickly to mind...no offence intended to anyone else. .... > Not that it matters, but I'm just curious about the diversity here. > It would explain why it otherwise seems that a lot of you are awake > all night posting messages! :-) .... ...and why some of you seem to be sleeping while we’re posting :-) .... > Also, how often do you get together? .... A few of us have known each other a long time (Jon has known Nina for 30 yrs and I have almost as long), Azita too. We’ve known Rob K over 10 yrs... We meet about once a year and Jon and I get to Bangkok about 3 times a yr on average. Last year I saw more of Christine than of any other friends or family, I think, as she joined all our trips in Asia and we also went to Queensland to meet her and others there. .... > I must confess that I am jealous! I would love to get back to > Thailand, but my wife is not into it. I almost got her talked into > moving to Japan for a 2 year project, but no luck yet with Thailand! .... Now, Dave, we need to tell you more about ‘mudita’ (sympathetic joy), so that instead of feeling jealous you can learn to delight in our good fortune;-) Seriously, as Chris mentioned, we’ll be meeting Kom, K.Sujin and many other friends in San Fran at the beginning of September this year before joining some of them for a cruise to Alaska. We really hope some of the Americans can at least meet us in SF. Maybe this would be a first step to encouraging your wife to travel to Thailand. For you, it’ll be like mini-Thailand being with the predominantly Thai American group there. (Let me know off-list if you need any details anytime). Now, Dave, it’s YOUR turn to do us a favour: we’d be grateful if you and anyone else would contribute to the photo album and follow the good example of Ven Dhammapiyo, Mike N and Darcy. Chris & Kom are ready for any excuses and between them can rescue pictures dropped anywhere en route. James also offers cosmetic surgery for the shy and a postal service (i.e you post him a pic and he does the rest) for the seriously technologically inept(like me). Greatly appreciate your interest so apparent in your posts, Dave. Metta, Sarah ===== 20669 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Dear James, what you write is not at all offensive, but it touches on important matters. It is good to discuss them, and I shall come back to them later on. Nina. op 26-03-2003 20:30 schreef buddhatrue op buddhatrue@y...: If the roots are not destroyed through Vipassana meditation > practice, Abhidhamma knowledge results in more ignorance than non- > Abhidhamma knowledge. I hope I have made this clear without being > offensive, but I don't know any other way to put it. This is my > perspective, and, as always, could be mistaken. 20670 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:36am Subject: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi Dharam. I was about to start quoting from texts on one or two points you and RobertK are discussing, but on reflection have decided to address another issue and hope that in so doing I don’t cause any offence or add to any sense of frustration which I detect in some of your discussions. Let me summarise what I hear you suggesting (in your own polite way of course): - that some of us are suggesting the Buddha’s Teachings are superior to other Teachings - that we are suggesting that these Teachings are ‘unique’ in path and goal - marked mana (conceit) with regard to comparisons with other Teachings or to followers of other Teachings - ignorance with regard to kamma and other key aspects which were prevalent before the Buddha’s time - blind acceptance of aspects of the Teachings which are a) unprovable, b)unjustifiable and c)contradictory **** Rather than discuss any of these points (other than to say I hear you;-)), I’d like to just make a few comments in point form: 1. We all come to the Dhamma with our own set of baggage collected over a long time. Perhaps it’s rather like moving into a house - we may move into identical houses, but we all have to accommodate our various collections of furniture, books, clothes and assorted ‘toys’. 2. When some people move house, they’re able to ruthlessly throw out previous collections and baggage and start afresh. Others have a harder time and the new house may even end up having to fit into the old baggage;-). Still others can never move, because the necessary weeding out is just too painful. 3. Usually, I think, the most successful house moves are those in which the new house is approached as something akin to a clean slate without any looking back or comparing or trying to accomodate past baggage that doesn’t fit. 4. When I first became seriously interested in Buddhism, I had a certain amount of Christian baggage remaining, but mostly that had been left behind from an earlier move. More serious was the few years of training in psychology, much of which I wished to bring along, especially when it came to the Abhidhamma. Both Nina and Khun Sujin greatly encouraged me indirectly to adopt the ‘clean slate’ approach and this advice has always been invaluable to me. 5. It doesn’t mean that one’s other baggage, i.e interest/religion/philosopy/work/social perspective, is of no value. It has it’s own value and it’s own purpose and goal. I’ve continued to be a member of psychology associations and to take an interest/have involvement in a work related capacity, though to a much more limited extent these days than before. I just see the goals as very different and when I study the Buddha’s Teachings, I leave this other baggage aside completely. 6. I see members join DSG with their pet baggage in science, philosophy, politics, other religions, Mahayana and so forth. I don’t believe any of these should be rejected or are worthless, but I do think it makes the task of really understanding the (Theravada) Teachings and Tipitaka much harder if one tries to integrate these other dearly-held ideas and beliefs or interests and continually compares them, rather than adopting a ‘clean-slate’ approach and open mind to these Teachings. 7. I don’t see this in anyway as suggesting that there should be an acceptance or belief in those aspects of the texts that one is uncomfortable with or which cannot be tested and proved at this time. Having just left aside so much other baggage, we’re bound to be cautious about any new collections after all. In my case, it was years before I had any interest in rebirth, kamma, nibbana, sense-door and mind-door processes or bhavanga cittas. No problem. Historical arguments about Buddhaghosa or the value of the Abhidhamma or blind faith in a teacher will not help one to understand. Gradually, however, right understanding and awareness do develop, having heard and considered a LOT about present realities. Slowly those other aspects of the Teachings make more sense without any forcing or blind acceptance in their own time. ***** Just looking over this note, Dharam, I’m hesitant about posting it, but I think you’ll know that I mean well even if you don’t agree. This is all in very conventional language. Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there’s no ‘choice’ about what baggage to bring or not bring. Still, sometimes, if there is a little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the otherhand, ignorance of it can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom. Time for me to follow Christine’s example and ‘look inside’ first, I think......Oh, plenty of attachment to plenty of baggage...hmmm...;-( Metta and much appreciation for your excellent questions to us all. Sarah ====== --- bodhi342 wrote: > Dear Robert K, > > Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, > not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not > sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless > it is uncomfortable. To address your current responses: 20671 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Kom and all, Thank you for your clear explanation of your understanding of V. Buddhadassa's teaching on rebirth. I accept rebirth as the Theravada tradition teaches it, as a weary wandering-on unless/until we have the great good vipaka to be born within the Dispensation of a Buddha, hear the Dhamma and, and in one inexpressibly fortunate life, find deliverance. I agree with your point that "To believe in no rebirth seems to me amounting to belief in spontaneous, random occurrences without causes. How do we come to be like we are, even as babies? Babies have personalities and habits, how do those come to be?" CF: Certainly babies in our Special Care Nursery only a few days old differ from one another in personality. Some are placid and accepting, some are determined not to co-operate, some are strong willed and have 'attitude' already. So each is not a 'tabula rasa'; it is not *experience* that molds them - to a certain degree *what they already are* filters their experiences and molds their reactions. Thanks for the good reminders in this next paragraph Kom, I need to hear these points often. "> Are we firm in our understanding of anattaness of realities? > Do you "choose" to see, hear, think about what is happening > right now? Once we see that, we then understand anattaness > better, and also that the understanding at the pati-pati > level is the same way as any other realities: they are > conditioned. Without the proper causes, they don't arise, > and with the proper causes, they arise. The direct causes > of wisdom at the pati-pati level is not the desire to know > or to do or to be calm, it is the understanding at other > levels. Kusala at all levels support development of panna, > but desire, even though it is something that may motivate us > at the beginning (to be out of misery, to have an > explanation, for example), quickly becomes a hindrance for > further development, and may very well lead us into the > wrong practices. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" 20672 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 2:00am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arahants Hi Dharam, Let me add one of those quotes I referred to at least: .... > D: Why do *you* think giving to Buddhist saints is more meritorious > than commoners? ..... I’ve reflected about this before and my guess is thatit relates to the strength kilesa (defilements)involved. To give a very simple example. Let’s say Mrs X has a husband who returns home drunk, attacks her and so on, whereas Mrs Y’s husband is a saint. The provocation might be such in the first case that there is no pre-meditation, deceit or relatively extreme kilesa involved. It may even be an act of self-defence. In the case of the saint who has not provoked Mrs Y in anyway and led a blameless life, the heinous nature of the act is very apparent. In the Khuddakapatha (The Minor Readings), under ‘The Ten Training Precepts’, a lot of detail is given about the various permutations and kinds of killing with regard to: “The object, time, locality, The weapon, posture, and the kind Of act; these are the six that we Shall need to make ‘command’ defined.” PTS edition p24 “ ‘By blamability’: in the case of breathing things beginning with animals that are devoid of special qualities, killing of breathing things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of a small one and more blamable in the case of one with a large phsyical frame. Why? Because of the greater magnitude of the means (needed); and when the means are equal, (it depends) on the greater magnitude of the object, (namely, the breathing thing.) But in the case of human beings etc, endowed with special qualities, killing-breathing-things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of one with small special qualities; and when there is equality of special qualities and of the physical frame, then the lesser blamableness should be understood to reside in the (relative) mildness of the defilements and of the active process adopted, and the greater blamableness in their greater violence. So too with the rest. but unlike killing-breathing-things, etc (whose blamability varies,) the opportunity-for-negligence-due-to-liquor-wine-and-besotting-drink is always greatly blamable. Why? Because it obstructs the Noble Ones’True idea by inducing even madness in a human being. That is how the explanation should be known by blamability.” ***** Recently on the list the murder of Maha-Mogallana was discussed in detail and I think the obvious horrors of this particular murder (and the consequences) were very apparent. As James would say, if you don’t agree, that’s OK;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20673 From: Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Photo Opportunity Thank you, Kom! ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kom Tukovinit" To: Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 12:45 AM Subject: RE: [dsg] Photo Opportunity > Dear Ven. Dhammapiyo, > > I have moved the pictures into the Members folder. > > kom > 20674 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:27am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Arahants Hi Dharam, I picked out the wrong quote of yours for my last post, so it didn’t make sense. Let me repost it with another one and ask you to ignore the last post. ***** REPOSTING S: Let me add one of those quotes I referred to at least: .... D: “Why do *you* think killing an arahant is so serious that one must go to hell in the next existence – and cannot attain enlightenment in this life? This seems to be a social insurance policy rather than profound scriptural truth, especially when the penalty is contrasted against that meted out to the King.” ..... I’ve reflected about this before and my guess is thatit relates to the strength kilesa (defilements)involved. To give a very simple example. Let’s say Mrs X has a husband who returns home drunk, attacks her and so on, whereas Mrs Y’s husband is a saint. The provocation might be such in the first case that there is no pre-meditation, deceit or relatively extreme kilesa involved. It may even be an act of self-defence. In the case of the saint who has not provoked Mrs Y in anyway and led a blameless life, the heinous nature of the act is very apparent. In the Khuddakapatha (The Minor Readings), under ‘The Ten Training Precepts’, a lot of detail is given about the various permutations and kinds of killing with regard to: “The object, time, locality, The weapon, posture, and the kind Of act; these are the six that we Shall need to make ‘command’ defined.” PTS edition p24 “ ‘By blamability’: in the case of breathing things beginning with animals that are devoid of special qualities, killing of breathing things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of a small one and more blamable in the case of one with a large phsyical frame. Why? Because of the greater magnitude of the means (needed); and when the means are equal, (it depends) on the greater magnitude of the object, (namely, the breathing thing.) But in the case of human beings etc, endowed with special qualities, killing-breathing-things is (relatively) less blamable in the case of one with small special qualities; and when there is equality of special qualities and of the physical frame, then the lesser blamableness should be understood to reside in the (relative) mildness of the defilements and of the active process adopted, and the greater blamableness in their greater violence. So too with the rest. but unlike killing-breathing-things, etc (whose blamability varies,) the opportunity-for-negligence-due-to-liquor-wine-and-besotting-drink is always greatly blamable. Why? Because it obstructs the Noble Ones’True idea by inducing even madness in a human being. That is how the explanation should be known by blamability.” ***** Recently on the list the murder of Maha-Mogallana was discussed in detail and I think the obvious horrors of this particular murder (and the consequences) were very apparent. As James would say, if you don’t agree, that’s OK;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20675 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:30am Subject: How are you? Dear James, I'm really sorry for the late letter. Thank you very much for your thoughtful answers to my questions. I fully understood what the monks are for, and what they do. You told me that the monks try their best to be the perfect humans. I also agree with your opinions about the ordinary peope that they can be really foolish. Recently, I learnt about the slavery in my Social Studies class. It was awful. I have another question. You said the monk's purpose is to live better than the normal people and they are the best people possible. But isn't it impossible for a person to be the best or perfect? How about the monks? I am curious :P From: Se Yeon 20677 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:37am Subject: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Dear James and everyone else: Thank you for answering my questions. I think all of you guys know that a lot of civilians and soldiers of both Iraq and the Allied Forces(U.S. and British) have died or injured in Combat. Do you have any Buddhist comments about war? Please give me all of your comments. Anyway, I have something I still do not get. (In this case, these are REAL questions, not a test, so you get it) 1. What is non-self? You always said that the thing only Buddhism but not other religions teaches is non-self. But I still don't get what it is!!!!! 2. I know that no one should be persuaded to believe in one certain religion. That happens the same way in Christianity. We don't force one person to believe in it. We only preach it. But do you preach Buddhism to other people? P.S. I am not trying to be rude. And everyone, please REPLY!!!!! Yours sincerelly Philip Chui 20678 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:46am Subject: Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no. 9 Perfections, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no. 9 If someone is not truthful in the practice that leads to the realization of the noble Truths, he will be attached to possessions, honour and fame; he will encourage others to follow a practice that does not lead to the eradication of defilements. Some people say that one should just practise and not study, that it is not necessary to have understanding of the Dhamma, whereas others say that one should first study and have understanding before one practises. Whom should we believe? We should consider ourselves what the right cause is that brings the appropriate effect. If we trust another person we should know for what reason. Is it because he is famous, or because he explains the right cause that brings the appropriate effect and is able to help people to have right understanding of the Dhamma? Truthfulness is the dhamma that enhances the arising and development of all kusala, because truthfulness is sincerity with regard to the eradication of defilements. When kusala does not arise and we realize that we are not sincere in the development of kusala, this can be a condition for its arising. When akusala arises we should be truthful so that sati sampajañña can be aware of the characteristic of akusala. In this way there are conditions for the abandoning of akusala and the development of kusala. The Bodhisatta developed in his daily life all kinds of kusala to a high degree, including very subtle and refined kusala. People who have not yet realized the noble Truths should follow in the Bodhisatta¹s steps. This means that one should develop all degrees of paññå with the aim to eradicate defilements. We should reflect on the daily life of the Bodhisatta before he attained Buddhahood. He was truthful in developing kusala with the aim to abandon and eradicate defilements. We read in the Commentary to the ³Basket of Conduct², in the ³Miscellaneous Sayings², about the way of practice of the Bodhisatta during the time he was developing the perfections. If someone wants to realize the noble Truths, be he monk or layman, he should consider what practice he should follow so that he will realize the noble Truths, and he should be truthful and sincere in his practice. We read: He should work energetically for the welfare of beings, be capable of enduring everything whether desirable or undesirable, and should speak without deception. This is only a short phrase, but we can grasp the essence of it by considering it deeply and by applying it. In order to be able to apply these words, we should be patient with regard to what is desirable or undesirable. We read: He should speak without deception. He should suffuse all beings with universal loving-kindness and compassion. Whatever causes suffering for beings, all that he should be ready to take upon himself; and he should rejoice in the merits of all beings. 20679 From: nina van gorkom Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:46am Subject: sila, samadhi, panna, no 3. some Pali. Dear Lars, I like to be corrected. I found the plural nibbattenti difficult. Here is the text again: > (D.16): > > "iti siila"m, iti samaadhi, iti pa~n~naa. Such and such is sila, such and such is concentration, such and such is wisdom. Siilaparibhaavito samaadhi mahapphalo hoti mahaanisa"mso. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of concentration when it is fully developed by sila Samadhiparibhaavitaa pa~n~naa mahapphalaa hoti mahaanisa"msaa. Great becomes the fruit, great is the gain of wisdom when it is fully developed by concentration. Pa~n~naaparibhaavita"m citta"m sammadeva aasavehi vimuccati, seyyathida"m – kaamaasavaa, bhavaasavaa, avijjaasavaa"ti. utterly freed from the intoxicants (aasavas) of lust, of becoming and of ignorance is the mind that is fully developed in wisdom. The Commentary: Iti-siilanti eva.m-siila.m ettaka.m siila.m; ettha catu-paarisuddhi-siila.m siila.m. Such and such is sila (virtue), meaning, it is indeed sila, sila to that extent; here it is sila which are the four purities of sila. Citt¹ ek¹ aggataa samaadhi. Vipassanaa-pa~n~naa pa~n~naa ti veditabbaa. Samaadhi is concentration. Wisdom should be understood as insight wisdom (vipassana). Siila-paribhaavito ti aadisu yasmi.m siile .thatvaa va magga-samaadhi.m phala-samaadhi.m nibbattenti, eso tena siilena paribhaavito mahapphalo hoti mah¹aanisa.mso. As to the words, when it is fully developed by sila, this means, when he has abided in that sila etc., these produce concentration accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness; when this is fully developed by that sila it is of great fruit and of great benefit. Yamhi samaadhimhi .thatvaa magga-pa~n~na.m phala-pa~n~na.m nibbattenti, saa tena samaadhinaa paribhaavitaa mahapphalaa hoti mah¹ aanisa.msaa; When he has abided in this concentration, they produce wisdom accompanying the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and this, when it is fully developed by this concentration, is of great fruit, of great benefit. yaaya pa~n~naaya .thatvaa magga-citta.m phala-citta.m nibbattenti, ta.m taaya paribhaavita.m sammad-eva aasavehi vimuccati. When he has abided in this wisdom, they produce the path-consciousness and fruition-consciousness, and thus when it is fully developed by this (wisdom) he is completely freed from the intoxicants. N: remarks. As we have seen sila includes much more than just the precepts. This whole text pertains to the person who is going to be an arahat, he eradicates all defilements. Thus, there must be vipassana from the beginning to the end, all along, also when he observes the four purities of sila, also when he is concentrated. Concentration is accompanying lokuttara citta as we see. This concentration can be of jhana, or not, depending on the person's accumulations. This does not mean that I understand this text completely. As I see it, this pertains to the arahat and the Buddha did not tell us beginners: first keep the precepts, then apply concentration, then vipassana. Nina. 20680 From: Star Kid Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 5:50am Subject: Non-self Dear KKT Hi. I read a letter number 20229 which you wrote to Tom. He was talking about non-self. Can you simply explain what it is? Why is it so fantastic to ask those questions? Thank you, Ki Yong 20681 From: Jose Angel Lopez Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi Bhante, always good to meet you. :) As I said, I just joined. I'm afraid I won't be able to contribute much. But I always like to learn Dhamma. Someone mentioned this group in another group, so here I am. These days there are many people online opinionating but are not able to back it up with Dhamma. So I would like to learn what the Buddha said :). Metta José "Ven. Bhikkhu Dhammapiyo" wrote:Hello Jose! ;-) Guess who? 20682 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:08am Subject: Re: [dsg] Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Hi Philip, ----- Original Message ----- > I think all of > you guys know that a lot of civilians and soldiers of > both Iraq and the Allied Forces(U.S. and British) have > died or injured in Combat. Do you have any Buddhist > comments about war? Please give me all of your > comments. As I understand it, the Buddha taught that deliberately killing or even harming sentient beings is simply always wrong. > Anyway, I have something I still do not get. (In this > case, these are REAL questions, not a test, so you get > it) > > 1. What is non-self? You always said that the thing > only Buddhism but not other religions teaches is > non-self. But I still don't get what it is!!!!! If I understand it right, the Buddha taught that all the things people take for 'themselves'--their bodies, minds and so on--were not 'selves' at all. > 2. I know that no one should be persuaded to believe > in one certain religion. That happens the same way in > Christianity. We don't force one person to believe in > it. We only preach it. But do you preach Buddhism > to other people? I don't--I just try to explain what little I know about Buddhdhamma if people are curious about it. By the way, I think that Buddhadhamma (what the Buddha taught) is very different from all the various religions called 'Buddhism'. > P.S. I am not trying to be rude. And everyone, please > REPLY!!!!! I didn't find your post rude at all, Philip. Nice to meet you. > Yours sincerelly > > Philip Chui mike 20683 From: dwlemen Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:16am Subject: Re: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Mike, For my own curiousity, can you elaborate on what you mean by the statement you made (included below)? Peace, Dave --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > ...SNIP... By the way, I think that > Buddhadhamma (what the Buddha taught) is very different from all > the various religions called 'Buddhism'. 20684 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:25am Subject: Re: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James and everyone else: > > Thank you for answering my questions. I think all of > you Hi Star Kid Philip! My goodness! What's the emergency?! LOL! I have other Star Kid letters to respond to before yours, but I am going to go ahead and respond now…or you may just call 911! ;-) I bet you are a real handful in the classroom and for your parents…but a constant amusement ;-). Okay, you ask, "Do you have any Buddhist comments about war? Please give me all of your comments." I am going to give you a few brief comments, which may or may not answer your questions, but this will be all I dare to say in this public forum about war. The Buddha himself, while enlightened, was perplexed about war and its causes. Yes, you heard me right…even the Lord Buddha was confused about war. One time he was thinking intensely, spreading the power of his mind out into all directions and all times to answer one question: Was it possible for there to be a good, world leader of men who didn't use force or coercion of the people? And you know what happened? He never got to an answer. Before he could answer a bad demon, by the name of Mara, who must have heard his thoughts, appeared and tried to convince the Buddha that he should give up being a monk and become a world leader. Mara told the Buddha that the Buddha could be a good leader just like he was wondering about. The Buddha dismissed Mara and gave up thinking about that subject. You can reach your own conclusions about what that means because the Buddha didn't say. In response to your other questions: 1.What is non-self? You always said that the thing only Buddhism but not other religions teaches is non-self. But I still don't get what it is!!!!! (Answer: Philip, you are really not going to be able to understand this fully with your everyday mind. You have to be enlightened to fully understand it. You can somewhat understand it, without being enlightened, but it won't be the real thing. Okay, rather than give you a written description, let me give you an example. Let's say that you are looking at a fascinating bug on the ground that you have never seen. You are really looking at it closely, trying to figure out what it is and watching it crawl; during times like those you can understand the most what it means to have no-self because at that time you have no self. You aren't thinking about `Philip', or what `Philip' thinks, or what `Philip' feels, etc., you are just thinking about that bug. In essence, for that brief time, you are that bug. The reason that happens is because there isn't anything permanent to `Philip', the mind only creates the illusion that a `Philip' exists at all. The mind creates this illusion over and over again, each second, and it causes suffering and wrong view. When you become enlightened, you realize this truth and realize that there is no self. When that happens, your mind will expand to know the whole universe. I don't know if this explains well enough, but I keep trying! :-) 2.I know that no one should be persuaded to believe in one certain religion. That happens the same way in Christianity. We don't force one person to believe in it. We only preach it. But do you preach Buddhism to other people? (Answer: Philip, I am sorry to tell you this, but preaching Christianity is trying to persuade other people to believe it. That is what the word `preaching' means…it means to persuade. No, Buddhists don't preach Buddhism…well, I do at times but that is because I get a little carried away! ;-) Buddhists only teach Buddhism to those who ask to learn about it, and they don't threaten `going to hell' for those who don't believe it (although there are some exceptions to that as well). Philip, if being Christian makes you happy and answers all of your questions about life, then by all means you should be Christian. The important thing is to treat other people, and yourself, nicely and with respect…what religion you believe or identify with is of secondary importance. Okay, I hope this answers your questions. Please, next time, don't demand immediate answers. I am not a fast food restaurant! ;-) You need to be patient like everyone else. Take care and study hard in school. Thank you for not giving me another test. ;-) Metta, James 20685 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Parameters Hi Dharam, Please excuse the long delay. ----- Original Message ----- > The Buddha declared "I teach only suffering and the cessation of > suffering." > > Hi Mike et al (Kom, Victor, Howard, Sukin), > > In view of the lively concurrent discussions, I > would like to stipulate that I mean no disrespect to anyone, and > especially none to the Buddha. Specifically, my questions are just > attempts to understand your attitudes and viewpoints. Sure... > M: "I'm not aware of one, though, that contains even one of even the > most conventional expressions of the eight path factors--much less > all eight of them or the incredible elucidation of them in the > Tipitaka." "Where else, though, is it identified as ta.nhaa? What > an amazing and unique insight." "The other three noble truths I > would agree are unique to Buddhadhamma, but not implicitly (if by > that you mean sort of tautologically)--I mean I really don't think > any of them are to be found elsewhere (except where borrowed from > Buddhadhamma)." "I think that all manner of teachings can be more or > less relevant to lots of different things--I just don't know of one > that I find relevant to the four noble truths and conditioned > origination." > > D: I had offerred the solution to suffering, including > unsatisfactoriness of existence, as one common denominator. Well, on that level, I guess there are lots of common denominators between religions--good vs. evil and so on--as I said, though, I'm really not interested in religion at all (no offense!). > Yes, > what you point out may be unique to Buddhism. Each religion has > aspects that are unique, and none are completely similar. The > question however, is whether we should concentrate only on the > differences, at the expense of the similarities. Again, I'm not interested either in differences or in similarities between religions (or philosophies or whatever). > The answer > illuminates the parameters of understanding about what we are, what > the universe is, and myriad other mysteries. As above. > Let me repeat this > portion which is worth spending some thinking capital on: The > answer illuminates the parameters of understanding. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > M: "d:> So, I think it is again an issue of terminology, view, > parameters, and ultimately ... belief." > Here we disagree. The uniqueness of the four noble truths is not a > matter of 'terminology, view, parameters and ultimately ... belief.'-- > they are unique quite outside these considerations. As for belief, > for my part, I don't 'believe' in the Buddhadhamma. I accept it as a > working hypothesis because it explains more, more satsifactorily, > than anything else I've > discovered so far. If by belief you mean something like 'blind > faith', the Buddha discouraged this sort of thing as I understand it. > > D: I have never found so much aversion to the word 'belief' as on > dsg!! I honestly haven't noticed this but of course can't answer for dsg at any rate. For myself, I wouldn't characterize my mistrust of 'beliefs' as aversion--just mistrust. > No, I do not mean blind faith, whatever that really > means. Theologicians of other religions would never admit 'blind > faith' either. Most intelligent believers, explore, test etc. yet > still have to accept a set of views, within set parameters, using a > certain terminology. Accepting what we cannot immediately verify > to be true, is my understanding of belief in this context. Take > Nibbana, is there or is there not belief in it? Take liberation, > is there or is there not belief in it? Belief is what we all > require to make sense of the immediately unknowable, to hold out a > construct that somehow lends order to the apparent chaos. > Coincidentally, it is the mother of all concepts!!! Now, if you > want to say you do not 'believe' that's okay with me, but I reserve > the right to wonder ;-). Well, I sort of believe in things like particles and waves and so on, but with a strong sense of the limitations of these concepts. The issue of 'belief' in general is just not a compelling one to me, I guess. As for Buddhadhamma, I find it a more plausible explanation of the nature of experience than anything else I've run across--that's all. I'm quite open to anything that explains it better, though. > M: ".......When you know for yourselves that, 'These qualities are > skillful; these qualities are blameless; these qualities are praised > by the wise; these qualities, when undertaken & carried out, lead to > welfare & to happiness' -- then you should enter & remain in them..." > > D: Knowing for yourself, is a common motif of many religions. Once > we accept the basic premises, begin to 'believe' as it were, we begin > to 'know' within that construct. Maybe so--I really don't know much about religions. > M: "d:> I guess what I am looking for is a view about other teachings > not overly restricted by the parameters of one's own > > dominant belief. Perhaps even this is not easily possible, let > alone true objectivity." > I don't see (my perception of) the absence of the four noble truths > from other teachings as being an overly restricted view, or as being > restricted at all. I do see this as the distinction between > Buddhadhamma and religions and other teachings, though. I think this > is quite a valid distinction. > > D: The view that the 4NT are unapproachably distinct from other > religions, seems to inhibit objective consideration of the latter. > I hope I am reading you correctly here, Mike. I wouldn't say "that the 4NT are unapproachably distinct from other religions", because (1) I don't see the four noble truths as a religion and (2) I don't see the absence of the four noble truths from religions as a view--I think this is simply a fact. Does awareness of a fact "inhibit objective consideration" of anything? Maybe so--in my case, the objective consideration of religions is inhibited mainly my my own habitual aversion to religion in general and a certain amount of general laziness, too. Mainly, I'm just not interested--sort of like history or a lot of other academic subjects. > M: I have to admit I don't think I ever read Titus Andronicus. > > D: Now available on DVD - skilfully adapted I am told. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > M: d: > "Cruel, irreligious piety!" > A very nice line! And so often true of religions--never of > Buddhadhamma > properly understood though, in my opinion. > > D: Really? The dialogue on Buddhaghosa just today may suggest > otherwise! Sorry, must've missed that part. > Of course the caveat of being properly understood, > would apply to all religions, presumably protecting any of their > believers from Cruel, irreligious piety. I'd have to defer to your superior knowledge of religions on this point. > M: "d:> What struck me there was that mutually > > exclusive beliefs of both parties, provided no bridge to aid > > understanding. > > Needless to say both thought they were right. > > What therefore follows is a showcase for kilesa and kamma! > If you're suggesting that the absence of a 'bridge to aid > understanding > (between the parties?) is the source of the following evil, I think > this is > an error (no offense). People who understand each other perfectly > well (in > the conventional meaning of 'understanding') are capable of the of the > greatest horrors. I think, for example, that George W. Bush and Saddam > Hussein understand each other perfectly well, speaking conventionally. > Understanding in the sense of pa~n~naa is something entirely > different, of > course. > > D: In the play, the refusal to identify with the other's point of > view, resulted in horrors beyond their imagination. The history of > religions gives ample examples of this phenomenon. By > understanding I mean more than perceiving the insults thrown back and > forth, the capabilities of the adversary etc. if that is what you > imply by conventional. I mean the ability to see oneself in the > shoes of the other. To have compassion for the other, not just > pity. Yes, compassion's always good (when real--it's sometimes counterfeit!), whether the person experiencing it is religious or not (in my opinion, of course). > M: I wouldn't say this; every day I endeavour to have fun, to 'be > good', to make a living, to stay well etc. I also try to understand > (in a conventional way) what's happening in the world socio- > economically and even a little about physics and so on. It's true > that I have no interest in religion, though. In fact, I quite dislike > religion (akusala, I know!). By religion I mean, roughly, > superstitious belief in the possibility of influencing events by > means of the supernatural (or the petitioning of > supernatural beings). > > D: I apologize Mike. By saying the only focus of your endeavor, I > meant as in focussing your religious sense, rather than the totality > of life, if it is safe to make that distinction. As I guess is plain by now, I have no religious sense whatsoever. > I think that all > religions have the core of truth. Yes, that's what I thought you were getting at. I think of this as the theosophist or campbellist (for Joseph Campbell) view. > What then happens, is the onion- > like layering on of superstition, ritual, xenophobia, and most > importantly, misinterpretation. I also have no time for belief in > influencing events by petitions/supplications/penances, Here we agree (to this I would add ablutions, rituals and so on)... > none in > ghosts, devils, angels, heaven, hell etc. Some of these things are spoken of so often as though quite real in the discourses that I don't know what to think, to be honest. The materialist/atheist in me makes we want to reject them out of hand or regard them as myth/metaphor, but my respect for the Dhamma holds me back. Since I can't seem to resolve questions like these, I tend to set them aside for future consideration, when I might be better able to understand them. > This however, does not > give sufficient reason to reject the core teachings of most > religions. I really don't reject or accept them--I'm simply not interested. > I believe that each core provides a unique aspect of > truth and reality - parts of the mosaic of existence. I know what > I say is unconventional, but there you have it. Not so unconventional! Theosphists have been saying it for over a century, I think--and campbellism extremely common today, at least in the U.S. > M: Nibbaana? Do you think that nibbaana exists outside the four noble > truths? > > D: This illustrates the issue of parameters. Yes, I do > think/believe that "............" a.k.a 'unconditioned reality' > exists. I have no idea what 'unconditioned reality' is. To me, nibbaana refers to the end of rebirth. > Whether inside or outside of the 4NT, is a matter of view > and parameters, part of which I am trying to explore with you. Is > it safe to conclude that Nibbana is only achieved by the path taught > by the Buddha? I don't know of any other teaching that claims to lead to the end of rebirth. > M: To me, one of the most striking (and delightful) aspects of > Buddhadhamma is the way that it illustrates that the preoccupations > of everyone, everywhere are unsatisfactory, impermanent and empty. > I've deliberately equivocated > 'proliferation' (papa~nca) with preoccupation here--hope I'm not > twisting your meaning: "Dependent on the eye....... > > D: I presume you mean that the preoccupations of everyone are just > proliferation. I am not sure that I can answer this intelligently > or accurately. All I can say is that billions are striving for > some experience of the unconditioned reality in their own ways, and I > personally cannot just ascribe that to a mental dead-end for all of > them. I do, in fact, think that proliferation, striving for some experience and so on--by no matter how many billions--are mental dead-ends. Of course I don't claim to know this for a fact. > M: d: > Is it possible to reconcile internally consistent beliefs? > Not quite sure what you mean here. > > D: This may require a whole separate response. > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > Mike, this does NOT specifically apply to you, but is a general > question for contemplation by everyone: > > Do we run the risk of mana, by easily (or reactively) considering > other beliefs relatively inferior to our own? Certainly! Maana is a serious curse (speaking metaphorically, of course!)--'I' am assaulted by it countless (literally) times every hour of every day--and not just with regard to religions or Buddhadhamma. Priceless to know about maana and other unwholesome factors and to be able to recognize them occasionally. > It is indeed a pleasure to interact with you, Mike. My pleasure as always, Dharam. > I don't think > we are very distant at all in our general understanding. :) Still? > u.w. dharam u.w. mike 20686 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 7:55am Subject: RE: [dsg] Non-self Dear Star Kid Ki Yong & Philip, The understanding of non-self is hard, I think I should warn you up-front. When you see your friend, you are happy, are you not? When you see somebody you don't like, sometimes you are unhappy, isn't that true? You become happy and unhappy because you see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or think about something, not because you *are* happy or *are* unhappy. The happy or unhappy feeling arise because of the experience that you are having, and your past impression about those experiences. This is one of the reasons why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. When you are happy, don't you wish your happiness would last forever? But it *never* lasts forever, does it? As soon as you run into something you don't like, you can become unhappy again. You can see that people aren't happy or unhappy all the time: a happy person will be unhappy sometimes, and an unhappy person is happy sometimes. This is the second reason why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. If you don't control happy or unhappy feelings, i.e. you can't make them come and go at will, do you own these feelings? If you are not happy or unhappy all the time, are you a happy or an unhappy person? This is the reason we say happiness and unhappiness are not ours, and we are not those feelings: the happiness and unhappiness come and go by their own conditions, they are non-self. This is also the same with other things you may think of being yours: anger, kindness, jealousy, ability to think, compassion, wisdom, physical strength. You can't make all these things come and go at will, and they don't last forever. All of these things are non-self. It is fantastic to ask these questions because rarely, there is a person who can answer these questions, especially in a way that we can understand. The understanding of these questions helps us know ourselves better (that we are not happy, or unhappy: happiness and unhappiness come and go because of their conditions), and ultimately, the Buddhist believe that the understanding will lead us toward the cessation of suffering. We can't make anybody believe or disbelieve in anything we say. A wise person tells the truth that is useful to other persons, and it really depends on the other persons' past impression of what is said that lead the persons to believe or disbelieve. Even the wisest person cannot control the feelings of others---the feelings, in ourselves or others, are non-self. kom > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 5:51 AM > To: dsg > Subject: [dsg] Non-self > > > > Dear KKT > > Hi. I read a letter number 20229 which you wrote to > Tom. He was talking about non-self. Can you simply > explain what it is? Why is it so fantastic to ask > those questions? > > Thank you, Ki Yong > > 20687 From: m. nease Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 8:01am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Reply to James and everyone (please reply!!!!!) Hi Dave, ----- Original Message ----- > Mike, > > For my own curiousity, can you elaborate on what you mean by the > statement you made (included below)? > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" > > ...SNIP... By the way, I think that > > Buddhadhamma (what the Buddha taught) is very different from all > > the various religions called 'Buddhism'. Well--just generally, there are lots of different sects of 'Buddhism' out there, with lots of different beliefs and practices. By and large they seem to me (together and separately) to differ widely from what I read in the Pali tipitaka--which is what I take to be Buddhadhamma. Does this answer your question? mike 20688 From: Jose Angel Lopez Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Location of DSG members? Hi Sarah, thank you for the warm welcome :-) I live in Basel, right on the border to Germany and France. Metta José Sarah wrote:Hi Jose (& Dave), --- Jose Angel Lopez wrote: > > Hi, > I just joined. > My name is Jose and I live in Switzerland. I'm of spanish origin. .... Thanks for introducing yourself and welcome from me to DSG too. Whereabouts do you live in Switzerland? We love hiking there. Please let us know anything you care to share about your interest in the Buddha’s Teachings and how you found your way here. The list is quite busy at the moment, so you may wish to pick and choose posts ‘til you are more familiar with the various threads. Let us know if you need any help. 20689 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:31am Subject: Re: Hello everyone!!!!!!!! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Hello everyone! > > I read all the mail that you all wrote to each other > and while reading the letters I got more interested in > Buddhism and monks. Before going on, I should first > introduce myself. > My name is Anne-Catherine and I'm 13 years old. I'm > Swiss-Canadian (from Quebec and Zurich). > I have some questions to ask. Hi Star Kid Anne-Catherine! I am glad that you are getting more interested in Buddhism and monks. My name is James Mitchell and I am from the United States (though my family heritage is Scottish). It is very nice to meet you. Let me answer your questions, which are all very good: Question: What do you understand under Buddhism and Gods? Answer: In the world there are two predominate types of religions: Monotheism and Polytheism. Monotheism is the belief that there is one supreme, ruler God who created and controls/influences everything; modern examples of this type of religion are Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Polytheism is the belief that there are several gods which create everything and control/influence everything; modern examples of this type of religion are Paganism and Hinduism. Buddhism doesn't fall into either one of these categories specifically, although there are shades of both in Buddhism: Monotheism is comparable to Buddhist `Karma' and Polytheism is comparable to Buddhist `God Realms', but they are not exactly like them, only somewhat. Question: And would you like to join the Buddhism religion? Why? Answer: I am already a member of the Buddhist religion and I am so because it suits me best of all the other religions. Question: Last year I went to Myanmar and I saw young monks, really children, who were each carrying a big bowl. Do you know what they do with it, do they collect money or food? Answer: Young monks are really cute aren't they? ;-) Anyway, that big bowl they were carrying is called an `Alms Bowl'. It is used to collect food, NEVER money. They are to collect food from the people, once per day, and eat out of that bowl. That bowl and their robes are their only possessions. It is a very special bowl and has a lot of rules that go along with it. One pretty cute rule is that monks are not supposed to hide each other's bowls as a joke…as those young monks you saw might be tempted to do! ;-). Question: Is it for them or for other people? Answer: That bowl is for them. The Buddha said that monks could give food to other ascetics (monks from other religions) but never directly from their own bowl. They are to leave it on the ground in a different container or on a palm leaf. Thank you for your questions Anne-Catherine and I am sorry it took someone so long to reply, but I am glad that you go some answers. Take care and I hope you do well in school. Metta, James 20690 From: bodhi342 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:38am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi Sarah, Thanks for your thoughtful message. I do appreciate your intention for compassionately analyzing and solving what you perceive is my problem. I always feel that talking about myself is an unecessary imposition on others, but in this case, you raise important issues that should be explored. Hopefully these will be of some value to others. S: ....and hope that in so doing I don't cause any offence or add to any sense of frustration which I detect in some of your discussions. D: If I appear frustrated, it is because I believe standard answers do not always help us gain insight into complex issues. There is too much room for 'wrong' assumptions to be left untested, when we regurgitate standard answers in general. Additionally, there is also a lost opportunity when a standard answer is given to a question that is aiming to explore a specific area. This loss is both for the questioner, and the answerer. [I say this from personal experience trying to teach/learn-from intelligent young adults.] Let us take notice of the Buddha's method - he could easily have given the standard answer to almost any question asked of him related to Dukkha, and its solution. Let us reflect on why he chose to tailor the answer to the question, and to the questioner.... I must admit to mild disappointment that 'exploration' is too often based on who can quote the best sutta, rather than the more messy and laborious working through on first-principles. Truth, IMHO, is not something to be placed on an alter, with us bowing intellectually, and being seen to be bowing intellectually towards. Truth is to be picked up, felt, prodded, kneaded, and ultimately incorporated into one's being [anatta notwithstanding ;-) ], IF it passes those tests. And what if not? Then, respect the other opinion on its value, and revisit later. The essence of those tests is unrelenting honesty and just skepticism. Just my opinion. This attitude may be wrong, but it sure makes the adventure of understanding markedly more rewarding and humbling. Finally, the ability to transmit one's understanding is important. Here, Erwin Schrodinger's words ring out like a bell: "If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been doing, your doing has been worthless." Try transposing the word 'thinking' in the place of 'doing', if you like. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Let me summarise what I hear you suggesting (in your own polite way of course): - that some of us are suggesting the Buddha's Teachings are superior to other Teachings - that we are suggesting that these Teachings are `unique' in path and goal - marked mana (conceit) with regard to comparisons with other Teachings or to followers of other Teachings - ignorance with regard to kamma and other key aspects which were prevalent before the Buddha's time - blind acceptance of aspects of the Teachings which are a) unprovable, b)unjustifiable and c)contradictory D: These may be points that I suggest, but keep in mind the method of inquiry. The method of questioning is not to justify one position over another. It is to explore together, and either convince or be convinced, or neither as the case may be. The method, is to shed light on areas that may have been overlooked, are causing pause, or seem inconsistent. I would expect most of you to indeed suggest that the Buddha's teachings are superior, otherwise A) why would you be here; and B) why would I come to you for learning? The next step, however, is to consider if that assumption is correct. This is emotionally too difficult for most to even consider, and it is not my intention to stress anyone. Paradoxically, it requires relinquishing of 'self- importance'. Yes, you are suggesting these Teachings are unique in path (and I agree); and goal (I am trying to explore that with you); same paradox as above also applies here; We know that kamma was understood before the Buddha's time. My question, however, is specific to the reiteration that now includes Buddhist hierarchies: and not meant to highlight, for example, the Hindu way of approaching this concept. I do not come into your living rooms to convert you, or to champion any other religion - I hope you understand this clearly. If it makes any difference I am not a Hindu. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me now summarize your carefully, and sympathetically, worded points, and hope I get what you are saying accurately: You assume that my 'problem' is related to baggage - which means the reluctance to relinquish cherished beliefs, in this instance. I cannot psychoanalyze myself very well. Having said that, let me tell you what is at the conscious level. Baggage connotes a negative heavy burden. Yet, what are we without our baggage? We assume we can abandon our baggage, but this is not easy without some degree of depersonalization. I have never regarded my own or any else's beliefs/assumptions etc. in this way. Ignorance is admixed with knowlege, the process of clarification requires effort to sort and winnow, not wholesale dumping. This again is an issue of view and parameter, and ultimately belief. BTW is it easy to dump 'accumulations'? ;-) This is also partly why I raised the issue of disillusionment. What is it that causes people to want to dump whole portions of their beings? Dukkha is no doubt the ultimate answer. Seems a shame, so much wasted - effort, time, comforts, relationships on and on. You can tell by now that I prefer repair to replacement!! More..... ecologically sound ;-). This depends on the surgeon one chooses to correct the deformity. Next, I have already mentioned in another thread that I have no significant feeling of disillusionment, but am striving for dis~illusion~ment. I came to you honestly, trying to learn. I do not come seeking refuge, shelter, help, support. Ergo, depersonalization seems too high a price to pay. That may be different for others who are more (I hesitate).... desperate. There, abandoning baggage may seem a good option, at first sight of difficulty. One wonders if the Buddha only got converts by similarly insisting on irretrievably checking baggage for newcomers. Difficult to tell after so long, but most 'newcomer' religions poach on believers, rather than non-believers. ;-) Therefore, it is likely that he taught redirection rather than erasing as an initial step. This speculation is beyond my pay grade. As far as "clean slate" is concerned, I take it to mean coming to a new understanding without too many presumptions about its own methods, ethos, aims etc. I sincerely hope I do that. If, however, by 'clean slate' you mean, tabula rasa of the mind, the arguments above will apply. I think Sukin may attest, that I have always tried to understand, engage etc. with what he was trying to tell me. The fact that I do not fully 'get' it, should not necessarily indicate that I do not try hard enough or try to be objective enough. I could be that it just does not ring true. Sukin and I have discussed these issues before using the analogy of bridges. What you are saying is that I should jump without knowing where I will land, and assuming there is no bridge to the place where I am now at. In other words, take what you say as Truth, even if all is not yet revealed. All prior truth is not only subordinated, but relinquished forever. Is jumping courage or foolishness or desperation or sufficiently accumulated insight? Somehow, at this age, I go for bridges. Sarah, if it was a sun-worshipper telling you to take the plunge, would you? What their scripture says is indeed true. However, is that the totality of Truth? You may perhaps see why I approach "I teach only suffering and the cessation of suffering." in a different way than you do. There is no denying what he says, but to me the issue is larger, for you the issue is settled. This may sound like blasphemy, to even suggest that there could be anything larger than what the Buddha teaches or had knowledge of. This again is a matter of view, parameters and belief. No offense is intended, but in case it is perceived, one has to ask, 'Why is one offended?' What attachment, what clinging is involved? These are other examples of serious questions that may not have been asked. If I ask them, is it so simple as my own baggage operating here? The alternate question may be "Whose baggage is more burdensome?" (No need to answer, gentle Sarah.) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- S: Just looking over this note, Dharam, I'm hesitant about posting it, but I think you'll know that I mean well even if you don't agree. This is all in very conventional language. Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there's no `choice' about what baggage to bring or not bring. Still, sometimes, if there is a little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the otherhand, ignorance of it can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom. D: I am very glad you posted it. Disagreeing does not have to be disagreeable. I know you mean well, I hope you know that I mean well too. We go about it in different ways. What you say about recognition of attachment is absolutely true, and should be one of the central preoccupations of pursuing "..............". All light comes from "................". It is when we turn away, that we see the shadow of our own egos. I have learnt a great deal from you, Nina, Mike, RobK, Jon, Larry et al, and last, but not in any way least, Sukin. It is time now to move on. I thank you for your patience, compassion, effort, time and humor. I wish all of you anumodana. May your pursuit be fruitful. u.w. dharam 20691 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:41am Subject: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Hi Kom, I appreciate and understand your apology. I think I come across on DSG as too critical and judgemental sometime. I would need to soften the tone in my messages. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > I would like to apologize for the tone of this message. It is written out > of certain assumptions which aren't true. I think we could have gotten more > useful discussions out of this topic, but I think I have botched it. > > Perhaps I will do better in the future. > > kom 20692 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:41am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Sarah and Dharam, Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you are one who truly reflect the spirit of the word 'metta', or something to the effect. I wanted to say some of the things you said here, but found it hard to do, as I guess I am one person who has boldly stated concerning the exclusivity of the buddhadhamma in holding the Truth. Dharam I hope you take Sarah's letter in good spirit even though it may be that as she says, "Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there's no `choice' about what baggage to bring or not bring." But. "Still, sometimes, if there is a little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the other hand, ignorance of it can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom." Since we are at it and hoping that I do not spoil anything with my bold assertions, I'd like to add a few thoughts. As you know I am inclined against any type of formal practice and the following of rites and rituals, I want to express in this regard my appreciation for the teachings of Guru Nanak the founder of Sikh religion. He like Krishnamurti another person that I admire, is against the idea of following any 'fixed' activity with the idea of attaining purity and wisdom. In fact i believe that Krishnamurti was influenced very much by Theravada teachings as a young man. Also I have heard that Guru Nanak went around India and the Middle East collecting teachings from various wisdom traditions, so maybe he too came in contact with Buddhism?! But maybe not. Anyway, both still held the belief in a 'self' in some form or the other. And I believe, this does ultimately lead to the idea of 'control' and the need to 'do' certain things in relation to this 'self'. Mike has just said in one of his posts, that he distinguishes between Buddhism and Buddhadhamma. I agree with him. In fact not only I do not believe that there are no enlightened individuals outside the teachings of Buddha, I do not believe that the so called enlightened masters of the Tibetan tradition and the Zen one's are so. I suggested to you Dharam, as an important starting point, to distinguish between concepts and reality. I do not believe that anyone who does not and cannot make this distinction can be considered enlightened. Krishnamurti, Zen, Tibetan Buddhism, Sufism and all other religions believe in understanding *this* present moment. But all these are incapable of making this very important distinction, and so their "present moment" is nothing but a *projected* one. Dharam, for this same reason I asked you to seriously read and respond to Nina's "what is dhamma", she is the wisest amongst us. I find myself appreciating her posts more deeply as time goes by. Once you begin to understand to make this distinction between what is really the object of experience and what is not, but that which we often mistake as a reality, you will begin to appreciate why we all believe that Satipatthana is the only way to wear away and ultimately eradicate ignorance, which is enlightenment. You may also start to see why some of us, do not believe that deliberate practice is the way to this end. We need to be familiar with whatever appears at the moment, and turning one's attention to a conventional activity such as meditation, is avoiding and ignoring what naturally arises and being sidetracked by the importance we give to those activities. We become familiar with gross manifestations of realities, this is done with a corresponding level of panna. In the beginning the ignorance is very "thick". When sati arises, ignorance does not, so each time sati and panna arises, we become more intimate with these realities. As intimacy grows finer and finer manifestations of characteristic become known, first the individual and unique characterisic, later the general one common to all realities, namely the tilakkhana. The idea of putting ones mind into noticing rise and fall may well be an act of ignorance. Intention does not do that job, sati and panna does. Panna has to grow slowly through being intimate, that is the only way. In a day, ignorance manifest every second, dosa and especially lobha leads every activity we are involved in. But this is not a big problem, as long as there are seeds for it, we have to accept it. The added problem which I would not like to see and which I consider worse, is wrong practice associated with wrong view. So Dharam, I hope you now have a better idea why I at least, believe that Satipatthana is the only way and Buddhadhamma being the only religion teaching it, must be the only one with enlightened disciples. And why this conviction does not necessarily condition conceit or seeing that Buddhism is superior to other religions. My object is right view not the glory of buddhism. But I do understand why outsiders would see differently. Like Sarah, I too feel a some hesitation in sending this post, but I'll do it anyway, hoping that I will be able to mend any damage done. Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi Dharam. > > I was about to start quoting from texts on one or two points you and > RobertK are discussing, but on reflection have decided to address another > issue and hope that in so doing I don't cause any offence or add to any > sense of frustration which I detect in some of your discussions. > > Let me summarise what I hear you suggesting (in your own polite way of > course): > > - that some of us are suggesting the Buddha's Teachings are superior to > other Teachings > - that we are suggesting that these Teachings are `unique' in path and > goal > - marked mana (conceit) with regard to comparisons with other Teachings > or to followers of other Teachings > - ignorance with regard to kamma and other key aspects which were > prevalent before the Buddha's time > - blind acceptance of aspects of the Teachings which are a) unprovable, > b)unjustifiable and c)contradictory > **** > Rather than discuss any of these points (other than to say I hear you;-)), > I'd like to just make a few comments in point form: > > 1. We all come to the Dhamma with our own set of baggage collected over a > long time. Perhaps it's rather like moving into a house - we may move into > identical houses, but we all have to accommodate our various collections > of furniture, books, clothes and assorted `toys'. > > 2. When some people move house, they're able to ruthlessly throw out > previous collections and baggage and start afresh. Others have a harder > time and the new house may even end up having to fit into the old > baggage;-). Still others can never move, because the necessary weeding out > is just too painful. > > 3. Usually, I think, the most successful house moves are those in which > the new house is approached as something akin to a clean slate without any > looking back or comparing or trying to accomodate past baggage that > doesn't fit. > > 4. When I first became seriously interested in Buddhism, I had a certain > amount of Christian baggage remaining, but mostly that had been left > behind from an earlier move. More serious was the few years of training in > psychology, much of which I wished to bring along, especially when it came > to the Abhidhamma. Both Nina and Khun Sujin greatly encouraged me > indirectly to adopt the `clean slate' approach and this advice has always > been invaluable to me. > > 5. It doesn't mean that one's other baggage, i.e > interest/religion/philosopy/work/social perspective, is of no value. It > has it's own value and it's own purpose and goal. I've continued to be a > member of psychology associations and to take an interest/have involvement > in a work related capacity, though to a much more limited extent these > days than before. I just see the goals as very different and when I study > the Buddha's Teachings, I leave this other baggage aside completely. > > 6. I see members join DSG with their pet baggage in science, philosophy, > politics, other religions, Mahayana and so forth. I don't believe any of > these should be rejected or are worthless, but I do think it makes the > task of really understanding the (Theravada) Teachings and Tipitaka much > harder if one tries to integrate these other dearly-held ideas and beliefs > or interests and continually compares them, rather than adopting a > `clean-slate' approach and open mind to these Teachings. > > 7. I don't see this in anyway as suggesting that there should be an > acceptance or belief in those aspects of the texts that one is > uncomfortable with or which cannot be tested and proved at this time. > Having just left aside so much other baggage, we're bound to be cautious > about any new collections after all. In my case, it was years before I had > any interest in rebirth, kamma, nibbana, sense-door and mind-door > processes or bhavanga cittas. No problem. Historical arguments about > Buddhaghosa or the value of the Abhidhamma or blind faith in a teacher > will not help one to understand. Gradually, however, right understanding > and awareness do develop, having heard and considered a LOT about present > realities. Slowly those other aspects of the Teachings make more sense > without any forcing or blind acceptance in their own time. > ***** > Just looking over this note, Dharam, I'm hesitant about posting it, but I > think you'll know that I mean well even if you don't agree. This is all > in very conventional language. Ultimately the thinking, feeling and other > realities arising now are conditioned and anatta and there's no `choice' > about what baggage to bring or not bring. Still, sometimes, if there is a > little recognition of the attachment to the various bits of old and new > baggage (!!!) it can make life easier. On the otherhand, ignorance of it > can be a real impediment to the growth of further wisdom. > > Time for me to follow Christine's example and `look inside' first, I > think......Oh, plenty of attachment to plenty of baggage...hmmm...;- ( > > Metta and much appreciation for your excellent questions to us all. > > Sarah > ====== > > --- bodhi342 wrote: > Dear Robert K, > > > > Thanks. It appears you have responded with the 'standard' answers, > > not really directly engaging my questions and statements. I am not > > sure why, but in any case, would ask you to reconsider them, unless > > it is uncomfortable. To address your current responses: > 20693 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:48am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Dharam, I composed my last post off-line, so I did not see this. I have yet to read this post of yours, but I am sure my response would have been different if I had read it before. Hope you understand and don't mind. Metta, Sukin. --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi342" wrote: > Hi Sarah, > > Thanks for your thoughtful message. I do appreciate your intention 20694 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:33pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Dharam, > > Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you are Hi Sukin, These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false views about Buddhist practice and reality. You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is no `you', right? Please...you have taken a subtle and profound teaching of the Lord Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a caricature of what it really is. Just admit that you can have intention, even without a permanent self. It doesn't matter if you can't understand that or how that occurs, you weren't meant to until you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. Metta, James 20695 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 0:56pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every > second. In amongst them, we experience illusory > realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we > don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. > > (James: First, this number is far too high. It is not even in the > ballpark of trillions occurring every second. That would be so many > and so fast that probably all of our heads would explode! ;-) Not > only that, time isn't a constant, it is relative. You can't say > that trillions occur every second when there isn't even such a thing > as a second. Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts > in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. > Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably > during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to > meditate. > > ____________________--- Dear James, Are you sure that a citta lasts? Also could you provide any references that the frequency varies during meditation - or any other activity. RobertK 20696 From: christine_forsyth Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:05pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear James, and all, I was just about to send an email expressing my gratitiude to Sukin for what I thought was a wonderful post, when your post arrived expressing exactly the opposite sentiments. This is quite confusing to some of us (well, me, at least), and, no doubt other beginners. Members of this group have provided me with the clearest explanation of reality and truth, and stated this is as the Buddha taught it. Always whenever there were doubts or questions, they have said "Check with the Tipitaka, check with the Teachings of the Blessed One". I am aware of some difference between formal meditators and those who see the Teachings as not requiring sitting meditation, but mostly both groups seem to agree on things like 'the present moment', 'watching what arises at the sense doors', 'knowing the difference between realities and concepts', and 'the difference between nama and rupa'. I do not understand your constant vehement opposition. I wonder if you could give some Sutta references regarding the statements in your post to Sukin - otherwise it may seem to some to be just your own view? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Dharam, > > > > Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you > are > > Hi Sukin, > > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. > > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't > matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday > experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still > that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is > no `you', right? Please...you have taken a subtle and profound > teaching of the Lord Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a > caricature of what it really is. Just admit that you can have > intention, even without a permanent self. It doesn't matter if you > can't understand that or how that occurs, you weren't meant to until > you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord > Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. > > Metta, James 20697 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 1:46pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Parameters / Dhamma Dear Victor, > -----Original Message----- > From: yu_zhonghao [mailto:yu_zhonghao@y...] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 10:41 AM > > Hi Kom, > > I appreciate and understand your apology. I think I come across on > DSG as too critical and judgemental sometime. I would need to soften > the tone in my messages. > > Regards, > Victor I appreciate your note. The assumption I had relates to my perception of how you responded to messages, which is off from how your responded recently. Something you posted that I appreciated: "I don't think having a shrine room is really important first step for a person struggling to understanding Buddhism and the expectations of it. I do think it is very important to distinguish what the teaching of the Buddha is and what it is not." "I would think having a shrine room is not part of the core Buddhism. However, I think it is a way of expressing one's reverence to the Buddha, the Teaching, and the Sangha. It is the attitude and expression of reverence that is wholesome and essential, and having a shrine room, I think, can be very conducive in reinforcing such attitude and expression, thus making it a wholesome practice." "Now I see what you mean. The Buddha did not deny the existence of divine beings/gods in blissful heavenly realms. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/loka.html These beings might enjoy very long life-span, power, and bliss; nevertheless, they are still subject to ageing and death." or your starting the conversation on seclusion, contentment, and modesty. kom 20698 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:41pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear James, and all, > > I was just about to send an email expressing my gratitiude to Sukin > for what I thought was a wonderful post, when your post arrived > expressing exactly the opposite sentiments. > This is quite confusing to some of us (well, me, at least), and, no > doubt other beginners. Hi Christine, Well, this is a rather personal post to me for the whole world to read! ;-) Okay, since we are going to make this an open discussion, which is more in fitting with a true sangha anyway (but will drive the moderators bananas ;-), I will let you know my complete thoughts. The only reason I oppose Sukin's post so vehemently is because he is a very smooth, manipulative communicator; thus you wanted to send him a post of congratulations, when you are not even sure if what he wrote was accurate or not. You want me to give evidence from the Tipitaka to support the superiority of meditation practice over everyday mindfulness. Have you lost your mind? That is absolutely ridiculous. Christine, anyone who states that they are a Buddhist, but opposes meditation, isn't really a Buddhist. They are a Vedic/Hindu in Buddhist clothing. Practially every statue of the Buddha shows him in meditation...that is how he achieved enlightenment...he taught the technique of meditation in several suttas...he would meditate to provide an example for his monks...just how obvious does it need to get?!? Geez! I know I may appear like `Simon' on `American Idol' at times ;-), but, darn it, some things need to be stated as they are! I don't think it is so important to worry about temporary hurt feelings when the truth is at stake. I am only interested in discussing the truth and the means to the truth, nothing else. As far as the new members, or the old members, or the teenage members;-), they can think for themselves. Maybe this is my opinon. So what? The question is: Is my opinon truth or not? That is for you to decide. Take care. Metta, James 20699 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 3:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > Dear James, > Are you sure that a citta lasts? Also could you provide any > references that the frequency varies during meditation - or any other > activity. > RobertK Hi Robert K, Actually, the Buddha didn't teach anything about cittas. I was humoring you. Metta, James 20700 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 4:10pm Subject: Re: Non-self Dear Star Kid Ki Yong, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: Dear KKT Hi. I read a letter number 20229 which you wrote to Tom. He was talking about non-self. Can you simply explain what it is? Why is it so fantastic to ask those questions? Thank you, Ki Yong KKT: The teaching of << non-self >> is fantastic because it is exclusively Buddhist. You don't find such a teaching in any other religions. To << simply >> explain this teaching, first you have to understand what is the meaning of << self >> There are two main meanings: __The metaphysical self: This is what people usually call << soul >> in many religions. The Hindus call it Atman, Jiva. People believe that inside themselves there is something substantial, permanent, eternal, unchanging, independent, self-existent. The Hindus believe that this self reincarnates from one lifetime to another. According to Buddhism, there is no such self !!! Because such self does not exist, we don't need to bother talking about it, OK? :-)) __The empirical self: This is what you experience as the feeling or sensation or thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> It is also called the << ego >> And this is precisely this self that the Buddha talked a lot in so many of His sermons. He said that this << feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> is the main cause of man's suffering! You suffer because you have this feeling and you make others suffer also because of this feeling of yours :-)) The Buddha also said that this feeling is not real. It is just an illusion! You might ask me now: "Why do I suffer because of this feeling? I don't see clearly the relation between this feeling and my suffering?" :-)) You know why? Because this feeling << SEPARATES >> ! This << feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> separates << me >> from all that is << not me >> It distinguishes << me >> from << not me >> It divides one man from another man. It is the root of what is called selfishness. Because of this exclusive thinking about yourself, all your activities are self-centered. All your pursuits in life are for << your >> own pleasure! And you suffer if they are not fulfilled. And in fulfilling those pursuits, if others stand on your route as obstacle, you can even << destroy >> them! :-)) Take the example of war. You see clearly that war is the result of greed (lobha), anger (dosa), delusion (moha) of man. They are called the three poisons. They are the core of the ego! War is also the result of people's identification. They identify themselves as Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, etc, as Iraqi, American, French, Chinese, etc. Those identifications separate man from man. And those are also a characteristic of the ego. Now you might ask whether one can uproot this << feeling of I, me, mine, myself >> ? And is it easy to << drop >> this feeling? The answer is Yes and No :-)) In Mahayana Buddhism, they distinguish two kinds of ego: __The ego resulting from the conditionings one receives in this lifetime from school, family, society. One example is the above identification. One is << conditioned >> to be Iraqi, American, Chinese, etc, to be nationalistic, patriotic. Another example is that one is conditioned by this actual highly competitive society to achieve success at any price in life. You must be the best ! :-)) Money, position, knowledge, wealth, fame are decorations of the ego, the marks of the fulfilment of the ego :-)) This kind of ego is not difficult to be rid of. Just << seeing >> & contemplating deeply its silliness, its harmfulness it causes to oneself and to others to be able to take a firm decision to get rid of it ! __The ego that follows ourselves through innumerable lifetimes from a beginningless time. You can observe this ego in small babies. They have already ego :-)) This ego is very subtle :-)) It is the feeling or thought << I AM >>, the sensation of << EXISTENCE >> The craving (tanha) for existence is its fuel. It is what Descartes said: Cogito ergo sum (Je pense, donc je suis I think, therefore I am :-)) This ego is very difficult to rid of. This ego is like a clothes-hanger on which hang our defilements (kilesa) and fetters :-)) It takes many lifetimes to << drop >> this ego and once it were achieved you'd be an Arahat, ie. a liberated-one :-)) Best wishes, KKT HAPPY IS THE MAN WHO IS NOTHING 20701 From: Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 4:15pm Subject: Way 68, Clear Comprehension 4 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), 4. Clear comprehension in wearing the shoulder cloak and so forth. p. 89 http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.htm Here, from the foregoing, clear comprehension of the suitable and the non-suitable should be understood; as the holding fast to the line of meditative thought, by way of the non-abandoning of the line of contemplation which the commentator is going to state [vakkhamana kammatthanassa avijahana vasena], clear comprehension of resort should be understood. Within there is nothing called a soul that robes itself. According to the method of exposition adopted already, only by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity does the act of robing take place. The robe has no power to think and the body too has not that power. The robe is not aware of the fact that it is draping the body, and the body too of itself does not think: "I am being draped round with the robe.," Mere processes clothe a process-heap, in the same way that a modelled figure is covered with a piece of cloth. Therefore, there is neither room for elation on getting a fine robe nor for depression on getting one that is not fine. [Tika] Within. In one's own mental flux [abbhantareti attano santane]. [T] Body too. Body too is only an ego-concept [kayapiti atta paññatti matto kiyopi]. [T] I = Karma produced body [ahanti kamma bhuto kayo]. [T] Processes = External processes called robes [civara sankhata bahira dhatuyo]. [T] Process-heap = The internal process-collection called the body [dhatu samuhanti kaya sankhatam ajjhattikam dhatu samuham]. Some honor an ant-hill where a cobra de capello lives, a tree-shrine, and so forth, with garlands, perfumes, incense, cloth, and similar things. Others maltreat these objects. Ant-hill, tree-shrine and the like are, however, neither elated by the good nor depressed by the bad treatment. Just in the same way there should be no elation on receiving a good robe or depression on getting a bad one. Clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood, in this connection, as the proceeding of reflective thought, in this way. And in using the bowl, clear comprehension of purpose should be understood, by way of the benefit obtainable through the action of one who takes the bowl unhurriedly and thinks: "Going out to beg with this I shall get alms." [T] With the seeing of the purpose, the obtaining of food, should the bowl be taken by one. In this way indeed does clear comprehension of purpose arise. To one with a lean body which is weak a heavy bowl is not suitable. And not suitable is a damaged bowl that is tied with thread and stopped in four or five places and hard to wash properly. A bowl that is hard to wash well, certainly, is not fit. There will be inconvenience caused to him who washes that kind of bowl. [T] A bowl that is hard to wash well: This was said concerning a bowl difficult to wash properly, naturally, though it may be without mends. A bright bowl which shines like a gem and therefore is capable of stimulating the cupidity of others is not suitable for the same reasons given in regard to robes of silk, fine hemp and so forth. Just irreversibly unsuitable are the bowl acquired by wrong means of livelihood and the bowl by which good decreases and evils increase. Through this explanation, clear comprehension of suitability in this connection should be understood. And by the fact even of the holding fast to the subject of meditation should clear comprehension of resort be understood. Within there is nothing called a self that is taking the bowl. As stated already, by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, there is the taking of the bowl. In this matter of taking the bowl, the bowl cannot think. Hands too cannot think. The bowl does not cognize that it is taken by the hands. Hands do not cognize that the bowl is taken by them. Just processes take a process-heap. It is comparable to the taking of a red-hot vessel with a pair of tongs. By way of the proceeding of reflective thought in this way, clear comprehension of non-delusion should be understood in bowl-taking. And further, it is like this: When kindly people see, in a refuge for the helpless, unfortunate persons, with hands and feet cut off, and with blood, pus, and many maggots in the open wounds, and give to the unfortunate persons bandages and medicine in containers, some of the miserable sufferers in the refuge may get thick bandages and containers not shapely; others may get thin bandages and shapely containers. None of the sufferers will feel elated or depressed about the kind of bandages and containers they receive. That is because they merely want cloth to cover their wounds and containers for keeping medicine. Now, the bhikkhu who regards the robe as a bandage, the bowl as a medicine-container, and alms-food as medicine in the bowl, through clear comprehension of non-delusion should be taken as a person endowed with the highest clear comprehension. [T] A person endowed with the highest clear comprehension should be known by way of the discernment of fineness of the characteristic activity of one possessed of the highest clear comprehension and by way of the highest state of the previous practicers of clear comprehension. 20702 From: smallchap Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:23pm Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Dharam, >In fact not only I do not believe that there are no enlightened >individuals outside the teachings of Buddha, I do not .. --------------- So you believe that there are enlightened individuals outside the teachings of Buddha? smallchap 20703 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:24pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> Hi Robert K, > Actually, the Buddha didn't teach anything about cittas. I was > humoring you. > Metta, James ________ Dear James, Citta is a common term in the Tipitaka. For instance I opened the first sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya and in the first paragraph it comes up twice (and many more times during the sutta): Nàham bhikkhave annam ekaråpampi samanupassàmi, yam evam purisassa CITTAM pariyàdàya tiññhati. Yathayidam bhikkhave itthirupam. Itthirupam bhikkhave purisassa CITTAM pariyàdàya tiññhatãti. (Bhikkhus, I do not know of a form that captivates the mind of man as that of woman. The form of a woman indeed captivates the mind of a man.) ------------ JAMES:<>>: Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts > in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. > Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably > during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to > meditate. __________ "Bhikkhus, I see no other single Thing more susceptible to rapid change as the Mind(citta). It is no easy thing, Bhikkhu's to describe how quickly the Mind (citta) changes." Anguttara 1's,48 RobertK 20704 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:43pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <> > Hi Robert K, > > > Actually, the Buddha didn't teach anything about cittas. I was > > humoring you. > > Metta, James > ________ > Dear James, > Citta is a common term in the Tipitaka. For instance I opened the > first sutta of the Anguttara Nikaya and in the first paragraph it > comes up twice (and many more times during the sutta): Robert, You know what I mean...citta as mind in general and citta as used in the Abhidhamma are two entirely different things. Show me, in the suttas, where the Buddha talks about mind moments and how often they occur per second, and I will then apologize. Metta, James 20705 From: rjkjp1 Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:59pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <(and many more times during the sutta): > > Robert, > > You know what I mean...citta as mind in general and citta as used in > the Abhidhamma are two entirely different things. Show me, in the > suttas, where the Buddha talks about mind moments and how often they > occur per second, and I will then apologize. > > Metta, James _________ Dear James, I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls together with citta: The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." Robert K 20706 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:46pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "rjkjp1" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" <(and many more > times during the sutta): > > > > Robert, > > > > You know what I mean...citta as mind in general and citta as used > in > > the Abhidhamma are two entirely different things. Show me, in the > > suttas, where the Buddha talks about mind moments and how often > they > > occur per second, and I will then apologize. > > > > Metta, James > _________ > Dear James, > I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma > commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. > For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the > vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls > together with citta: > The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has > no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers > it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." > Robert K Hi Robert, This is interesting (hmmm...I wonder what a koti is?), but it is from the commentary to a sutta. Again, not the words of the Buddha. Metta, James 20707 From: Sarah Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 9:56pm Subject: Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi RobertK & James, “Monks, I know not of any other single thing so quick to change as the mind : insomuch that it is no easy thing to illustrate how quick to change it is.” AN, Bk of Ones, (i-10) “Monks, if for just the lasting of a finger-snap a monk indulges a thought of goodwill, such an one is to be called a monk...”AN, Bk of Ones, The finger-snap. ***** You may wish to review Dan’s message to Erik, discussing SN ii,95. (All these passages are also discussed in the Kathavatthu, Points of Controversy, PTS p125). Perhaps it’s enough to know to agree that cittas change very fast - no need to count;-). Other posts on the same thread can also be reviewed.... Dan: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5645.html Metta, Sarah p.s mentioning Erik’s name reminds me that he sends his best wishes to everyone. He’s in Bangkok briefly before heading back to New York to find work. He and Eath have a healthy baby;-) =============================== R:> Dear James, > I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma > commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. > For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the > vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls > together with citta: > The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has > no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers > it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." > Robert K 20708 From: buddhatrue Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 10:54pm Subject: Re: Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi Sarah and All, I looked in the useful posts and I don't see any discussion of how the Abhidhamma defines time. However, there is a book titled 'Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness and Time' by: Nyanaponika Thera,Nyanaponika,Bhikkhu Bodhi. Have you read it? How does this book define time? Metta, James 20709 From: Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 6:10pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi, Sarah ( and James, and Robert, and Erik! [if you still get list email] ) - In a message dated 3/28/03 1:04:30 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > > Hi RobertK &James, > > “Monks, I know not of any other single thing so quick to change > as the mind : insomuch that it is no easy thing > to illustrate how quick to change it is.â€? AN, Bk of Ones, (i-10) > > “Monks, if for just the lasting of a finger-snap a monk indulges a thought > of goodwill, such an one is to be called a monk...â€?AN, Bk of Ones, The > finger-snap. > ***** > You may wish to review Dan’s message to Erik, discussing SN ii,95. (All > these passages are also discussed in the Kathavatthu, Points of > Controversy, PTS p125). Perhaps it’s enough to know to agree that cittas > change very fast - no need to count;-). Other posts on the same thread can > also be reviewed.... > Dan: > http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m5645.html > > Metta, > > Sarah > p.s mentioning Erik’s name reminds me that he sends his best wishes to > everyone. He’s in Bangkok briefly before heading back to New York to find > work. He and Eath have a healthy baby;-) > =============================== > R:> Dear James, > >I accept that the suttas aren't as specific as the Abhidhamma > >commentaries - although they do stress that citta changes so fast. > >For your interest here is one reference in the commentary to the > >vibhanga. It talkas about vedana (feeling) which arises and falls > >together with citta: > >The Dispeller (page 37)"indeed feeling also arises and falls and has > >no length of duration. In the moment of one snapping of the fingers > >it arises and ceases to the number of one hundred thousand kotis." > >Robert K > > ========================== Yes, the Buddha frequently wrote in the suttas that mind changes very quickly. But, AFAIK, he didn't discuss precisely the rate in any sutta. Saying that a thought of good will lasts for only a fingersnap was about the closest to quantifying how long specific objcts of mind remained. But more to the point, I am not aware of the Buddha having indicated anywhere in any sutta that mindstates or perceptual states occurred as discrete quanta. This seems to appear only in the Abhidhamma and the commentaries. And that stikes me as odd. Frankly, I think it likely that the compliers of the Abhidhamma took a conventional, informal, fuzzy notion of mindstate, and came up with a concept of a discrete, encapsulated, mind-moment to which they applied a general word for mind, 'citta' (much like 'nama'), in a new and innovative (or, if one wishes, distorted) way. I personally find the use of 'citta' for a state of mind which arises on any occasion that either a new object of dicernment arises or the set of mental functions concomitant to the discerning of that object changes by the loss/gain/replacement of one member function to be a useful and reasonably well defined one. Likewise, defining the sequence of mindstates spanning the complete existence of an object of discernment as a 'process' also has great appeal to me. I like both of these, because I am a mathematician, and such things appeal to me. However, I have no reason to assume that these things exist as separate, discrete phenomena. It may well be that "the edges are fuzzy." It may well be that the the way things really are is much more of a fuzzy continuum than a flow of quanta. Maybe one way, maybe the other. But, so far as I know, the Buddha spoke of none of this in the suttas. 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) 20710 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:18pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi James, Thanks for your letter. I was expecting to receive a response such as this one day. I know I have been stating quite boldly against formal practice that I felt that it must not feel too pleasant to read it for someone who believes in it. A couple of months ago I wrote a little bit suggesting the same attitude on another list, but soon after I decided never to do it again since most members on that list engaged in formal practice. Here on dsg it is different, so I sometimes take advantage of the situation, even though I also wonder if I am not making the moderators feel uneasy ;-). My response is interspersed between yours. > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. I think it is easy to be 'stuck in a web of false view' because there is still so much ignorance and yearning for security of one form or the other. If it is not in wealth, company or some idealistic activity, then it is very likely be on some conclusions we make about the nature of reality. It is hard to have an attitude of detachment even a little bit let alone every step of the way towards ultimate liberation. My views are mostly based on second, third and fourth hand interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, but slowly confidence grows as I reflect on what has been heard, all seeming more true as compared to other interpretations. But if you say that my expressed views are not what the Buddha taught, please let me know what the correct views are. > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't > matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday > experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still > that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is > no `you', right? I think we both agree that there is no 'self' behind even intention, so lets not bring this up. My point is intention can be either kusala or akusala depending on the accompanying mental factors. Having the intention of doing good, have metta, grow in understanding or to attain final liberation does not automatically make it kusala. Most of mankind has such aspirations, how many reach the goal? I think we are so conditioned by such concepts as love, compassion, doing good, liberation etc, that we become captivated by the mere 'thinking' about them. And there is so much identification with these 'good' qualities, that we often think wishing to actualize them as being 'enough' motivating factor. Of course there are varying degrees supported by varying views of each person's own religious philosophy, but "conscious intention" still seems to be the main motivating force. My favourite quote by Rob K. from Thein Nyun, >>"Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions.<< This gives me an idea of how hard it is to independently arive at the truth of anatta. And how necessary it is to have heard the teachings before in previous lifetimes. We are caught in the above process, our intuition is to pursue further in the same direction until the answer has been got. This is the path the Buddha took before he attained enlightenment, but he realized because previous accumulations, that this was not the direction to take. He did not go beyond jhana in the same direction, he simply realized that he had been looking in the wrong way. I know this is speculative, but it shows the difference in view as compared to those people who conclude that Buddha "sat" so we also must "sit". Back to intention, given that different people have different understandings about sitting or not sitting, should the actiivity then be given priority over understanding the 'real motive' and intention? If so, why focus on intention? Isn't it more important to develop understanding? And because we realize that we are so deluded and that we often deceive ourselves, that the Buddha has laid out a detailed description of the realities that we encounter again and again in the course of our lives, should we not carefully study and consider what he taught? I believe that the Dhamma is good in the beginning, the middle and the end. Between them there is absolutely no contradiction. Pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha all reflect the same underlying truth, only each with the corresponding level of penetration. Some have suggested that one must first practice ritualisticaly, only when enlightenment has been reached can one do away with rituals. But this is to say that the beginning level of dhamma contradicts the latter level. The Sotapanna does not see the need to do away with ritual practice, he realizes that it is not the way whether now, before or later. I will skip commenting on the rest of your post, as I think this is already too long. Look forward to your response. Metta, Sukin. ps. BTW, you are right as you expressed in your following post about my being manipulative. In live discussions I have a hard time expressing myself, being what you may call 'slow' and have difficulty in language association. In typing out messages I have much freedom in choosing the best way to express myself and to convince... But what to do. :-( I guess I only need to recognize such tendency more and more?! > Please...you have taken a subtle and profound > teaching of the Lord Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a > caricature of what it really is. Just admit that you can have > intention, even without a permanent self. It doesn't matter if you > can't understand that or how that occurs, you weren't meant to until > you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord > Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. > > Metta, James 20711 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:22pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Smallchap, It was a mistake, I do not believe there are enlightened individuals outside the Dhamma Vinaya. Thanks for pointing out. Metta, Sukin -----Original Message----- From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 9:24 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Sukin, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" wrote: > Dear Sarah and Dharam, >In fact not only I do not believe that there are no enlightened >individuals outside the teachings of Buddha, I do not .. --------------- So you believe that there are enlightened individuals outside the teachings of Buddha? smallchap 20712 From: Sukinderpal Date: Thu Mar 27, 2003 11:30pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Chris, Thanks for the encouragement, even if message reached me indirectly. :-) Mettta, Sukin -----Original Message----- From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 4:05 AM To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com Subject: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear James, and all, I was just about to send an email expressing my gratitiude to Sukin for what I thought was a wonderful post, when your post arrived expressing exactly the opposite sentiments. This is quite confusing to some of us (well, me, at least), and, no doubt other beginners. Members of this group have provided me with the clearest explanation of reality and truth, and stated this is as the Buddha taught it. Always whenever there were doubts or questions, they have said "Check with the Tipitaka, check with the Teachings of the Blessed One". I am aware of some difference between formal meditators and those who see the Teachings as not requiring sitting meditation, but mostly both groups seem to agree on things like 'the present moment', 'watching what arises at the sense doors', 'knowing the difference between realities and concepts', and 'the difference between nama and rupa'. I do not understand your constant vehement opposition. I wonder if you could give some Sutta references regarding the statements in your post to Sukin - otherwise it may seem to some to be just your own view? metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "buddhatrue" wrote: > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Sukinderpal Singh Narula" > wrote: > > Dear Sarah and Dharam, > > > > Thanks so much for this Sarah, as Dharam himself once said, you > are > > Hi Sukin, > > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. > > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't matter > if your intention is to notice reality during everyday experience or > to notice reality during meditation, there is still that present > 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is no `you', right? > Please...you have taken a subtle and profound teaching of the Lord > Buddha and turned it into a cartoon, a caricature of what it really > is. Just admit that you can have intention, even without a permanent > self. It doesn't matter if you can't understand that or how that > occurs, you weren't meant to until > you become enlightened. Stop twisting the teachings of the Lord > Buddha. Meditation isn't ignorance, meditation is liberation. > > Metta, James 20713 From: kenhowardau Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 0:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi James, You wrote; ------------- > First, this number is far too high. It is not even in the ballpark of trillions occurring every second. That would be so many and so fast that probably all of our heads would explode! ;-) -------------------- Yes, from the perspective of conventional science, the Dhamma does have its funny side. I think your point is, how can we believe that the brain and nervous system can handle so much information in so little time? I really don't think it is a question of brain power; I think, even if we were to suffer brain damage with severe impairment to our faculties, namas and rupas would continue to rise and fall unabated. Even if we were to be reborn in the animal world with the brain of a gnat, ultimate existence would be the same rapid flow of dhammas. --------------------- > Not only that, time isn't a constant, it is relative. You can't say that trillions occur every second when there isn't even such a thing as a second. > Quite literally, there could be one citta which lasts in duration for 10 billion years…the time doesn't matter. > ----------- I could be wrong, but I think the only relevance of the so-called speed of dhammas, is that there are more dhammas than there are concepts. While one concept is being developed, billions (thousands?) of cittas and their objects come and go. So we are left with the concept of a single object that can be seen, touched and smelt, etc., even though none of the experienced dhammas was really like that. ------------- > Additionally, the frequency of these cittas slows down considerably during meditation. That is one reason why it is beneficial to meditate. > -------------- If that was the way it worked, then of course, it would be beneficial to meditate. But is there anything in the Pali Canon about slowing down dhammas? I'm sure nothing to that effect has been cited on dsg. By the way, does the speed of perception slow down at the same rate as the speed of its object :-) --------------- > Ummm…I hate to be obvious, but here are the steps that lead to and condition vipassana: 1. Learn how to do it, 2. Make the decision to do it, 3. Set aside some time to do it, 4. Do it. Those steps seem pretty simple to me. What exactly do you not know?) > -------------- If the Buddha had taught a formal vipassana practice -- something that could be performed at a specific place and time -- then I agree, we should all be doing it. Whether we did in fact meditate, would depend on the presence or absence of the relevant conditions. Presumably, our belief in the efficacy of formal practice would be a major condition for that behaviour. (as it is now with you.) -------------- > The Buddha didn't give pep talks or assume that anyone would need them. He simply said, "Listen Monks, this is what you are to do. Find a quiet spot, sit down, and direct your attention to the breath…" > ---------------- I know you are talking about motivation here, but I can't resist making a point about jhana: Have you read the threads on the four ways of practising Dhamma? Three of the four involve the cultivation of jhana, so there are thousands of references to jhana in the Tipitaka. It is important to be able to distinguish them from references to vipassana. The cultivation of jhana is appropriate for only a tiny minority of beings. I think you will find the Buddha recommended it only for those of his followers who had already dedicated a thousand or so previous lifetimes to the preliminary practice.(That's how complicated and difficult the real jhana is.) While it is a sign of vast accumulations of detachment, it is not, of itself, necessary for enlightenment. For me, the appropriate way to enlightenment is to develop vipassana on its own. So, I have no intention of concentrating on the breath (the most difficult of all forms of jhana practice). -------------- ...... > Motives are not the deciding factor you seem to believe they are, and motives change. The point is just to do the practice and not worry about motives. > ------------- I appreciate the wisdom in not worrying about past motives but the present motive is different; we must attend to it with the greatest urgency. Again, there is no WE who can attend with urgency -- or with anything else. The Buddha taught that there are only dhammas and so, it is conditioned, kusala dhammas, that must attend with urgency. --------------- . . . > You appear to be giving a lofty status to vipassana that would make it impossible for anyone to do it unless already enlightened. That is putting the cart before the horse, to use a cliché ;-) > ----------------- In conventional thinking, the Middle Way is an unsolvable paradox. E.g., the Buddha said that he had crossed the flood, "not by striving and not by standing still." Then how? It doesn't make sense. But in terms of paramattha dhammas, it is perfectly sensible and straight forward. Path Consciousness arose by conditions and those conditions are explained in painstaking detail (in the Abhidhamma especially) --------------- . . . > I hope you realize that what you are stating here is in opposition to the Third Noble Truth, that suffering can be eliminated. > ------------- I appreciate your warning and maybe I do tend to err on the side of "standing still." In return, I should warn you against "striving." Kind regards, Ken H 20714 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 0:47am Subject: RE: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Dear Howard, You are definitely one of the posters that give people wonder if DSG members actually sleep... :-) > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 PM > > the point, I am not aware of the Buddha having > indicated anywhere in any > sutta that mindstates or perceptual states > occurred as discrete quanta. By discrete quanta, I assume you meant that the abhiddhama says that there is a mind moment, one following one another. What do you think the Buddha means, then, when he say consciousness is impermanent, and is suffering (must fall away)? What falls away? When the states of attachment arise and fall away, followed by those of anger. Are these attachments and anger separate, or they are concomitants of one another? I am just wondering because you said "fuzzy". > Frankly, I think it likely that the > compliers of the Abhidhamma > took a conventional, informal, fuzzy notion of > mindstate, and came up with a > concept of a discrete, encapsulated, mind-moment > to which they applied a > general word for mind, 'citta' (much like > 'nama'), in a new and innovative > (or, if one wishes, distorted) way. Are you saying (or edging toward) that each mind moment is independent of one another (according to the abhidhamma)? Although the abhidhamma talks about the distinct characteristics about the citta and the cetasikas, so that people can understand their differences (like kindness, and attachment, of which some are very close to one another). I don't think it is ever meant to be taken as being encapsulated, not conditioned by one another. Although the abhidhamma explains the vedanas in details, sounding in some spot as if vedana could exist by itself, or sounding as if vedana is of one type, but in other places, the abhidhamma also discusses how the same kind of vedana (sukha, for example) varies among different cittas. For example, sukha vedana in akusala, and sukha vedana in kusala, are different. Sukha vedana in sensuous (born out of the 5 senses) plane is different from that in the rupa (jhana) plane. Clearly, the vedana cetasikas (or khandha, if you prefer) are conditioned by its concomitant (sanna, sankhara, vinnana). Knowing these allows one to know how inter-related the mental states are, as well as to give one opportunity to verify such intricate teaching. > I personally find the use of 'citta' for a > state of mind which arises > on any occasion that either a new object of > dicernment arises or the set of > mental functions concomitant to the discerning of > that object changes by the > loss/gain/replacement of one member function to > be a useful and reasonably > well defined one. The discernment during jhana is said to take only one object (no changes during Jhana), and in many cases, the co-committants will be relatively identical (except when moving higher or lower in jhana levels). Do you say such jhana citta (which is said to last up to 7 days an 7 nights for a human) is a single citta (only one object, relatively the same concomitant)? > It may > well be that "the edges are > fuzzy." It may well be that the the way things > really are is much more of a > fuzzy continuum than a flow of quanta. Maybe one > way, maybe the other. But, > so far as I know, the Buddha spoke of none of > this in the suttas. > You would be right in your assessment that Abhidhamma doesn't teach fuzzy states. Kusala is kusala and is never mixed with akusala, and the same for akusala with akusala (like anger cannot co-arise with attachment). It appears fuzzy only because the speed of the states, and the fact that they can alternate. In my opinion, abhidhamma teaches, very explicitly, about the dhamma. For certain people, it may not be obvious what the Buddha really teaches (for example, although a "Buddhist", I had never understood what he teaches about the kandhas until I begin to understand from studying the abhidhamma). It makes known the dhamma (the kandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, etc) as they truly are: conditioned dhamma, not beings, not self. The processes are really nice theoretically, and explain many things, but on the other hand, how true it is cannot be known (except to perhaps a very few). However, that doesn't matter: the most important teachings are those that are knowable to us. A. Sujin kept reminding us (her students, of course!) that we need to develop our own wisdom (instead of just repeating stories from others), and wisdom takes what is true as its object, and hence, wisdom can only be developed having the objects that can be known (to the wisdom), not those that cannot. kom 20715 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:53am Subject: Aghata - Hatred Dear Group, I am trying to find another translation of the Aghata Sutta 'Hatred' Anguttara Nikaya X.80 Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming system used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? metta, Christine 20716 From: bodhi2500 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:01am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Chris Anguttara Nikaya X.80 ,Aghata Sutta,Hatred, would be Anguttara Nikaya,Dasakanipata(book of tens),sutta #80...which at the Metta site would be Anguttara Nikaya, Dasakanipata, Sutta #10 in the Akankhavaggo. Take Care Steve --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > I am trying to find another translation of > Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming system > used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html > and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ > > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? > > metta, > Christine 20717 From: abhidhammika Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:17am Subject: Abhidhamma For Kids By Kom: re: non-self Dear Kom How are you? Your explantion of non-self for Starkid Ki and Philip turned out to be Abhidhamma For Kids. I have no doubt about the fact that the kids (as well as grown-ups) would be able to enjoy the taste of non-self by the native expressive power of Abhidhamma, which is designed as an ultimate tool for deconstruction of the very nucleus of self-view and person-view. When self-view and person-view are thus abhidhammically vanished from the mind, the right view emerges. In short, the goal of unique insight (vipassanaa) is reached via Abhidhamma, the way of ultimate deconstruction. With kind regards, Suan http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: Dear Star Kid Ki Yong & Philip, The understanding of non-self is hard, I think I should warn you up-front. When you see your friend, you are happy, are you not? When you see somebody you don't like, sometimes you are unhappy, isn't that true? You become happy and unhappy because you see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or think about something, not because you *are* happy or *are* unhappy. The happy or unhappy feeling arise because of the experience that you are having, and your past impression about those experiences. This is one of the reasons why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. When you are happy, don't you wish your happiness would last forever? But it *never* lasts forever, does it? As soon as you run into something you don't like, you can become unhappy again. You can see that people aren't happy or unhappy all the time: a happy person will be unhappy sometimes, and an unhappy person is happy sometimes. This is the second reason why happiness and unhappiness are said to be non-self. If you don't control happy or unhappy feelings, i.e. you can't make them come and go at will, do you own these feelings? If you are not happy or unhappy all the time, are you a happy or an unhappy person? This is the reason we say happiness and unhappiness are not ours, and we are not those feelings: the happiness and unhappiness come and go by their own conditions, they are non-self. This is also the same with other things you may think of being yours: anger, kindness, jealousy, ability to think, compassion, wisdom, physical strength. You can't make all these things come and go at will, and they don't last forever. All of these things are non-self. It is fantastic to ask these questions because rarely, there is a person who can answer these questions, especially in a way that we can understand. The understanding of these questions helps us know ourselves better (that we are not happy, or unhappy: happiness and unhappiness come and go because of their conditions), and ultimately, the Buddhist believe that the understanding will lead us toward the cessation of suffering. We can't make anybody believe or disbelieve in anything we say. A wise person tells the truth that is useful to other persons, and it really depends on the other persons' past impression of what is said that lead the persons to believe or disbelieve. Even the wisest person cannot control the feelings of others---the feelings, in ourselves or others, are non-self. kom 20718 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 6:28am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: < snip > In conventional thinking, the Middle Way is an unsolvable paradox. E.g., the Buddha said that he had crossed the flood, "not by striving and not by standing still." KKT: I like this expression very much. Could you give me the reference in what sutta it is found. Thanks. KKT 20719 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:07am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi James, Thanks for your letter. I was expecting to receive a response such as this one day. I know I have been stating quite boldly against formal practice that I felt that it must not feel too pleasant to read it for someone who believes in it. A couple of months ago I wrote a little bit suggesting the same attitude on another list, but soon after I decided never to do it again since most members on that list engaged in formal practice. Here on dsg it is different, so I sometimes take advantage of the situation, even though I also wonder if I am not making the moderators feel uneasy ;-). (James: Believe it or not, my feelings of alarm are not for myself. My feelings of alarm are for you and those who are convinced by you. With all the wrong teachings out there, all the blind alleys, all the selfish people, the one thing that is pure and brilliant, the one thing that offers comfort and truth, is the Buddhadhamma. When I see that one thing being turned into something that it is not, infected if you will, and then presented so convincingly that others are going to swallow it, I naturally become alarmed. I can't help that. I don't want to make you feel unwelcome to this group, you fit right in. Believe me, most of the outspoken members are cut from the same cloth. I am the one who doesn't quite fit in with this group, but they keep me around because I make it lively. ;-) My response is interspersed between yours. > These are some interesting views you have, but I have to inform you > that they aren't Buddhism. They are not based on anything the > Buddha taught. If they are based on the Abhidhamma, they are not > based on what the Buddha taught. You are stuck in a web of false > views about Buddhist practice and reality. I think it is easy to be 'stuck in a web of false view' because there is still so much ignorance and yearning for security of one form or the other. If it is not in wealth, company or some idealistic activity, then it is very likely be on some conclusions we make about the nature of reality. It is hard to have an attitude of detachment even a little bit let alone every step of the way towards ultimate liberation. (James: This is a very smooth paragraph, but I don't feel you really know what this means. You have discovered what to say that will get you a favorable response from others, but it doesn't mean anything to you.) My views are mostly based on second, third and fourth hand interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, but slowly confidence grows as I reflect on what has been heard, all seeming more true as compared to other interpretations. But if you say that my expressed views are not what the Buddha taught, please let me know what the correct views are. (James: Sukin, I don't mind explaining basic Buddhist concepts to the Star Kids because they genuinely want to know. You really don't want to know what I have to say; you want me to say something so that you can smoothly turn it. You want me to tire myself by basically arguing with myself…that has worked for you many times I am sure. If knowing `Right Mindfulness' and `Right Concentration' from the Eightfold Path isn't enough to convince you, nothing that I have to say will either. Actually, maybe you are starting to convince me...???) > You are proposing what could be called `The Practice of Non- > Practice', and it is quite twisted in its approach. It doesn't > matter if your intention is to notice reality during everyday > experience or to notice reality during meditation, there is still > that present 'intention'. Who has that intention? There is > no `you', right? I think we both agree that there is no 'self' behind even intention, so lets not bring this up. My point is intention can be either kusala or akusala depending on the accompanying mental factors. Having the intention of doing good, have metta, grow in understanding or to attain final liberation does not automatically make it kusala. Most of mankind has such aspirations, how many reach the goal? I think we are so conditioned by such concepts as love, compassion, doing good, liberation etc, that we become captivated by the mere 'thinking' about them. And there is so much identification with these 'good' qualities, that we often think wishing to actualize them as being 'enough' motivating factor. Of course there are varying degrees supported by varying views of each person's own religious philosophy, but "conscious intention" still seems to be the main motivating force. (James: Yea, you're right. Wanting to do good, be good, and teach good is just so overrated nowadays. I think we should all just do and think whatever our heart desires…no use fighting it. If other people get stepped on along the way, so much the better. Serves them right for letting themselves get stepped on. They should have been more mindful.) My favourite quote by Rob K. from Thein Nyun, >>"Because the functions of the elements give rise to the concepts of continuity, collection and form, the ideas arise: 1)the initial effort that has to be exerted when a deed is about to be performed and 2) the care that has to be taken while the deed is being performed to its completion and this leads to the subsequent ideas 3)"I can perform" and 4) "I can feel". Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. Thus these four imaginary characteristic functions of being have bought about a deep-rooted belief in their existence. But the elements have not the time or span of duration to carry out such functions.<< This gives me an idea of how hard it is to independently arive at the truth of anatta. And how necessary it is to have heard the teachings before in previous lifetimes. We are caught in the above process, our intuition is to pursue further in the same direction until the answer has been got. This is the path the Buddha took before he attained enlightenment, but he realized because previous accumulations, that this was not the direction to take. He did not go beyond jhana in the same direction, he simply realized that he had been looking in the wrong way. I know this is speculative, but it shows the difference in view as compared to those people who conclude that Buddha "sat" so we also must "sit". (James: Yea, you're right. Why bother to achieve anything? So what that meditation worked for the Buddha, we don't need to follow that example. Who needs all that silly, bellybutton contemplation, hogwash? But we mustn't forget that we are Buddhists and follow the teachings of the Buddha. That is really important. We just don't have to really do what he taught. It is such a bother…let's go shopping instead. That is a lot more fun.) Back to intention, given that different people have different understandings about sitting or not sitting, should the actiivity then be given priority over understanding the 'real motive' and intention? If so, why focus on intention? Isn't it more important to develop understanding? And because we realize that we are so deluded and that we often deceive ourselves, that the Buddha has laid out a detailed description of the realities that we encounter again and again in the course of our lives, should we not carefully study and consider what he taught? (James: Yea, the Buddha wrote it all out for us to read and consider. That was really nice of him. Now I can just sit in my chair, in front of my computer, and read, study and consider myself all the way to enlightenment. No, wait, that would be wanting something and then the whole thing would be ruined. Hmmm…I'll get back to you on this one. I'm sure if I think real hard I can figure out a solution.) I believe that the Dhamma is good in the beginning, the middle and the end. Between them there is absolutely no contradiction. Pariyatti, patipatti and pativedha all reflect the same underlying truth, only each with the corresponding level of penetration. Some have suggested that one must first practice ritualisticaly, only when enlightenment has been reached can one do away with rituals. But this is to say that the beginning level of dhamma contradicts the latter level. The Sotapanna does not see the need to do away with ritual practice, he realizes that it is not the way whether now, before or later. (James: Yea, you have a good point here. There aren't any differences between the beginning, middle, and end of Buddhist practice. I see this truth bears itself out in life also. Everything is the same. Same, same, same. The end of this letter is just the same as the beginning, middle and end. You are the same as when you were born, were a teenager, and now an adult. I wish more people could see how everything is the same and never changes. That would make life so much easier to understand.) I will skip commenting on the rest of your post, as I think this is already too long. Look forward to your response. (James: Well, I'm not quite sure if you would look forward to this response, but that is okay. You have me convinced.) Metta, Sukin. Metta, James 20720 From: Sukinderpal Singh Narula Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) > (James: Well, I'm not quite sure if you would look forward to this > response, but that is okay. You have me convinced.) Hi James, No James I didn't look forward to such a response. I think I will just back off from this. For now I will just read your posts and the response of other members to them. Maybe when I have developed more patience, metta and understanding, I might write to you again. Sukin 20721 From: nidive Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:42am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi Ken H, > Those experiences are taking place by the trillion, every > second. In amongst them, we experience illusory > realities (concepts). As uninstructed worldlings, we > don't have the wisdom to tell them apart. Are you truly 'uninstructed' given the Dhamma? > I'm happy to know that vipassana development is not a matter > of mastering a technique. As far as I know, the technique leading to enlightenment that needs to be mastered is as follows: "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has (A) abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has (B) well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has (C) duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/digha/dn16.html > Fair enough, but is that just your opinion? Until > enlightenment, we are pretty much restricted to matters > of opinion. The Suttas are open to a variety of them; as > is seen even in this small ds-group. Your opinion is > valid and so is mine, but I think the opinions of the > ancient commentators would the most beneficial to obtain. > Can any of the present dhammas dictate which dhammas will > arise next? I don't think so. The nature of a sense-door > citta, for example, is likely to be governed by kamma > accumulated from the very, very distant past. Even a > Buddha has to experience dhammas that are 'burdensome.' "Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect. And what are fabrications? There are these six classes of intention: intention aimed at sights, sounds, smells, tastes, tactile sensations, & ideas. These are called fabrications. "And why do you call them 'fabrications'? Because they fabricate fabricated things, thus they are called 'fabrications.' What do they fabricate into a fabricated thing? From form-ness, they fabricate form into a fabricated thing. From feeling-ness, they fabricate feeling into a fabricated thing. From perception-hood...From fabrication-hood...From consciousness-hood, they fabricate consciousness into a fabricated thing. Because they fabricate fabricated things, they are called fabrications. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/study/kamma.html "[Mental] fabrications are not self... [Thanissaro Bhikkhu - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059.html "Bhikkhus, determinations are not-self... [Ñanamoli Thera - Anatta-lakkhana Sutta] http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn22-059a.html Fabrications (or determinations) is one of the five aggregates. It seems that you have not properly understood this aggregate well. Whatever self that is perceived within as the controller is not-self. This self that is perceived within arises and falls away. It is merely a cetasika that comes and goes. When this "self" cetasika arises in conjunction with the "cetana" cetasika, the perception of or belief in a controller doing the controlling arises. Seeing the difference between these two cetasikas is very important. > Thanks for answering my question, but what you have > quoted should not be seen as a prescribed course of action. It bears repeating: "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has (A) abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has (B) well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has (C) duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." Regards, NEO Swee Boon 20722 From: Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi, Kom - In a message dated 3/28/03 3:52:25 AM Eastern Standard Time, kom@a... writes: > Dear Howard, > > You are definitely one of the posters that give people wonder if DSG > members actually sleep... :-) ------------------------------------------- Howard: Shhh! I'm sleeping!! ;-)) ------------------------------------------ > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > >Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2003 11:10 PM > > > > >the point, I am not aware of the Buddha having > >indicated anywhere in any > >sutta that mindstates or perceptual states > >occurred as discrete quanta. > > By discrete quanta, I assume you meant that the abhiddhama says that there > is a mind moment, one following one another. What do you think the Buddha > means, then, when he say consciousness is impermanent, and is suffering > (must fall away)? What falls away? When the states of attachment arise > and fall away, followed by those of anger. Are these attachments and anger > separate, or they are concomitants of one another? I am just wondering > because you said "fuzzy". > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: Something is impermanent if it does not remain indefinitely - on one occasion it is present, and at a later time it no longer is. This does *not* imply that there is a point-moment which is the last for it: (Even by classical, non-fuzzy mathematics there are intervals on the real line open at the right end. Moreover, a discrete, non-fuzzy, model is just that, a model. It may or may not truly apply.) ------------------------------------------------- > > >Frankly, I think it likely that the > >compliers [I meant "compilers", of course] of the Abhidhamma > >took a conventional, informal, fuzzy notion of > >mindstate, and came up with a > >concept of a discrete, encapsulated, mind-moment > >to which they applied a > >general word for mind, 'citta' (much like > >'nama'), in a new and innovative > >(or, if one wishes, distorted) way. > > Are you saying (or edging toward) that each mind moment is independent of > one another (according to the abhidhamma)? > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: No. ------------------------------------------------------- > Although the abhidhamma talks about the distinct characteristics about the citta > and the cetasikas, so that people can understand their differences (like > kindness, and attachment, of which some are very close to one another). I > don't think it is ever meant to be taken as being encapsulated, not > conditioned by one another. Although the abhidhamma explains the vedanas > in details, sounding in some spot as if vedana could exist by itself, or > sounding as if vedana is of one type, but in other places, the abhidhamma > also discusses how the same kind of vedana (sukha, for example) varies > among different cittas. For example, sukha vedana in akusala, and sukha > vedana in kusala, are different. Sukha vedana in sensuous (born out of the > 5 senses) plane is different from that in the rupa (jhana) plane. Clearly, > the vedana cetasikas (or khandha, if you prefer) are conditioned by its > concomitant (sanna, sankhara, vinnana). Knowing these allows one to know > how inter-related the mental states are, as well as to give one opportunity > to verify such intricate teaching. > > > I personally find the use of 'citta' for a > >state of mind which arises > >on any occasion that either a new object of > >dicernment [should be "discernment"] arises or the set of > >mental functions concomitant to the discerning of > >that object changes by the > >loss/gain/replacement of one member function to > >be a useful and reasonably > >well defined one. > > The discernment during jhana is said to take only one object (no changes > during Jhana), and in many cases, the co-committants will be relatively > identical (except when moving higher or lower in jhana levels). Do you say > such jhana citta (which is said to last up to 7 days an 7 nights for a > human) is a single citta (only one object, relatively the same > concomitant)? > -------------------------------------------------- Howard: First of all, I've never seen anything along the lines of "one jhana - one citta" in any sutta. Is it in the Abhidhamma, itself? What I *have* seen in the suttas is several instances of the Buddha describing how, while in the 4th absorption, he turned his attention to a variety of things, including, for example, the dying and being born of beings, which suggests that an absorptive state can comprise a multitude of jhanas. Secondly, what is a citta if not a mindstate characterized by the discernment of a single arammana accompanied by a specific set of cetasikas associated with that same arammana? --------------------------------------------------------- > > >It may > >well be that "the edges are > >fuzzy." It may well be that the the way things > >really are is much more of a > >fuzzy continuum than a flow of quanta. Maybe one > >way, maybe the other. But, > >so far as I know, the Buddha spoke of none of > >this in the suttas. > > > > You would be right in your assessment that Abhidhamma doesn't teach fuzzy > states. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Well, is that really so? Does the Abhidhamma, itself, and not the commentaries, commit itself to sharp occurrence-boundaries, or does it allow of gradations, gradual moving away from one state into another? It seems to me that the notion of arising, maintaining, and dissolution stages of a citta already points somewhat in this direction of non-discreteness. Kalupahana, for one, distinguishes between the Abhidhamma and commentaries on this issue. I, of course, speak out of ignorance of what is said in the Abhidhamma, itself, because I have no English-language translation of any of it. Now *there* would be a worthwhile project for scholarly Abhidhamma officienados - translate the Abhidhamma Pitaka into a English (or French) in a manner similar to what Bhikkhus Bodhi and ~Nanamoli, and Maurice Walshe have done with the Sutta Pitaka through Wisdom Publications. ------------------------------------------------------ > Kusala is kusala and is never mixed with akusala, and the same for akusala with > akusala (like anger cannot co-arise with attachment). It appears fuzzy only > because the speed of the states, and the fact that they can alternate. > > In my opinion, abhidhamma teaches, very explicitly, about the dhamma. For > certain people, it may not be obvious what the Buddha really teaches (for > example, although a "Buddhist", I had never understood what he teaches > about the kandhas until I begin to understand from studying the > abhidhamma). It makes known the dhamma (the kandhas, ayatanas, dhatus, > etc) as they truly are: conditioned dhamma, not beings, not self. The > processes are really nice theoretically, and explain many things, but on > the other hand, how true it is cannot be known (except to perhaps a very > few). However, that doesn't matter: the most important teachings are those > that are knowable to us. A. Sujin kept reminding us (her students, of > course!) that we need to develop our own wisdom (instead of just repeating > stories from others), and wisdom takes what is true as its object, and > hence, wisdom can only be developed having the objects that can be known > (to the wisdom), not those that cannot. > ------------------------------------------------------ Howard: The Abhidhamma, as I have come across it through secondary and tertiary sources, provides a very nice conceptual framework for me to think about the Dhamma. But in my opinion, it is only what I read in the Sutta Pitaka that I am reasonably confident in taking as the Buddhavacana. -------------------------------------------------------- > > kom > =========================== With metta (sharp even at the edges! ;-), 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) 20723 From: nina van gorkom Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: what is dhamma Dear Dharam and all, You said something I really like: "Disagreeing does not have to be disagreeable". This is Indian wisdom to me. I feel very comfortable with this. It all comes back to what Christine said: we have to look inside, consider our own citta. We like to share what we learnt with others, and it depends on others whether it appeals to them or not. How can we know their accumulations from past lives? You were talking of mental baggage, it should not be a problem at all. We all come from different backgrounds, religious or not. We should not have any idea of having to break these off, this belongs to our accumulations. No problem, development should go very gently. When I first came to A. Sujin, I went to the temple on Saturday and to the church (catholic) on Sunday. No problem. A. Sujin would never say do this, or don't do that. Now as to your questions: op 24-03-2003 17:54 schreef bodhi342 op bodhi342@y...:> > > N: She (A. Sujin) also reminded me: > ³There is no Lodewijk, there is just our own world of thinking, > thinking of Lodewijk. When we were born we were alone. When seeing, > we are alone, there is just citta that sees. We are alone because > there is no self. Seeing arises and then thinking of the world of > concepts and this hides the reality of seeing, visible object and the > other realities.²> Dharam, do you find this hard to swallow? > > Dh: Yes, Nina, very hard indeed! It runs counter to the most basic of > (conventional?) understanding/experience/knowledge. Yes, we are born > alone, we die alone, and some may live alone too. However, > rejection of the world, rejection of life itself, is indeed hard to > swallow. Why is it hard? The 'proper' answer is because of > clinging to the idea of self. Okay. Nina: How long did I have to listen to A. Sujin to begin to understand this. It takes so long. It has to sink in little by little. You say, "rejection of the world, rejection of life itself, is indeed hard to swallow. " I try to explain this a little more. We do not reject the world, our social life, but we see it differently. We can test for ourselves whether it is beneficial or not. Through the Buddha's teachings, all three parts, not just Abhidhamma, we come to have a more dynamic vision of life: this is contrary to a static way. Life goes on as usual but, we gain more understanding of the different moments of which life consists. Life is in a moment. An example: metta, loving kindness or friendship. When we were on a trip with A. Sujin and Dhamma friends in India, we said: now we go back to our different countries, we shall be lonely. Here we have to remember what A. Sujin said about metta: friendship is with the citta, it depends on our citta, not on persons or their reactions. Then we are less disturbed by their reactions or by feeling lonely. We can see the difference between clinging to persons and developing true metta, without clinging to persons, and that is real, genuine friendship. But difficult, and of course, defilements get the better of us very often. My father: life becomes very complicated when I think of a whole story, or his person, his background. But there can be different moments: thinking with akusala or with metta. When there can be metta with the citta, it does not matter whether I help my father or someone else. True metta does not select any person. Don't you find this practical? It can be applied. But I do not pretend that it is easy. A. Sujin often reminds us: do not expect anything. Such a good lesson, we expect too much from others, affection, appreciation, and that is clinging. This point she stressed with regard to the development of the perfections. The follow up is lacking most of the time, but at least we know the direction into which we should go. And, very beneficial: we realize more than before when defilements arise. A good pointer. Everything should proceed very naturally and gently. But the Dhamma gives us a new approach to life: before it was always: the person, the situation, what is outside . Now it becomes more: what is going on inside: how is the citta. You said: it is a revolution to > completely negate self (mine or that of others). This negation seems > to me to be a mental construct, itself a concept that one can > possibly come to accept, given sufficient belief and concentration on > such a view. Is it verifiable? N: Do not feel it as a revolution, it is understanding that grows in the course of many lives. It is understanding that can eventually realize the truth of non-self. It has not to do with belief or concentration, or anything you have to do yourself. I like to quote what Kom wrote to a starkid: > Dh: I am afraid, I am completely with Lodewijk, on this one, and I must > say I do assume he exists. He exists, just like your father does. > Is it possible to lead a social life without accepting the existence > of yourself and others? Is it honest to lead a social life, if one > rejects the existence of others? N: I hope I explained this above. Not a matter of rejecting anything, but a matter of seeing life just in a moment. As Kom wrote: not the person. Not self. I asked A. Sujin once whether she was tired. Answer: just a moment. If we cling to a whole story of being tired, and I am so tried, lots of akusala comes in. It is natural that many moments we think of story, situation and person, but in between we can consider (Rob K calls this: thinking in the present moment) different realities, namas and rúpas. I have to explain a great deal more about this. It is a matter of beginning to understand, laying the groundwork, this forms up conditions for the arising of sati and panna which directly understands. Now this in itself needs more explanation, impossible to say all in one post. It is apt to arouse misunderstandings. Dh: You may say, why not go the whole > hog? That does not appear to be the middle-path choice. > Talking about middle-path, if everything is conditioned, why did the > Buddha advise choosing the middle alternative? N: We should understand more what the middle path is first. I think it is what I said above. Going gently, naturally, but surely. Nina. 20724 From: Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:07am Subject: Typo Re: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi again, Kom - In a message dated 3/28/03 12:09:04 PM Eastern Standard Time, upasaka@a... writes: > What I *have* seen > in the suttas is several instances of the Buddha describing how, while in > the > 4th absorption, he turned his attention to a variety of things, including, > for example, the dying and being born of beings, which suggests that an > absorptive state can comprise a multitude of jhanas. > ========================== The last word in the foregoing was meant to be 'cittas'. 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) 20725 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 10:46am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello KKT, I think KenH is referring to the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya Ch. 1 Book 1 '1 Devatasamyutta I Connected Discourses with Devatas: A Reed 1 (1) Crossing the Flood' p.89 of Bhikkhu Bodhi trans. Thus have I heard, On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. Then, when the night had advanced, a certain devata of stunning beauty, illuminating the entire Jeta's grove, approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he paid homage to the Blessed One, stood to one side, and said to him: "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." {The devata:} 1. "After a long time at last I see A brahmin who is fully quenched, Who by not halting, not straining, Has crossed over attachment to the world." This is what that devata said. The Teacher approved. Then that devata, thinking, "The Teacher has approved of me, " paid homage to the Blesed One and, keeping him on the right, disappeared right there. As well, there is Thanissaro Bhikkhus's translation at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01-001.html#n1 Here the Devata is described as a 'she'. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Ken, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > wrote: > > < snip > > > In conventional thinking, the Middle Way is an unsolvable > paradox. E.g., the Buddha said that he had crossed the > flood, "not by striving and not by standing still." > > > > > KKT: I like this expression > very much. Could you give me > the reference in what sutta > it is found. Thanks. > > > KKT 20726 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:01am Subject: Re: Abhidhamma For Kids By Kom: re: non-self Hi Suan, I am interested to know what you mean by self-view and how you define it. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Dear Kom > > How are you? > > Your explantion of non-self for Starkid Ki and Philip turned out to > be Abhidhamma For Kids. > > I have no doubt about the fact that the kids (as well as grown-ups) > would be able to enjoy the taste of non-self by the native expressive > power of Abhidhamma, which is designed as an ultimate tool for > deconstruction of the very nucleus of self-view and person-view. > > When self-view and person-view are thus abhidhammically vanished from > the mind, the right view emerges. In short, the goal of unique > insight (vipassanaa) is reached via Abhidhamma, the way of ultimate > deconstruction. > > With kind regards, > > Suan > > http://www.bodhiology.org > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" > wrote: > > Dear Star Kid Ki Yong & Philip, > > The understanding of non-self is hard, I think I should warn > you up-front. > > When you see your friend, you are happy, are you not? When > you see somebody you don't like, sometimes you are unhappy, > isn't that true? You become happy and unhappy because you > see, hear, taste, touch, smell, or think about something, > not because you *are* happy or *are* unhappy. The happy or > unhappy feeling arise because of the experience that you are > having, and your past impression about those experiences. > This is one of the reasons why happiness and unhappiness are > said to be non-self. > > When you are happy, don't you wish your happiness would last > forever? But it *never* lasts forever, does it? As soon as > you run into something you don't like, you can become > unhappy again. You can see that people aren't happy or > unhappy all the time: a happy person will be unhappy > sometimes, and an unhappy person is happy sometimes. This > is the second reason why happiness and unhappiness are said > to be non-self. > > If you don't control happy or unhappy feelings, i.e. you > can't make them come and go at will, do you own these > feelings? If you are not happy or unhappy all the time, are > you a happy or an unhappy person? This is the reason we say > happiness and unhappiness are not ours, and we are not those > feelings: the happiness and unhappiness come and go by their > own conditions, they are non-self. > > This is also the same with other things you may think of > being yours: anger, kindness, jealousy, ability to think, > compassion, wisdom, physical strength. You can't make all > these things come and go at will, and they don't last > forever. All of these things are non-self. > > It is fantastic to ask these questions because rarely, there > is a person who can answer these questions, especially in a > way that we can understand. The understanding of these > questions helps us know ourselves better (that we are not > happy, or unhappy: happiness and unhappiness come and go > because of their conditions), and ultimately, the Buddhist > believe that the understanding will lead us toward the > cessation of suffering. > > We can't make anybody believe or disbelieve in anything we > say. A wise person tells the truth that is useful to other > persons, and it really depends on the other persons' past > impression of what is said that lead the persons to believe > or disbelieve. Even the wisest person cannot control the > feelings of others---the feelings, in ourselves or others, > are non-self. > > kom 20727 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:12am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi NEO Swee Boon, I think you run into a contradiction by saying self is not self. I think you also run into the self-view that self is a cetasika that comes and goes. Regards, Victor [snip] > Whatever self that is perceived within as the controller is not- self. > This self that is perceived within arises and falls away. It is merely > a cetasika that comes and goes. [snip] > Regards, > NEO Swee Boon 20728 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 11:39am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Christine, I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am trying to find another translation of the Aghata Sutta 'Hatred' > Anguttara Nikaya X.80 > Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming system > used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html > and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ > > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? > > metta, > Christine 20729 From: Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hi, Victor (and Swee Boon) - In a message dated 3/28/03 2:14:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi NEO Swee Boon, > > I think you run into a contradiction by saying self is not self. > > I think you also run into the self-view that self is a cetasika that > comes and goes. > > Regards, > Victor > ========================== I took Swee Boon's first mention of 'self', the "cetasika self" to mean something that is mistakenly perceived as self, but is not. I did not take him to be saying that there *is* a self which is not-self, certainly a contradiction, but only that whatever seems to be self is merely an impermanent, conditioned dhamma. Perhaps it would have been clearer had he used double quotes around the first use of the word 'self', as follows: << Whatever "self" that is perceived within as the controller is not-self. This "self" that is perceived within arises and falls away. It is merely a cetasika that comes and goes. >> We all sure do get hung up on language here, myself included. It's hard, of course, to go beyond specific terminology to the intended meaning, especially in the internet discussion group context. 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) 20730 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:03pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Hello KKT, I think KenH is referring to the very first sutta of the Samyutta Nikaya Ch. 1 Book 1 '1 Devatasamyutta I Connected Discourses with Devatas: A Reed 1 (1) Crossing the Flood' p.89 of Bhikkhu Bodhi trans. Thus have I heard, On one occasion the Blessed One was dwelling at Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. Then, when the night had advanced, a certain devata of stunning beauty, illuminating the entire Jeta's grove, approached the Blessed One. Having approached, he paid homage to the Blessed One, stood to one side, and said to him: "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." {The devata:} 1. "After a long time at last I see A brahmin who is fully quenched, Who by not halting, not straining, Has crossed over attachment to the world." This is what that devata said. The Teacher approved. Then that devata, thinking, "The Teacher has approved of me, " paid homage to the Blesed One and, keeping him on the right, disappeared right there. As well, there is Thanissaro Bhikkhus's translation at: http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01-001.html#n1 Here the Devata is described as a 'she'. metta, Christine KKT: Many thanks, Christine. This sutta is very beautiful. First the Buddha stated that << by not halting and by not straining >> He crossed the flood. We don't know if He made allusion that the flood here means << samsara >> But then the devata said: << After a long time at last I see A brahmin who is fully quenched, Who by not halting, not straining, Has crossed over attachment to the world >> and the Buddha approved. Therefore << by not halting and by not straining >> should be the key for the Buddhist << training >> Take this phrase as a koan :-)) Metta, KKT 20731 From: bodhi2500 Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 1:58pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa/Flood Hi ------------ How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I crossed the flood." "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and by not straining you crossed the flood?" "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I sank; but when I struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this way, friend, that by not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01-001.html ------------ To my understanding the above Sutta has a similar meaning to Anguttara Nikaya VI.55,Sona Sutta. > "Now what do you think, Sona. Before, when you were a house-dweller, were you skilled at playing the vina?" "Yes, lord." "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too taut, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord." "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were too loose, was your vina in tune & playable?" "No, lord." "And what do you think: when the strings of your vina were neither too taut nor too loose, but tuned (lit: 'established') to be right on pitch, was your vina in tune & playable?" "Yes, lord." "In the same way, Sona, over-aroused persistence leads to restlessness, overly slack persistence leads to laziness. Thus you should determine the right pitch for your persistence, attune ('penetrate,' 'ferret out') the pitch of the [five] faculties [to that], and there pick up your theme." http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an06-055.html Take care Steve 20732 From: christine_forsyth Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 2:13pm Subject: Dosa, Moha, Lobha Dear Group, I've been thinking about the three unwholesome roots - Dosa, Moha, Lobha Nobody likes Dosa (aversion, hatred) - neither those in whom it arises, nor those experiencing the behaviour of those in whom it arises. It doesn't feel good (increased heart rate, anger, worry, fear, sadness etc.), and it doesn't sound or look good. (harsh speech, frowning, flushed, tearful, shaking etc.) I don't think anybody would purposely seek out Dosa or encourage it to arise. But is Dosa always so easily recognisable? Perhaps there are some subtle forms of Dosa? Similarly, nobody would purposely seek out Moha/ Avijja - (delusion, ignorance) or encourage it to arise. And how would you? It covers understanding like an eiderdown. This is the least likely unwholesome root that someone would even be aware of having - we usually think *we* are on the right track, and it is the *others* who have 'wrong view'. I wonder what some examples of difficult to see Moha are? The Root that 'seems' the least harmful and even enjoyable, is Lobha/Tanha/ Raga - (greed, attachment, lust, craving). Mostly it is pleasant to experience in any form, it is desirable, it is addictive. I think someone has said that there can even be Lobha for Jhana, Lobha for calmness and concentration - hard to see it when the object is seemingly wholesome. What are some subtle forms of Lobha? Perhaps Lobha is more dangerous than Dosa because it is so subtle, deceptive and alluring? Just some thoughts, metta, Christine 20733 From: buddhatrue Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 3:11pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Hi James, > Hi Ken H, I won't go into great detail with this post because much of it has been covered in other posts. I just think the idea that there are trillions of cittas in a second is rather extreme and improvable (and I don't believe in `cittas', really, as they are described in the Abhidhamma [which I am assuming because I don't have access to an English version], I believe in more the idea of `peaks' in the main flow of brain function, like a cardiogram of the heart. It never completely stops, but it does peak. Additionally, the peaks can increase and decrease in frequency, just like the heart. I believe the heart and brain are similar in more ways than most think… do I have Tipitaka evidence for this? No, I can reach some conclusions myself because I meditate and investigate my mind…I don't go looking into a book for everything. As everyone keeps screaming, the suttas don't have all of the details. Well, there is a reason for that. The Buddha wanted us to find out some things for ourselves.). But, there is one section that you write that I find very interesting: "For me, the appropriate way to enlightenment is to develop vipassana on its own. So, I have no intention of concentrating on the breath (the most difficult of all forms of jhana practice)." First, how do you develop vipassana on its own? What does that mean? It was my understanding that vipassana required yogic meditation. Second, where did you get the information that breath was the most difficult of all jhana practice? I am not arguing, just interested. Regarding your last sentence, let me make something a little clear about me. Even though I strongly support meditation, that doesn't mean I am a fanatic. If you picture me as some kinda ascetic dressed in a loin cloth meditating for hours in a cave in the Arizona desert, you have the wrong idea ;-). I meditate, at the most, an hour each day, except during retreats. Then I meditate for about six to eight hours a day for three or ten days. Actually, I don't think I meditate enough, but that might change this summer. I hope to do a month-long retreat the month of June. And Ken, I wasn't criticizing your Buddhist practice, because I don't know your practice, I was just criticizing your unfounded/misdirected opposition to meditation. Metta, James 20734 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:38pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi Howard, > -----Original Message----- > From: upasaka@a... [mailto:upasaka@a...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 8:59 AM > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > Something is impermanent if it does not remain > indefinitely - on one > occasion it is present, and at a later time it no longer is. This > does *not* > imply that there is a point-moment which is the last for it: (Even by > classical, non-fuzzy mathematics there are intervals on the real > line open at > the right end. Moreover, a discrete, non-fuzzy, model is just > that, a model. > It may or may not truly apply.) > ------------------------------------------------- That went over my head, but o well, I won't press... > > > -------------------------------------------------- > Howard: > First of all, I've never seen anything along the lines of > "one jhana - > one citta" in any sutta. Is it in the Abhidhamma, itself? No, my impression of the abhidhamma (and commentaries) is that it teaches that a citta lasts a very specific duration of time, and this is infinitesimally short. A meditator in Jhana would have countless number of cittas in that state. I asked because I understand your definition of a citta to be a discernment, along with its concomitants, of a single object. ? What I > *have* seen > in the suttas is several instances of the Buddha describing how, > while in the > 4th absorption, he turned his attention to a variety of things, > including, > for example, the dying and being born of beings, which suggests that an > absorptive state can comprise a multitude of jhanas. When a extremely skilled meditator achieves supernormal power (the passing of beings, knowledge of previous life, etc.), the Abhidhamma teaches that the person is no longer in a typical jhana states. During a meditation, the jhana cittas (lots of them) may rise and fall away rapidly, uninterrupted by bhavanga and other sensuous cittas (seeing, smelling, etc). The cittas that allow the occurrence of supernormal power are very specific in sequence, alternating both Jhana and sensuous cittas. > Secondly, what is a citta if not a mindstate characterized by the > discernment of a single arammana accompanied by a specific set of > cetasikas > associated with that same arammana? The Abhidhamma teaches that a similar citta arises following another one. Even two cittas have the same object and the similar states, they are still 2 cittas according to the teaching. With the model suggested in the Abhidhamma, we won't be led to believe that if the entire jhana session consists of only one citta. > Howard: > Well, is that really so? Does the Abhidhamma, itself, and not the > commentaries, commit itself to sharp occurrence-boundaries, or > does it allow > of gradations, gradual moving away from one state into another? It depends on what you mean by gradations. Kusala states are completely separate from akusala. There is no such thing as Kusala states, then kusala states mixed with akusala, and then akusala. There might be purely akusala states, kusala states alternating with akusala (but still separate), and then kusala states. There are also degrees of kusala and akusala. Some akusala are so refined that, without sharply developed wisdom, the person wouldn't even recognize it as akusala because it also seems peaceful. > It seems to > me that the notion of arising, maintaining, and dissolution > stages of a citta > already points somewhat in this direction of non-discreteness. Yes, even within this single moment of citta, the citta goes thru phases (of arising, maintaining, and dissolution), but yet the entire three subphases are still counted as submoments within a single citta: the citta has definite lifetime (which probably is fixed). > I, of course, speak out of ignorance of what is said in the > Abhidhamma, itself, because I have no English-language > translation of any of > it. Now *there* would be a worthwhile project for scholarly Abhidhamma > officienados - translate the Abhidhamma Pitaka into a English (or > French) in > a manner similar to what Bhikkhus Bodhi and ~Nanamoli, and Maurice Walshe > have done with the Sutta Pitaka through Wisdom Publications. Ah, that would be a very worthwhile project, indeed. Then you can truly see for yourself how the Abhidhamma is different / similar to the other two tipitaka. > ------------------------------------------------------ > Howard: > The Abhidhamma, as I have come across it through secondary and > tertiary sources, provides a very nice conceptual framework for > me to think > about the Dhamma. But in my opinion, it is only what I read in the Sutta > Pitaka that I am reasonably confident in taking as the Buddhavacana. > -------------------------------------------------------- > I think ultimately, what the Buddha teaches points to the truth. If the concepts we learn doesn't translate to understanding more about the current moment, then the concepts are not as useful as other concepts that allow one to do so. I think we have many theories in the Suttanta as well, for example, seeing is impermanent. Is this impermanence remain conceptual, i.e., thinking about the fact that things change, which implies nothing lasts, or really knowing directly the impermanence of seeing. I think the Abhidhamma points the truth out in the same way, except that while it is pointing out these truths, it leaves out stories of beings and normal societal-economic interaction, making it very clear that it is the dhamma that the Buddha teaches. kom 20735 From: smallchap Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:25pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa To all, Just sharing my thought. A toddler while learning to walk, will struggle to balance the body, will fall and hurt himself. But once he muster the techniques of balancing the body while walking, it becomes his second nature. He walks "not by striving and not by standing still." Likewise, is vipassana meditation. smallchap 20736 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Fri Mar 28, 2003 7:33pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Abhidhamma For Kids By Kom: re: non-self Dear Suan, > -----Original Message----- > From: abhidhammika [mailto:suanluzaw@b...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 5:18 AM > > Dear Kom > > How are you? > > Your explantion of non-self for Starkid Ki and Philip turned out to > be Abhidhamma For Kids. > I have no doubt about the fact that the kids (as well as grown-ups) > would be able to enjoy the taste of non-self by the native expressive > power of Abhidhamma, which is designed as an ultimate tool for > deconstruction of the very nucleus of self-view and person-view. Only if they are available in English! > > When self-view and person-view are thus abhidhammically vanished from > the mind, the right view emerges. In short, the goal of unique > insight (vipassanaa) is reached via Abhidhamma, the way of ultimate > deconstruction. > Yes, I think self-view and person-view can be eliminated by knowing the truth as they are, as kandha, as ayatanas, as sense bases, as Abhidhamma, as conditioned realities. Feeling has no self or person. kom 20737 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:10am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Victor, I finally found another translation after Steve's great help, and I'm still no clearer about the "But what should I expect" bit, or, as in the other translation below "What is the gain" and "what does it matter". I'm not at all sure it would be a way for me to overcome ill will, at all. Here's the translation from the Metta site: 10. Aaghàtapañivinayasuttaü- Overcoming ill will. 80. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will. What ten? 'Harm, was done to me, what was the gain? Harm is done to me what is the gain?and harm will be done to me, what will be the gain? Harm was done to my near and dear ones, what was the gain? Harm is done to my near and dear ones, what is the gain? Harm will be done to my near and dear ones, what will be gained? No harm, was done to my enemies, what does it matter? No harm is done to my enemies, no harm will be done to my enemies what does it matter? and does not get angry for no reason. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will.' metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue > hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of > thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. > > Regards, > Victor 20738 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:46am Subject: Religion with no-self Dear James How are you doing? I hope you are doing well. Thank you for your reply. It is little bit hard to understand but I think I had a good lesson about Buddhism. I found most interesting that Buddhism can be a religion even if there is no-self. The bits of information that you gave me made me impressed. One of my friends asked me a question why monks build the temple up in the mountain and I answered him that I didn't know. I thought about the question and guessed that they need a quiet place to pray to Buddha. Is it correct? Take care James Tom 20739 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:50am Subject: My First Ever Letter Hello sirs or madams, My name is Lucio. I'm from Canada but I'm born in the U.S amd I'm Chinese. This is my first ever letter writing and definitely my first letter to you people. Everyone is asking questions about the religion Buddhism. I think that Buddists are very religious about everything. I have some questions to ask: 1.Why do Buddhists/monks shave their heads bald? 2.Why do they wear orange robes? 3.Why do they meditate 5 times a day? 4.Do you have to be a monk to be a Buddhist? 5.Why are there levels for the monks(like if a certain monk is advanced or a beginner?) Thank you for reading my letter Sincerly, Lucio 20740 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:55am Subject: Re: [dsg] Aghata - Hatred Chris --- christine_forsyth wrote: > Dear Group, > > I am trying to find another translation of the Aghata Sutta > 'Hatred' > Anguttara Nikaya X.80 > Can anyone tell me how to match up the sutta numbering/naming > system > used for the Anguttara Nikaya in Access to Insight > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/anguttara/an10-080.html > and the sutta numbering/naming system used at: > http://www.metta.lk/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/ > > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? > > metta, > Christine I've not been able to find anything on this, but my guess is that this refers to the (wholesome) reflection that such things have to be accepted as an necessary part of life (related, perhaps, to the past deeds of the recipient of the harm). Jon 20741 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 0:58am Subject: Dear Everyone! I have a big question! dear everyone, hello! This is Jan...again.. well I was really curious if most of you are Buddhists or Christians? I think that most of you are Buddhists...but im not too sure so I wanted to ask. James- Hi James! I hope you were able to answer all my questions from my last letter to EVERYBODY! haha..there were a lot of questions(in case you didn't see it) Kom- Hello Kom! I didn't write to you in the longest time! Christine- Hello! How's your dog? I hope he already recovered! plz all reply asap! thx!!!!!!! LoVE, JaN 20742 From: Sarah Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Speed of cittas once again;-) Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > Hi Sarah and All, > > I looked in the useful posts and I don't see any discussion of how > the Abhidhamma defines time. ..... You might like to look at these in u.p. - I think the last three may be relevant: ***** Timescale 4550, 4549, 11532, 11539, 11886, 11927, 12391 ***** >However, there is a book > titled 'Abhidhamma Studies: Buddhist Explorations of Consciousness > and Time' by: Nyanaponika Thera,Nyanaponika,Bhikkhu Bodhi. Have you > read it? How does this book define time? ..... The last post (12391) refers to the book and definitions of time I have. Several of us have this book and it’s a small, relatively inexpensive book ($17 from Wisdom). Glad to hear of your interest and I’ll be glad to hear any further comments on the posts or if you want to know anything further from Nyanaponika. Metta, Sarah ====== 20743 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 1:55am Subject: Re: Dear Everyone! I have a big question! Hi Jan, Thank-you for asking after Rusty. He has recovered really well from the operation, and only limps if he has had to stand for a long time (like forty minutes with his head out the car window when I drive to visit my mother.) He had to be scolded and put outside ten minutes ago for drinking out of the toilet bowl. Even dogs can be deliberately naughty. :-) To answer your other question - I am a buddhist, but I only became one after my children were in high school. That was the first time I heard the Teachings of the Buddha. Before that, I was a Christian. May you and all the Star Kids be safe and well Jan, metta,(loving-kindness or friendliness) Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > dear everyone, > > hello! This is Jan...again.. well I was really curious > if most of you are Buddhists or Christians? > > I think that most of you are Buddhists...but im not > too sure so I wanted to ask. > > James- Hi James! I hope you were able to answer all my > questions from my last letter to EVERYBODY! > haha..there were a lot of questions(in case you didn't > see it) > > Kom- Hello Kom! I didn't write to you in the longest > time! > > Christine- Hello! How's your dog? I hope he already > recovered! > > plz all reply asap! > > thx!!!!!!! > LoVE, > > JaN 20744 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as desirable/undesirable object Rob M --- robmoult wrote: ... > I know that CMA (IV, 17) clearly states that sense objects are > intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or extremely > desirable. I have a hard time understanding or accepting this. The > computer that I am typing on; is it "intrinsicly" good because it > can be used for sharing dhamma or "intrinsicly" bad because it can > be used for sharing pornography? I hope I'm not repeating something already mentioned, but as you know a computer is not actually a sense-object (it is a concept; only in conventional speech is there an 'object' called a computer). It is the visible object or hardness that is taken for computer that is the sense-object. So the desirable or undesirable nature of a sense-object is not in any way determined by the nature of the conventional 'object' with which we associate it. Does this make the intrinsic nature of sense-objects any less difficult to accept (in theory)? Likewise, there is no actual seeing of a computer or a person, but only visible object that is taken for computer or person. It is for this reason that there cannot be awareness of a computer or person; not being dhammas they are not capable of being the object of panna of the level of satipatthana. Jon 20745 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:57am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Howard, ... > Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha > if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, > manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna > break. Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, to my understanding. Jon > Take a less concrete example: a pleasant feeling is dukkha. It is > dukkha/unsatisfactory because it is impermanent. Pleasant feeling > does not last forever. > > Computer and pleasant feeling are dukkha, whether one clings to > them or not. > > Seeing things and situations as dukkha is not about looking more > microscopically at what actually arises in the mind and its nature. > > One can certainly gain knowledge about the intricate mechanism of > mind by doing so. But that per se is not direct "seeing". > > Regards, > Victor 20746 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:50am Subject: Re: [dsg] On the Nonduality of Subject and Object Howard Thanks for sharing your thoughts (below). You ask for comments. My comment/question would be as to the usefulness of thinking in terms of duality/nonduality at all. Why this particular frame of reference? Would it not be better to consider conditioned nature, or some aspect specifically dealt with in the texts? Jon --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, all - > > The knowing of an object and the known object, itself, are > mutually dependent, and, in that interdependence there is a form of > nonduality implying the corelessness of each. On the other hand, it > is an error, I think, to misinterpret this nonduality, this > interdependence, as a unity or identity. As with all > conditionality, what is implied is at the middle in some sense > which avoids the extremes. > But I would like to point out something that occurred to me > while meditating earlier today - a matter of practicality. It > occurred to me that there lies a danger at early stages of > practice, and even further on, to put too much emphasis on the > nonduality of subject and object (in the sense of the > interdependence of the two). My reason is that at early and middle > stages of practice the sense of self is stil extremely strong. > When, particularly during meditation, we have this nonduality in > the back of our minds, it may strengthen the tendency to identify > subject with object, to identify the breath, say, or pleasant > sensations with an alleged knowing self, and instead of awakening > to the impersonality of these objects and the knowing of them, we > merely grasp onto a kind of "unified self" of our making. Perhaps > this is why one of the early stages in the cultivation of insight > is, in fact, not an insight into nonduality of subject and object, > but pretty much the opposite - the distinguishing of the knowing > from the known, so that each can get to be seen as impersonal. Just > some thoughts, folks. Comments anyone? > > With metta, > Howard 20747 From: robmoult Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:02am Subject: Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Hi Jon, Boy this is an old post! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Rob M > > --- robmoult wrote: > ... > > I know that CMA (IV, 17) clearly states that sense objects are > > intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or extremely > > desirable. I have a hard time understanding or accepting this. The > > computer that I am typing on; is it "intrinsicly" good because it > > can be used for sharing dhamma or "intrinsicly" bad because it can > > be used for sharing pornography? > > I hope I'm not repeating something already mentioned, but as you know > a computer is not actually a sense-object (it is a concept; only in > conventional speech is there an 'object' called a computer). It is > the visible object or hardness that is taken for computer that is the > sense-object. > > So the desirable or undesirable nature of a sense-object is not in > any way determined by the nature of the conventional 'object' with > which we associate it. > > Does this make the intrinsic nature of sense-objects any less > difficult to accept (in theory)? > > Likewise, there is no actual seeing of a computer or a person, but > only visible object that is taken for computer or person. It is for > this reason that there cannot be awareness of a computer or person; > not being dhammas they are not capable of being the object of panna > of the level of satipatthana. I understand that "computer" is not a paramattha dhamma. There appear to be two views on what a visible object is; a "dot of colour" or a "snapshot". I still don't understand how a visible object can be intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or extremely desirable. My wife loves spicy food and I can't take it at all; how can a flavour object be "intrinsicly" anything? I had hoped to ask Khun Sunjin when I saw her, but it looks as though it won't happen. Can you help me here? Metta, Rob M :-) 20748 From: kenhowardau Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:03am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Hello Swee Boon, You asked: ------------- > Are you truly 'uninstructed' given the Dhamma? > -------------- It is usual to refer to anyone who hasn't attained the first stage of Path Consciousness as being 'uninstructed.' Needless to say, 'uninstructed worldling,' is conventional language for a particular five khandhas arising together as a moment of consciousness. Those five khandhas are inferior, in an ultimately real way, to any five khandhas conventionally known as a Learner. There was a dsg thread recently, that explained how dhammas can be ultimately superior, inferior or equal; I wish I had followed it more closely. ----------------- > As far as I know, the technique leading to enlightenment that needs to be mastered is as follows: > "And the Blessed One too, Lord, being at present the Arahat, the Fully Enlightened One, has (A) abandoned the five hindrances, the mental defilements that weaken wisdom; has (B) well established his mind in the four foundations of mindfulness; has (C) duly cultivated the seven factors of enlightenment, and is fully enlightened in unsurpassed, supreme Enlightenment." > ------------------ What you have quoted is a description of the Tathagatha. Any five khandhas conventionally known as a Tathagatha are superior to those known as [any other] Arahant, which are superior to those known as a Learner. It is helpful to see the entire Tipitaka as descriptions of the five khandhas. The points you have labelled A, B and C can be seen that way. (Sorry if I'm sounding a bit fanatical, here :-)) You discussed the term 'fabrication' as found in the Anatta-lakkhana Sutta and you concluded: -------------- > Fabrications (or determinations) is one of the five aggregates. It seems that you have not properly understood this aggregate well. > -------------- I can only agree with you, since I certainly don't understand that sutta. Hopefully, it is mainly because I am not familiar with the terminology it uses; I'd be grateful if you or anyone else will explain it for me. Kind regards. Ken H 20749 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:20am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, I would think eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect can be seen as objects, and they are unsatisfactory/dukkha. To me the dichotomy between "conventional objects" and "ultimate objects" is unnecessary; instead of clarifying, it adds more to the mental complications. A concept is also impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. > > Jon 20750 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:24am Subject: Re: Euthanasia --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hi, James > > I am Ki Yong. I am glad that you are not mad at me. Hi Star Kid Ki Yong! Yes, I am not mad at you; and I am glad that you are not sad about the subway accident anymore. But please don't be mad at the person who caused it. It is a waste of your energy and will make you think bad things about ALL people. Forgiveness could be the best thing you could do for yourself and everyone. I may or may not write a book. I don't feel that the time is right for me right now. That isn't really on my mind too much at the moment. But if I do decide to put your letters in a book, I will let your teacher know…and I would change your name. I am glad that you are learning about Euthanasia by writing about both sides of it. That is a good way to learn critical thinking skills. Yes, I have heard of Jack Kevorkian, Dr. Death, and he had a lot of publicity for a while, but I haven't heard about him lately. I am not sure if he is in jail, or what. I think he killed so many people not because of mercy and compassion for them, but because he wanted publicity. No, Euthanasia isn't legal in the U.S. Okay, here is my opinion about Euthanasia: Unlike you, I am not in favor of it and yes I believe it should remain illegal (with some flexibility in the laws to meet individual circumstances). Ki Yong, as you know, Euthanasia occurs because someone is going through a lot of pain, is going to die, and they want someone else to kill them early to `take them out of their misery'. Well, the main reason I am against that is because it will interfere with the karma of the person dying. Secondly, it is interfere with the karma of the person doing the killing. Pain and misery is a part of life and we have it for a very valuable lesson. It teaches us what it is to be human and why the human state is one of suffering and pain. Both people in a situation of Euthanasia are cheating on that lesson. Both of them want life to be without pain and suffering, but that isn't possible. It would be better for the person who is in pain, and going to die, to be mindful of every second up to that last minute of life. That will teach them many important things for the next life. We can't go around killing each other just because someone wants it and they are in pain. That could really get out of hand! I can't speak for all Buddhists as to if they are in favor of Euthanasia or not, but I can speak to Buddhism itself. Buddhism is not in favor of Euthanasia. The Buddha himself knew that he was going to die three months before it happened. He didn't tell his monks to just go ahead and kill him then because he didn't want to wait. Not only that, his death was very painful and suffering because he ate bad meat (which he knew was going to happen) and he didn't tell him monks to kill him then either. He remained mindful, gave final lessons, and let loose the final form of his body. Much would have been lost if `a Jack Kevorkian type' monk had been there and decided to `put him out of his misery' early. Okay, it was nice answering your questions. I hope that you continue to study different social issues and reach your own conclusions about them. That will make your mind very sharp and ready for anything. Take care and keep studying hard. I am very proud of you. Metta, James 20751 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:30am Subject: Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Christine, Thanks for the reference. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: > Hi Victor, > > I finally found another translation after Steve's great help, and I'm > still no clearer about the "But what should I expect" bit, or, as in > the other translation below "What is the gain" and "what does it > matter". > I'm not at all sure it would be a way for me to overcome ill will, at > all. > > Here's the translation from the Metta site: > 10. Aaghàtapañivinayasuttaü- Overcoming ill will. > > 80. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will. What > ten? > 'Harm, was done to me, what was the gain? Harm is done to me what is > the gain?and harm will be done to me, what will be the gain? Harm was > done to my near and dear ones, what was the gain? Harm is done to my > near and dear ones, what is the gain? Harm will be done to my near > and dear ones, what will be gained? No harm, was done to my enemies, > what does it matter? No harm is done to my enemies, no harm will be > done to my enemies what does it matter? and does not get angry for no > reason. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will.' > > metta, > Christine > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" > wrote: > > Hi Christine, > > > > I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue > > hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of > > thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. > > > > Regards, > > Victor 20752 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:41am Subject: Re: Me Again! --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James, > It's me again Janice! Thanks for answering > my questions. Now here are another few questions! > > How old is the Buddha now? Do you pray in the temple > every once a week?(at least) Do you take any classes > in the temple? > > For a change I shall share a poem with you- > > YELLOW WITH AGE > See how old paper withers and looks > Ancient old photographs dusty old books > Watch how old leaves, linens and skin > Alter to mirror the changes within > Mark how with age things gradually mellow > React to the air and oxidize yellow. > Metta, > Janice Hi Star Kid Janice, You are very welcome for the answers. Concerning your other questions, the Buddha isn't alive anymore, so he has no age. He died about 3,500 years ago. No, I haven't really taken any classes in the temple but I have helped to teach some, which I guess is kind of like taking them? I have helped to teach meditation and Buddhism classes. I would like to take some of the classes on Thai culture and language, but I don't get a chance because they are kind of sporadic (look up that word in a dictionary ;-). Now I am starting to learn the Arabic language and culture to prepare to live in Egypt. Thank you very much for the poem! It was nice to read. It teaches us that everything gets old; that is a natural process of life. But no matter how old you get, I hope you always stay young at heart. Take care and keep reading poems! ;-) Metta, James 20753 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:19am Subject: RE: [dsg] WARNING: a lot of questions!!! Dear Jan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Monday, March 24, 2003 10:32 PM > > This letter is going to be extreamally boring, because > it is full of questions. If you don't ask a question, sometimes you don't get to know the answers! I can only answer some questions, so here we go. > > 2. Why is a Buddha called a Buddha? Buddha means one with knowledge. The Buddha is one perfected in the knowledge of life, and hence he is called a Buddha. > 4. When was the Buddha born? About 2500 yrs ago. > > 5. Is there proof about how Buddhism started? (About > the Prince) There are texts describing the birth of Buddhism, when the Buddha first gave his teachings to the first 5 disciples, one of which became enlightened after the teaching. Buddhism is considered started at this point, as all three triple gems (the Buddha, the Dhamma, and the Sangha) came into existence. There are now shrines and markers built near where this happened. > > 6. Is there a special symbol to represent Buddhism? The most 2 common symbols used in Thailand are probably the lotus and the dhamma wheel. In one of the sutta, the Buddha equate the kinds of people who can receive his teachings as different stages of lotus, and the lotus probably can be said to represent his compassion for beings because he became a Buddha so that he could teach them. The wheel represents two things: 1) cycle of life which last virtually forever, and 2) the teaching of the Buddha itself, which is sometimes called the wheel of dhamma. > > 8. Why do people want to be Buddhist? I think there are all kinds of reasons, and I only list a few here: 1) They see the benefits of Buddhism. You can see that some people in this group were Christian before, but because they have been studying the teaching of the Buddha, and see the benefit of the teachings, they become a Buddhist. 2) Their parents are Buddhists, and therefore, they automatically "adopt" the religion. > > 10. This letter is boring right? Not really. I haven't fallen asleep yet ;-). kom 20754 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:23am Subject: Re: What is the most popular religion? --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Dear James, > > Thanks for your reply and I'm really glad that you > answered my question! > In Hong Kong, Hi Star Kid Jan! You're welcome for the answers. Yes, I have been reading about "SARS Pneumonia", which they are also calling the `Asian Flu'. That is very scary and sad for you. I hope that you keep your hands washed and avoid crowds of people…at least until it is under control a bit more. I am glad that you liked the funny quotes. Goethe, whose full name is Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, was born August 28, 1749, and died March 22, 1832. He was from Germany and, yes, his writing is a little old fashioned, but it is very beautiful. I hope that you read some more of his poetry. He is very famous. Yes, high school is the same as secondary. I am glad to hear that you got two guinea pigs. Guinea Pigs are really cute…I like the sounds they make ;-). Make sure that you keep their food and water fresh and cage clean. They will bring you a lot of fun. I never could have Guinea Pigs because my mother is very afraid of mice, and they reminded her of mice. `Metta' is a Pali word which is traditionally translated as `Loving kindness', but it is also translated as `Friendliness'. Personally, I think the word means `Wise Love', which is love that isn't based on superficial things like appearance, sex, age, nationality, or even humanity. It is a type of love that neither attaches nor can be attached to. Children can have this type of love more easily and more frequently than adults…so consider yourself lucky! ;-) As far as the most popular religion, here is a breakdown of the number of adherents to each of the world religions from 2002 stastics: 1. Christianity: 2 billion 2. Islam: 1.3 billion 3. Hinduism: 900 million 4. Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 850 million 5. Buddhism: 360 million 6. Chinese traditional religion: 225 million 7. primal-indigenous: 150 million 8. African Traditional & Diasporic: 95 million 9. Sikhism: 23 million 10. Juche: 19 million 11. Spiritism: 14 million 12. Judaism: 14 million 13. Baha'i: 6 million 14. Jainism: 4 million 15. Shinto: 4 million 16. Cao Dai: 3 million 17. Tenrikyo: 2.4 million 18. Neo-Paganism: 1 million 19. Unitarian-Universalism: 800 thousand 20. Rastafarianism: 700 thousand 21. Scientology: 600 thousand 22. Zoroastrianism: 150 thousand If you would like to learn more about the world religions as they relate to each other, I would recommend this web site: http://www.adherents.com Thank you for writing again and I hope you have fun with your Guinea Pigs! Metta, James 20755 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:28am Subject: Re: Me Again! Hi Star Kid Janice, Oops, I did a typo. I wrote that the Buddha died 3,500 years ago, but I meant 2,500 years ago. Was going too fast again! ;-) Metta, James 20756 From: m. nease Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:40am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." -- SN LVI.11 at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem to refer to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain & grief); the aggregates are dhammas. mike 20757 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 2:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon (and Victor) - In a message dated 3/29/03 6:59:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > > Victor > > --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > >Hi Howard, > ... > >Take a concrete example: a computer is dukkha (can be extra dukkha > >if it runs with Microsoft Window.) It is > >dukkha/unsatisfactory/imperfect because it is fabricated, > >manufactured, made, impermanent. Whatever is made, it's gonna > >break. > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. > > Jon > > ============================ I'd like to make two points. The first is that it is important, I think, to distinguish between dukkha as unpleasant feeling and dukkha as that fabrication/sankhara that is (or is the result of) craving, aversion, and attachment. It seems to me that the "dukkha" the Buddha speaks of getting to the end of is not unpleasant feeling, but rather the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. That reaction of dissatisfaction does not inhere in the object, but is due to the presence of the three poisons. With liberation (and the end of the three poisons), dukkha in the sense of unpleasant feeling will remain, but not dukkha in the deeper, reactive sense. My second point is that with regard to a conventional object such as a computer, I agree with you completely that both pleasant and unpleasant feeling arising from it, per se, and dukkhic reaction as well, pertain not to any rupa, but rather to the mental construct of 'computer', to what it signifies to us, and to how we think about it. Thus, the unpleasant feeling follows upon mental, not physical, contact. But, in fact, many of our feelings, especially the pleasant and unpleasant ones, it seems to me, arise not in response to sense objects such as hardness, brightness, sounds, etc, but rather to thoughts we have as the result of mental proliferation following upon sensory contact. Moreover, even with regard to vedana arising directly from rupic contact, the vedana is generally not intrinsic to the rupa, but is mediated by our cultivated tastes. Those flavors (or moreso, odors) I find unpleasant, for example, others may find very pleasant. An exception to this, it seems to me, is the feeling of discomfort we have with regard to strong or sharp pressure that we call pain. This seems to be a feeling arising directly from the rupic contact, alone, though thinking about it can certainly worsen the pain. (I suspect that even physical masochists find the sensations of extreme bodily assault to be unpleasant, but their *reaction* is perverse, namely reacting with craving for that very unpleasantness.) 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) 20758 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 7:52am Subject: Re: Religion with no-self --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > > Dear James > > How are you doing? Hi Star Kid Tom! That was good thinking on your part! Yes, temples should be built away from crowds of people so that they are quiet and peaceful. I am not sure if it is correct to say that the monks `Pray to Buddha', but some actually do. Maybe that temple you are referring to is one where the monks do that. Otherwise they meditate and learn dhamma; but either way they need quiet. Again, good thinking! You are a smart boy, keep up the good work! ;-) Metta, James 20759 From: buddhatrue Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:16am Subject: Re: My First Ever Letter --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Star Kid wrote: > Hello sirs or madams, > > My name is Lucio. I'm from Canada but I'm born in the > U.S amd I'm Chinese. Hi Star Kid Lucio! First, I like the way you address your letter, `Dear Sirs or Madams', which is very respectful and nice. It is nice to meet you. My name is James Mitchell and I live in the USA and I was born here. I would agree with your observation that Buddhists are `religious about everything' if that means Buddhism influences every aspect of a Buddhist's life. That is true…it isn't just a weekend, church kind of religion. Please allow me to try to answer your other questions: 1.Why do Buddhists/monks shave their heads bald? (Answer: Monks shave their heads bald for two reasons, which the Buddha taught: 1. To encourage the dropping of individual identity, 2. To separate the Buddha's monks, visually, from other monks of his time who grew long hair.) 2.Why do they wear orange robes? (Answer: Monks can wear orange, dark red, or brown robes and the color is to symbolize renunciation. Just like a leaf that is about to fall off of a tree will turn orange, dark red, or brown, that is what colors the robes can be. They are to symbolize that the monk is about to fall out of the round of life and not be reborn again.) 3.Why do they meditate 5 times a day? (Answer: I think you are confusing Buddhism with Islam, where the adherents pray five times a day…and it lasts for only a few minutes. Buddhists don't have to meditate five times a day…and because meditation lasts usually longer than a few minutes, that would be a lot of meditation! ;-) 4.Do you have to be a monk to be a Buddhist? (Answer: No.) 5.Why are there levels for the monks(like if a certain monk is advanced or a beginner?) (Answer: Nowadays there are levels of monks, but during the Buddha's time there really wasn't. During the Buddha's time, the Buddha would ask that someone who was a monk in another faith be a novice monk for six months before becoming a full monk. But everyone else would just become a full monk, right on their first day. Nowadays there are levels of monks that vary from temple to temple, like in the army. Personally, I don't agree with this new tradition because it isn't what the Buddha taught.) Take care Lucio and I hope you work hard in school. Metta, James 20760 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:19am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, In addition to the my last message to you, I would also like to say that a computer is not a concept. A computer is different from the concept of a computer. They are closely related but are not one and the same. They are dependent on each other, and this interdependency is the relation between nama and rupa. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an object > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about dukkha > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is dukkha, > as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling as you mention > below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, dukkha or anatta, > to my understanding. > > Jon 20761 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor (and Jon) - In a message dated 3/29/03 11:52:18 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Jon, > > In addition to the my last message to you, I would also like to say > that a computer is not a concept. A computer is different from the > concept of a computer. They are closely related but are not one and > the same. They are dependent on each other, and this > interdependency is the relation between nama and rupa. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== I agree with you that a computer is not a concept. The situation as I see it is the following: There is the concept of 'computer', a relatively general, complex mental construct. From time to time there arises a host of interrelated physical experiences, mostly of sight and touch, which the mind collects, automatically, into a hybrid, psycho-physically based object associated with the concept of 'computer', and which we call "a computer". This "thing" isn't actually "out there", but is mind-constructed from actual physical experiences and a concept. It is different from the concept, itself, and it is different from the actual sensory experiences that it is based on. It is not a "thing out there", but it seems to be. Some Abhidhammikas, it seems, systematically conflate a concept with the specific instances of that concept that are hybrids such as "the computer I now see". Those instances are what I mean by "pa~n~natti," and I don't think of them as actual existents - though I know that you do. There really is a difference between a so-called paramattha dhamma such as hardness and an alleged existent such as a computer. The hardness is experienced without the mediation of concept, but "a computer" is 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) 20762 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Aghata - Hatred Hi Christine, I think the answer is that he who commited the harm didn't gain anything. Not only did he not gain anything, he will reap the suffering he caused many times over in the future. So how can I be angry. It's just senseless. Btw, a better trans. of agha might be evil or darkness. See PTS dict. Larry 20763 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:37am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Hi Rob & Jon, Rob: Intrinsically wholesome or unwholesome is conventionally so. There is something in CMA about this. We've discussed it a couple of times. Maybe Sarah can remember. Jon: Concepts are sense objects. Mind sense. Larry 20764 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:47am Subject: RE: [dsg] Aghata - Hatred Dear Christine, > -----Original Message----- > From: christine_forsyth [mailto:cforsyth@v...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:54 AM > Why would thinking 'But what should I expect', subdue hatred? The commentaries actually don't shed more lights on this sutta except on the last item: the commentator say the rest are obvious. We can see how different accumulations carry us along in understanding the teachings! I think it has to do with the knowledge of kamma and the result of kamma. If we understand (or remember) that doing something unbeneficial can't bring beneficial thing to the person doing it (be it ourselves or others), and that doing something beneficial can't bring anything else but something beneficial, then this knowledge/remembrance has a calming effect (unless of course, you wish that the person doing something unbeneficial deserve every bits that are coming to them ;-) ---- this might bring satisfaction but not calm ). Although the last item has commentaries associated with it, I can't really decode what the commentaries say, you may have to ask others with access to pali to comment on this. In my opinion, this is most readily understood. It's pretty silly to be angry at a rock, or a chair, or a desk (when you kick them), which is why it is called being angry for no good reason. If you notice it within yourself (I definitely notice it in me), we don't stay angry at a rock for every long: we search for some other beings to be angry at (why did he/she put this chair in my way, etc.). kom 20765 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 2:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, I think that the idea of computer being a concept is simply not accurate and does not lead to clarity in mind and communication. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor (and Jon) - [snip] > I agree with you that a computer is not a concept. The situation as I > see it is the following: There is the concept of 'computer', a relatively > general, complex mental construct. From time to time there arises a host of > interrelated physical experiences, mostly of sight and touch, which the mind > collects, automatically, into a hybrid, psycho-physically based object > associated with the concept of 'computer', and which we call "a computer". > This "thing" isn't actually "out there", but is mind-constructed from actual > physical experiences and a concept. It is different from the concept, itself, > and it is different from the actual sensory experiences that it is based on. > It is not a "thing out there", but it seems to be. Some Abhidhammikas, it > seems, systematically conflate a concept with the specific instances of that > concept that are hybrids such as "the computer I now see". Those instances > are what I mean by "pa~n~natti," and I don't think of them as actual > existents - though I know that you do. > There really is a difference between a so-called paramattha dhamma > such as hardness and an alleged existent such as a computer. The hardness is > experienced without the mediation of concept, but "a computer" is not. > > With metta, > Howard 20766 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 3:09pm Subject: Concepts and Realities was Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Group, (and Howard, Jon, Victor) What exactly is a "concept" and what exactly is a "reality"? Are the dictionary meanings below the same as the meanings used in the Buddhist sense on this list? Reality (Dictionary.com) The quality or state of being actual or true. The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or essence. That which exists objectively and in fact: Concept (Dictionary.com): A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences. Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. Wouldn't seeing my computer just initially be seeing a whole coloured mosaic or panorama i.e. what appears to my eyes - then in a split second being differentiated into individual clumps - then 'recognised' as particular objects and given names, or known as 'not recognised'? Doesn't the naming mean that there is a record of something similar from the past in my mind, so that I know this object is the same or similar? If one is able to name some 'thing', does that mean there is a concept? I hope I'm not unintelligible - I struggle with this sort of discussion. metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > I think that the idea of computer being a concept is simply not > accurate and does not lead to clarity in mind and communication. > > Regards, > Victor > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > > Hi, Victor (and Jon) - > [snip] > > I agree with you that a computer is not a concept. The > situation as I > > see it is the following: There is the concept of 'computer', a > relatively > > general, complex mental construct. From time to time there arises > a host of > > interrelated physical experiences, mostly of sight and touch, > which the mind > > collects, automatically, into a hybrid, psycho-physically based > object > > associated with the concept of 'computer', and which we call "a > computer". > > This "thing" isn't actually "out there", but is mind-constructed > from actual > > physical experiences and a concept. It is different from the > concept, itself, > > and it is different from the actual sensory experiences that it is > based on. > > It is not a "thing out there", but it seems to be. Some > Abhidhammikas, it > > seems, systematically conflate a concept with the specific > instances of that > > concept that are hybrids such as "the computer I now see". Those > instances > > are what I mean by "pa~n~natti," and I don't think of them as > actual > > existents - though I know that you do. > > There really is a difference between a so-called paramattha > dhamma > > such as hardness and an alleged existent such as a computer. The > hardness is > > experienced without the mediation of concept, but "a computer" is > not. > > > > With metta, > > Howard 20767 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 5:47pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear everyone, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi Jon, I would think eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect can be seen as objects, and they are unsatisfactory/dukkha. To me the dichotomy between "conventional objects" and "ultimate objects" is unnecessary; instead of clarifying, it adds more to the mental complications. A concept is also impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor [snip] > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > object or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking > about dukkha the Buddha was not referring to the world of > conventional objects. > > The visible object or hardness that is taken for computer is > dukkha, as is any other conditioned dhamma (including feeling > as you mention below), but a concept has no attribute of anicca, > dukkha or anatta, to my understanding. > > Jon KKT: I want to share some thoughts on this topic. The Buddha taught the teaching of << no-self >> by analysing the body/mind into 5 aggregates to show that no self could be found. Therefore this analysis is merely a << means >> to help people to achieve the << aim >> that is the realization of no-self (anatta) (the finger pointing to the moon :-)) From the analysis of 5 aggregates, Abhidhamma made a further exhaustive analysis into 82 irreducible basic dhammas called paramattha dhammas. The purpose of this analysis is another << finger pointing to the moon >> rather than aiming at an exposition of the realities of man & the universe. My point is that << don't take the finger for the moon >> ie. don't forget that the realization of anatta should be the main object. Once is achieved this realization of no-self, ie. one becomes an Arahat, I don't think that when looking at things, an Arahat << sees >> them as paramattha dhammas! :-)) Take another example: We all know that all material is composed of molecules, atoms, particles. But in the daily practical life, we need not to see, for example, a table, a chair, or even our husband/wife as a conglomeration of molecules, atoms, particles! :-)) It's really crazy if we have such vision :-)) For conclusion, I quote the saying of a Zen master: Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters. After he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters. But after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters. (Essays in Zen Buddhism by D.T. Suzuki) Peace, KKT 20768 From: smallchap Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 6:27pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Correction (Buddhaghosa) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "smallchap" wrote: > To all, > > Just sharing my thought. A toddler while learning to walk, will > struggle to balance the body, will fall and hurt himself. But once he > muster the technique of balancing the body while walking, it becomes > his second nature. He walks "not by striving and not by standing > still." Likewise, is vipassana meditation. > > smallchap muster should read master. 20769 From: smallchap Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:21pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" > Dhamma does have its funny side. In return, I should warn > you against "striving." ----------------------- The Buddha actually praised those who strive for enlightment. See commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166. http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2g.htm#theraattadattha smallchap 20770 From: Dan D. Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 8:25pm Subject: 10 great Dhamma quotes I have compiled 10 great Dhamma quotes that I never tire of reading: (1) Realizing the difference between kusala and akusala is crucial: "There are, bhikkhus, wholesome and unwholesome states, blameable and blameless states, inferior and superior states, dark and bright states with their counterparts: frequently giving careful attention to them is the nutriment for the arising of the unarisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states and for the fulfillment by development of the arisen enlightenment factor of discrimination of states." (Samyutta Nikaya V, 46:51 -- Bojjhangasamyutta [PTS 104]) -------------------- (2) "Pleasantness" is a lousy indicator of kusala: Lobhamulacittani--8: "Thattha katamam kamavacaram? 1. Somanassasahagatam..." (Abhidhammatha Sangaha I, 4) [Translation: "Consciousness rooted in greed -- (8 types): Amongst them what pertains to the sense sphere? 1. One consciousness accompanied by joy..."] -------------------- (3) "Restlessness" is an aspect of every akusala moment! (Try meditating on that one for awhile...): "Of the unwholesome mental factors, these four factors -- delusion, shamelessness, fearlessness of wrongdoing, and restlessness -- are called universal unwholesome factors. They are found in all twelve unwholesome types of consciousness." (Abhidhammatha Sangaha II, 13) -------------------- (4) Akusala vanishes when clearly seen and understood for what it is: "Then, Mara the Evil One, realizing, 'The bhikkhu Samiddhi knows me,' sad and disappointed, disappeared right there." (Samyutta Nikaya I, 4 --Marasamyutta [variations on this line occur repeatedly in this samyutta]) ------------------- (5) There are no rules and prescriptions for purifying the mind: "That it is possible to purify by rules, that it is possible to purify by rites, that is possible to purify by rule and ritual: -- observance thus taken is called 'wrong observation (or handling) of mere rule and ritual.'" (Atthasalini -- Expositor, p. 451, PTS 34) -------------------- (6) Great effort is not necessarily beneficial: "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? [Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti?]" "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." Dhammasangani (376) ["That time" is the time when lobha (greed, lust, craving) arises.] -------------------- (7) The real suffering is caused by the bondage of the mind and not by external factors: "Now on that occasion a great mass of people had been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala--some with ropes, some with clogs, some with chains. Then, in the morning, a number of bhikkhus dressed...and said to the Blessed One: 'Here, venerable sir, a great mass of people have been put in bondage by King Pasenadi of Kosala, some with ropes, some with clogs, some with chains.' "Then the Blessed One, having understood the meaning of this, on that occasion recited these verses: 'That bond, the wise say, is not strong Made of iron, wood, or rope; But infatuation with jewelry and earrings, Anxious concern for wives and children-- This, the wise say, is the strong bond, Degrading, supple, hard to escape. But even this they cut and wander forth, Unconcerned, having abandoned sensual pleasures.'" (Samyutta Nikaya I, 3:10 --Kosalasamyutta) ------------------- (8) Pointing a finger at others for causing your own suffering only cultivates hatred: "'He abused me, he struck me, he overpowered me, he robbed me' -- those who harbor such thoughts do not still their hatred." (Dhammapada 3) -------------------- (9) Even extremely cruel action by another cannot cause hatred or suffering in one who understands Dhamma: "Bhikkhus, even if bandits were to sever you savagely limb by limb with a two-handed saw, he who gave rise to mind of hate towards them would not be carrying out my teaching." (Majjhima Nikaya 21 -- The simile of the saw) -------------------- (10) Opinionativeness is a symptom of ignorance: "For to whomsoever...there is no attainment of that learning which represses opinionativeness, nor any access, owing to the non- attainment of what should attained by conduct, such a person, from the absence of such access and such attainment, should be known as 'ignorant'" (Atthasalini -- Expositor, pp. 451-2, PTS 349) Dan 20771 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:16pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/29/03 5:57:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I think that the idea of computer being a concept is simply not > accurate and does not lead to clarity in mind and communication. > > Regards, > Victor > ========================= It almost seems to me that you didn't read my post. I didn't say that a computer is a concept. What I said was different from that, and far more complex. In any case, think it unlikely that either of us will soon come to properly understand what the other is saying on this issue. So let's just wish each other well in following the Dhamma, because I do think we somewhat share the same idea of what Buddhist practice consists of. With metta, Howard /Thus is how ye shall see all this fleeting world: A star at dawn, a bubble in a stream, a flash of lightning in a summer cloud, a flickering lamp, a phantom, and a dream./ (From the Diamond Sutra) 20772 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 9:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, The Buddha taught the each and every aggregate is not self. This characteristics is not the same as the idea that there is no self could be found. The mean is not analysis of the body/mind into 5 aggregates, and the aim is not the realization of the idea "no self", which is in itself mistaken. The goal is liberation/release/cessation of dukkha, which is achieved through disenchantment and dispassion to the five aggregates. One grows disenchant and dispassionate to the five aggregates by seeing each of them as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." The classification of the conditioned, impermanent phenomena as the five aggregates is only one kind of classification. However conditioned and impermanent phenomena are classified, what is impermanent is dukkha, and what is dukkha is not self. Trying to see that there is no self won't get any closer to realize liberation/release/cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear everyone, [snip] > > KKT: I want to share > some thoughts on this topic. > > The Buddha taught the teaching > of << no-self >> by analysing > the body/mind into 5 aggregates > to show that no self could be found. > > Therefore this analysis is merely > a << means >> to help people > to achieve the << aim >> that is > the realization of no-self (anatta) > (the finger pointing to the moon :-)) > > From the analysis of 5 aggregates, > Abhidhamma made a further exhaustive > analysis into 82 irreducible basic > dhammas called paramattha dhammas. > > The purpose of this analysis is another > << finger pointing to the moon >> > rather than aiming at an exposition > of the realities of man & the universe. > > My point is that > << don't take the finger for the moon >> > ie. don't forget that the realization > of anatta should be the main object. > > Once is achieved this realization > of no-self, ie. one becomes an Arahat, > I don't think that when looking > at things, an Arahat << sees >> > them as paramattha dhammas! :-)) > > Take another example: > > We all know that all material is > composed of molecules, atoms, particles. > But in the daily practical life, > we need not to see, for example, > a table, a chair, or even our > husband/wife as a conglomeration > of molecules, atoms, particles! :-)) > > It's really crazy if we have such vision :-)) > > > For conclusion, I quote > the saying of a Zen master: > > Before a man studies Zen, > to him mountains are mountains > and waters are waters. > > After he gets an insight into the truth of Zen > through the instruction of a good master, > mountains to him are not mountains > and waters are not waters. > > But after this when he really attains > to the abode of rest, mountains are once > more mountains and waters are waters. > > (Essays in Zen Buddhism by D.T. Suzuki) > > > Peace, > > > KKT 20773 From: Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 4:25pm Subject: Re: Concepts and Realities was Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Christine et al - In a message dated 3/29/03 6:26:16 PM Eastern Standard Time, cforsyth@v... writes: > > Dear Group, (and Howard, Jon, Victor) > > What exactly is a "concept" and what exactly is a "reality"? Are > the dictionary meanings below the same as the meanings used in the > Buddhist sense on this list? > > Reality (Dictionary.com) > The quality or state of being actual or true. > The totality of all things possessing actuality, existence, or > essence. > That which exists objectively and in fact: > > Concept (Dictionary.com): > A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or > occurrences. > Something formed in the mind; a thought or notion. > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: This is definitely what I mean by 'concept'. --------------------------------------------------- > > Wouldn't seeing my computer just initially be seeing a whole coloured > mosaic or panorama i.e. what appears to my eyes - then in a split > second being differentiated into individual clumps - > then 'recognised' as particular objects and given names, or known > as 'not recognised'? > ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: Sounds about right to me. ---------------------------------------------------- > Doesn't the naming mean that there is a record of something similar > from the past in my mind, so that I know this object is the same or > similar? > ----------------------------------------------------- Howard: Yes, a familiar pattern of phenomena has occurred and is noted. ----------------------------------------------------- If one is able to name some 'thing', does that mean there > > is a concept? ---------------------------------------------------- Howard: I believe that is so. Of course, there also can be concepts and their automatic (i.e. not consciously willed) application to a bunch of phenomena *without* naming occurring. ----------------------------------------------------- > I hope I'm not unintelligible - I struggle with this sort of > discussion. > ------------------------------------------------- Howard: I find all that you have said here to be completely intelligible. ------------------------------------------------- > > metta, > Christine > ======================== 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) 20774 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:45pm Subject: Questions again....(kom) Dear Kom, Thank You for calming me down about the war in Iraq.You are correct that could create hatred and violence among people. Recently, there has been a serious case of the epidemic, Pneumonia and it is quite frightening. You said that the mindfulness path can get you out of sufferings. Then how do you do this? Do you pray or go to the temple? Here are other questions: 1)Does meditating in the temple help you relax? 2)Do you go to the temple every week? 3) How did the Buddha die? The question you asked me about am I interested about Buddhism, I am fascinated about it! Before I just thought it was a religion and that was it and I now know that there are many things to learn about Buddhism. Well, that is it! Metta, Janice 20775 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:49pm Subject: Temples Hi James, Thanks for that really interesting information about the temple. Now that you told me so much I just can't stop questions coming out. Do the dharmas talk in Pali?Are there special Buddhist foods like the Sikhs? If there are do you eat them for lunch? On special events are there there any unique decorations like Christmas trees for Christmas? Or is there a head of the community to lead the ceromony during special event? Thanks again for the amazing answers. Metta HIlary 20776 From: Star Kid Date: Sat Mar 29, 2003 11:52pm Subject: Fw: Hello!!!! Dear James, wow, I really didn't know that there are so many things behind the Buddhist religion. Everything has a story or meaning. I really appreciated the answers and I learned a lot. I am quite interested to know more. Could, you please write some rules or details about how the monks use the 'Alms Bowl' !! And why does this religion suit you the best?Is there a meaning behind that? Do monks collect food at a certain time or do they just go on the streets when they want to and collect food? I also heard that long time ago children in Myanmar had to go to monks schools for a certain time and learn their religion, is that true? Did they only learn their religion? Thank you for the reply. Everything I read from the letters which everyone writes to each other about the religion make me learn much more, than I learn in school. Anne-Catherine : ) PS Your poems are really good, How long does it take to write a short poem? It is hard, isn't it ?? 20777 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 0:13am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Dear Victor, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: Hi KKT, The Buddha taught the each and every aggregate is not self. This characteristics is not the same as the idea that there is no self could be found. KKT: Self never exists ! There is no such thing as self or soul ! Either the Buddha taught that or did not teach that, the self also never exists ! So what exists then? What exists is people's wrong << belief >> in the existence of such a self. This illusory belief << crystallizes >> in people into the feeling or sensation or thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> Therefore liberation means to be free from this feeling. This is the meaning of Buddha's phrase << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> Upon hearing this phrase from the Buddha, some disciples of the Buddha << experienced >> the freedom from this feeling and became right on the spot Arahats. Thus the << dropping >> of this feeling is a << real >> experience and not just the realization of a mere concept or idea. --------------- The mean is not analysis of the body/mind into 5 aggregates, and the aim is not the realization of the idea "no self", which is in itself mistaken. KKT: The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation. And liberation, in my opinion, is synonym of the experience of no-self ie. the realization of no-self. (but not the realization of the << idea >> of no-self which is merely an intellectual stuff) -------------- The goal is liberation/release/cessation of dukkha, which is achieved through disenchantment and dispassion to the five aggregates. One grows disenchant and dispassionate to the five aggregates by seeing each of them as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." KKT: Could you tell me what is the nature of the << discernment >> you talk above? Is it a concept? If it is simply a concept then I'm afraid it is of little use. (In Mahayana Buddhism, this special kind of << discernment >> is called Prajna-Paramita or Trancendental Wisdom and is the << key >> for liberation in Mahayana Buddhism) -------------- The classification of the conditioned, impermanent phenomena as the five aggregates is only one kind of classification. KKT: What is the use of such classification into the 5 aggregates by the Buddha if not for the purpose of liberation? I don't think the Buddha was interested in the psychology stuff just for the sake of itself ! -------------- However conditioned and impermanent phenomena are classified, what is impermanent is dukkha, and what is dukkha is not self. KKT: What is impermanent is dukkha, OK. But I don't see clearly how << what is dukkha >> could be << not self >> ? Could you give an explanation? What I see clearly is that the analysis into 5 aggregates is an evident proof of no-self. And this is precisely the << purpose >> of the Buddha in making such analysis. -------------- Trying to see that there is no self won't get any closer to realize liberation/release/cessation of dukkha. Regards, Victor KKT: The experience of no-self is a << real >> experience. It is the experience of liberation. It is not the result of just << seeing >> or of mere intellectual reasoning with concept. Otherwise Arahathood would be easy to achieve, would it not? This is my view on this question. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Victor. Peace, KKT 20778 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:28am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Rob M --- robmoult wrote: > Hi Jon, > > Boy this is an old post! Sorry about that, Rob! I had kept it for reply, but did get a chance to write. I remembered it when I saw Victor's post that also refers to a computer. I thought it might be useful to discuss both ;-)) > I understand that "computer" is not a paramattha dhamma. There > appear to be two views on what a visible object is; a "dot of > colour" or a "snapshot". I still don't understand how a visible > object can be intrinsicly undesirable, moderately desirable or > extremely desirable. I don't think either of the 2 views you mention is itself mentioned in the texts. Personally I would not see it as fruitful to attempt a description of 'what visible object is', since any description will be limited by a conventional frame of reference. The best 'description' of visible object that I know is that it is the dhamma that is experienced through the eye-door. > My wife loves spicy food and I can't take it > at all; how can a flavour object be "intrinsicly" anything? I think it's important to remember, as you already know, that neither 'spicy food' nor what we conventionally understand by 'flavour' is what is experienced through the tongue door. > I had hoped > to ask Khun Sunjin when I saw her, but it looks as though it won't > happen. Can you help me here? Not really, I'm afraid. I'm inclined to assume that it will become clearer if there is a better understanding of the true nature of the reality of the sense-door object. Jon 20779 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:34am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > I would think eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect can be > seen as objects, and they are unsatisfactory/dukkha. It seems to me that in the suttas eyes, ears, etc are to be regarded as the faculties of sight, hearing etc rather than the objects that we know as eyeball/pupil/cornea or eardrum etc. I say this because of the context in which these terms are often found, such as the 'sets' of eye, visible object, seeing consciousness, contact, pleasant /unpleasant feeling arising from contact etc. These are the same dhammas as are referred to by the 5 khandhas etc. > To me the dichotomy between "conventional objects" and "ultimate > objects" is unnecessary; instead of clarifying, it adds more to the > mental complications. Understanding the distinction between dhammas and concepts is important, I believe. When we read passages in the texts such as 'sabbe sankhara anicca/dukkha, sabbe dhamma anatta' we need to know what are the 'sankhara' and 'dhamma' being referred to. Likewise with the 5 khandhas. On my reading these references should be read as excluding concepts. > A concept is also impermanent. It is unsatisfactory/dukkha. The question that mainly interests me is, what do the texts say about impermanence and dukkha? In the case of anatta, Victor, you often point out that the Buddha did not say that 'there is no self', but only that the aggregates etc are non-self. I appreciate this particularity on your part. When it comes to anicca and dukkha, there is a similar distinction to be noted. Anicca and dukkha (like anatta) are characteristics that are said to pertain to dhammas rather than concepts, on my reading. Jon 20780 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Mike --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > object > > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about > dukkha > > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional > objects. ... > This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: > > "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, > pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved > is dukkha; > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is > dukkha. > In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > > -- SN LVI.11 > > at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, > separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem > to refer > to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain & grief); the aggregates > are dhammas. Good point, Mike. It seems to me that while the language is conventional the references are to paramattha dhammas. For example, birth is not only a conventional event, it is also the paramattha dhamma that is the first moment of consciousness in a given life (patisandhi citta), and the arising of each moment of consciousness. Jon 20781 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:42am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Howard --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Jon (and Victor) - H: I'd like to make two points. The first is that it is important, I think, to distinguish between dukkha as unpleasant feeling and dukkha as that fabrication/sankhara that is (or is the result of) craving, aversion, and attachment. It seems to me that the "dukkha" the Buddha speaks of getting to the end of is not unpleasant feeling, but rather the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. That reaction of dissatisfaction does not inhere in the object, but is due to the presence of the three poisons. With liberation (and the end of the three poisons), dukkha in the sense of unpleasant feeling will remain, but not dukkha in the deeper, reactive sense. J: I agree that dukkha is not just unpleasant feeling, but nor is it just the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. It is, to my understanding, the inherent unsatisfactoriness in all conditioned phenomena due to their impermanence. This is more apparent to the arahant (who of course no longer has any mental reaction of dissatisfaction) than to the unenlightened or less-enlightened being, because of the arahant's greater degree of penetration of the true characteristic of conditioned phenomena. H: My second point is that with regard to a conventional object such as a computer, I agree with you completely that both pleasant and unpleasant feeling arising from it, per se, and dukkhic reaction as well, pertain not to any rupa, but rather to the mental construct of 'computer', to what it signifies to us, and to how we think about it. Thus, the unpleasant feeling follows upon mental, not physical, contact. But, in fact, many of our feelings, especially the pleasant and unpleasant ones, it seems to me, arise not in response to sense objects such as hardness, brightness, sounds, etc, but rather to thoughts we have as the result of mental proliferation following upon sensory contact. Moreover, even with regard to vedana arising directly from rupic contact, the vedana is generally not intrinsic to the rupa, but is mediated by our cultivated tastes. Those flavors (or moreso, odors) I find unpleasant, for example, others may find very pleasant. An exception to this, it seems to me, is the feeling of discomfort we have with regard to strong or sharp pressure that we call pain. This seems to be a feeling arising directly from the rupic contact, alone, though thinking about it can certainly worsen the pain. (I suspect that even physical masochists find the sensations of extreme bodily assault to be unpleasant, but their *reaction* is perverse, namely reacting with craving for that very unpleasantness.) J: As we agree, sensory contact is one thing and idea of 'computer' is another. In the case of painful feeling arising because of contact with the harness that we take for computer (i.e., in conventional terms, if we knock ourselves against the computer), it is the sensory contact that conditions the painful feeling. At the saem time, there may also be aversion for which the concept of 'computer' is the object. It's interesting to note that what we consider to be the 'same rupas' might be pleasant object at one moment and unpleasant object at another (depending on the 'force of our contact' with the hardness that we take for 'computer'). Of course, in the Buddha's teaching they are not the 'same' rupas at all (since all conditioned phenomena arise and fall away every moment). Jon 20782 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:46am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Victor --- yu_zhonghao wrote: > Hi Jon, > > In addition to the my last message to you, I would also like to say > that a computer is not a concept. A computer is different from the > concept of a computer. They are closely related but are not one > and the same. They are dependent on each other, and this > interdependency is the relation between nama and rupa. I'm not sure if I've understood you here, Victor. Are you are saying that there are: - dhammas such as are analysed and described in terms of the 5 khandhas, namas and rupas etc - concepts, which are wholly mind-constructed - 'objects' that are neither of the above? I am not aware that this 3rd category is found in the teachings (but I may have misunderstood you). Jon 20783 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:49am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Rob & Jon, > > Rob: Intrinsically wholesome or unwholesome is conventionally so. > There is something in CMA about this. We've discussed it a couple > of times. > Maybe Sarah can remember. Are you referring to the passage that I cited recently in a post to Dan (at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20504)? > Jon: Concepts are sense objects. Mind sense. Yes, but the context of this discussion is the objects of the 5 sense-doors. There is no suggestion that the mind-door object is intrinsically pleasant or unpleasant. Jon 20784 From: m. nease Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:38am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott To: Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 3:36 AM Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: > Hi Jon, > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > > > Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > > object > > > or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about > > dukkha > > > the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional > > objects. > ... > > This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: > > > > "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > > lamentation, > > pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved > > is dukkha; > > separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is > > dukkha. > > In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > > > > -- SN LVI.11 > > > > at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, > > separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem > > to refer > > to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain & grief); the aggregates > > are dhammas. > > Good point, Mike. It seems to me that while the language is > conventional the references are to paramattha dhammas. For example, > birth is not only a conventional event, it is also the paramattha > dhamma that is the first moment of consciousness in a given life > (patisandhi citta), and the arising of each moment of consciousness. (By the way, an interesting but parenthetical point: what, if any, is the relationship between pa.tisandhi citta and the arising of each moment of consciousness? I'd be very interested in any citations from the texts linking the two). OK, how about 'association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted'? Paramattha dhammas can surely be inferred from these concepts (all pointing at domanassa associated with forms of dosa I suppose) but still these are conventional, conceptual expressions, aren't they? The Buddha often spoke in purely conventional terms (e.g. on the benefits of using a toothbrush in the Vinaya) and didn't, I think, limit his speech or meanings exclusively to paramattha dhammas. Another example: "Sleeping till sunrise, adultery, irascibility, malevolence, evil companions, avarice -- these six causes ruin a man. "The man who has evil comrades and friends is given to evil ways, to ruin does he fall in both worlds -- here and the next. "Dice, women, liquor, dancing, singing, sleeping by day, sauntering at unseemly hours, evil companions, avarice -- these nine causes ruin a man. "Who plays with dice and drinks intoxicants, goes to women who are dear unto others as their own lives, associates with the mean and not with elders -- he declines just as the moon during the waning half. "Who is drunk, poor, destitute, still thirsty whilst drinking, frequents the bars, sinks in debt as a stone in water, swiftly brings disrepute to his family. "Who by habit sleeps by day, and keeps late hours, is ever intoxicated, and is licentious, is not fit to lead a household life." Digha Nikaya 31 Sigalovada Sutta I think you know that I'm reasonably convinced of abhidhamma and that it is the 'high teaching'. But to deny the conventional expressions in the tipitaka seems to me not only dismiss a large portion of the tipitaka but also to deny the validity of the understanding of those who know the dhamma only on the level of vohaara sacca--a necessary level of understanding to begin to approach abhidhamma for most people, I think. 'Dukkha', like 'dhamma' has different connotations dependent on context, I think. Corrections welcomed! mike 20785 From: abhidhammika Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:42am Subject: The Help From Buddhaghosa For Christine Forsyth: Re: Aghata - Hatred Dear Christine How are you? I now have an opportunity to demonstrate that Buddhaghosa's commentaries do have a very important role to play in our efforts to understand the Buddha's statements found in Suttam Pi.taka. As you are a student of Pali, I made sure that my translation was literal so that you could perform a Syntax Walk-through. Here is the commentary explanation in Section 30,Aaghaatapa.tivinaya Suttava.n.nanaa, Navakanipaata Paa.li, Anguttaranikaayo. "tam kutettha labbhaati "tam anatthacara.nam maa ahosii"ti etasmim puggale kuto labbhaa" "'Tam kutettha labbhaa' means "How could it be possible in this person (for me) to wish that that execution of damage did not happen?" Notes Tam = refers back to "anattham me acari, he inflicted damage on me" Tam = tam anatthacara.nam (that execution of damage) Kutettha = kuto ettha Labbhaa = to be possible, to have a chance, Ettha (in this) = (etasmim puggale )= in this person, in (the context of) this person What the Buddha was teaching here was for us to accept that the damage has been already done. We were unable to prevent it, so no use to dwell on the past. Even though we may not be able to adopt this type of attitude of resignation easily or quickly, the Buddha recommended it as one of the techniques for us to consider in our efforts to manage our anger. With kind regards, Suan Lu Zaw http://www.bodhiology.org --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" wrote: Hi Victor, I finally found another translation after Steve's great help, and I'm still no clearer about the "But what should I expect" bit, or, as in the other translation below "What is the gain" and "what does it matter". I'm not at all sure it would be a way for me to overcome ill will, at all. Here's the translation from the Metta site: 10. Aaghàtapañivinayasuttaü- Overcoming ill will. 80. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will. What ten? 'Harm, was done to me, what was the gain? Harm is done to me what is the gain?and harm will be done to me, what will be the gain? Harm was done to my near and dear ones, what was the gain? Harm is done to my near and dear ones, what is the gain? Harm will be done to my near and dear ones, what will be gained? No harm, was done to my enemies, what does it matter? No harm is done to my enemies, no harm will be done to my enemies what does it matter? and does not get angry for no reason. Bhikkhus, these ten are the ways of overcoming ill will.' metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "yu_zhonghao" wrote: > Hi Christine, > > I am not sure if thinking 'But what should I expect' would subdue > hatred and why it works if it does. I will include this kind of > thinking as a part of the practice and see if it works or not. > > Regards, > Victor 20786 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:52am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon (and Mike) - In a message dated 3/30/03 6:55:17 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > Mike > > --- "m. nease" wrote: >Hi Jon, > > > >----- Original Message ----- > > > >>Is there any instance in the texts of the Buddha describing an > >object > >>or thing as dukkha? To my understanding, when talking about > >dukkha > >>the Buddha was not referring to the world of conventional > >objects. > ... > >This puzzles me somewhat. In the following definition: > > > >"Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > >lamentation, > >pain, grief, &despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved > >is dukkha; > >separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is > >dukkha. > >In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha." > > > >-- SN LVI.11 > > > >at least birth, death, lamentation, association with the unbeloved, > >separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted all seem > >to refer > >to concepts (not sure about sorrow, pain &grief); the aggregates > >are dhammas. > > Good point, Mike. It seems to me that while the language is > conventional the references are to paramattha dhammas. For example, > birth is not only a conventional event, it is also the paramattha > dhamma that is the first moment of consciousness in a given life > (patisandhi citta), and the arising of each moment of consciousness. > > Jon > > ============================== Forgive me, Jon, but it seems to me that you are radically reinterpreting clear language here to force it to fit your preferred framework. It is indeed conventional events here that the Buddha is saying are found to be distressing. The fact that they do not exist as they appear, "out in the world", but only as percepts in the mind, doesn't change matters. It is, indeed, our experiences of loss of those apparent things that we crave, of not getting those things we seem to want, and so on that cause us distress. This is the grossest and most powerful form of dukkha, namely strong distress and grief, that the Buddha is pointing to in these passages. When a loved one passes on, there has actually been a mere continuation of the dhammic flow, and were that all we were to "see", no grief would result - but the primary distress results from the conventional knowledge that "our loved one is gone, that sweet, loving person who was so much a a part of our life is no longer present, and will not be present again (in this lifetime)". That is how it appears to the mind, and that is the source of great distress, not, for example, such a matter as the hardness of a moment ago no longer being present. Our dukkha arises from *mental concocting* - from our thoughts, desires, and hates, virtually all directed towards conventional things. On the other hand, the *solution* to the problem of dukkha, how this can be brought to an end, is the application of skillful means of many sorts taught by the Buddha, operating at multiple levels of our mentality including the conventional levels, but the core ingredient of which is the microscopic, concentrated vipassana that gives insight into the ultimate nature of what is, and especially coming to see the impermanence (and conditionality), unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality of all that is experienced. Step by step, the mind is transformed until sufficient wisdom has arised to uproot the essential defilements and give us peace. 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) 20787 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 6:58am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Howard, I read your post. The reason why I reiterated the point that computer being a concept is not accurate but did not respond to your post is that I don't think the focus of the discussion is about the Dhamma. I think that both of us have come to understand that a object and the concept of the object are not one and the same. And I do think that seeing this distinction contributes to clarity in thought and communication. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Victor - [snip] > It almost seems to me that you didn't read my post. I didn't say that > a computer is a concept. What I said was different from that, and far more > complex. In any case, think it unlikely that either of us will soon come to > properly understand what the other is saying on this issue. So let's just > wish each other well in following the Dhamma, because I do think we somewhat > share the same idea of what Buddhist practice consists of. > > With metta, > Howard 20788 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:03am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Jon - In a message dated 3/30/03 7:12:20 AM Eastern Standard Time, jonoabb@y... writes: > H: I'd like to make two points. The first is that it is > important, I think, to distinguish between dukkha as unpleasant > feeling and dukkha as that fabrication/sankhara that is (or is the > result of) craving, aversion, and attachment. It seems to me that the > "dukkha" the Buddha speaks of getting to the end of is not unpleasant > feeling, but rather the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that > arises with respect to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing > away. That reaction of dissatisfaction does not inhere in the object, > but is due to the presence of the three poisons. With liberation (and > the end of the three poisons), dukkha in the sense of unpleasant > feeling will remain, but not dukkha in the deeper, reactive sense. > > J: I agree that dukkha is not just unpleasant feeling, but nor is it > just the mental reaction of dissatisfaction that arises with respect > to all conditions due to our clinging and pushing away. It is, to my > understanding, the inherent unsatisfactoriness in all conditioned > phenomena due to their impermanence. > --------------------------------------------------- Howard: Why does their impermanence make them unsatisfactory? What is wrong with not lasting? NOTHING is wrong with not lasting! We just don't like it!! We WANT pleasant things to last, just as we want unpleasant things to cease. The unsatisfactoriness comes from our desires and preferences, and are *not* intrinsic in the phenomena themselves. The very fact, as you allude to in the next sentence, that dissatisfaction (dukkha) is gone in the arahant *proves* that it is extrinsic. ---------------------------------------------------------------- This is more apparent to the> > arahant (who of course no longer has any mental reaction of > dissatisfaction) than to the unenlightened or less-enlightened being, > because of the arahant's greater degree of penetration of the true > characteristic of conditioned phenomena ============================= 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) 20789 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:12am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi, Victor - In a message dated 3/30/03 10:00:10 AM Eastern Standard Time, yu_zhonghao@y... writes: > Hi Howard, > > I read your post. The reason why I reiterated the point that > computer being a concept is not accurate but did not respond to your > post is that I don't think the focus of the discussion is about the > Dhamma. > > I think that both of us have come to understand that a object and > the concept of the object are not one and the same. And I do think > that seeing this distinction contributes to clarity in thought and > communication. > > Regards, > Victor > =========================== Okay, Victor, thank you. Understood. 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) 20790 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 9:26am Subject: RE: [dsg] Questions again....(kom) Dear Janice, > -----Original Message----- > From: Star Kid [mailto:starkidsclub@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 11:46 PM > > Recently, there has been a > serious case of the epidemic, Pneumonia and it is > quite frightening. Yes, I have heard about that too, and I agree that it is quite frightening. It is only frightening when we think about it, though. Do you see that if you don't think about the disease (and about the people who are affected by it), we might not be frightened then. When I was having a dhamma discussion yesterday, I didn't think about the disease (because I was thinking about the dhamma discussion), I wasn't frightened then. I think it is best if we take the best precautions we have about the disease, and don't think about it much, because being frightened is not very useful. > > You said that the mindfulness path can get > you out of sufferings. Then how do you do this? Do you > pray or go to the temple? Mindfulness is the quality of the mind that remembers to do good things, like when you remember to do nice things for other people, to abstain from bad deeds, to develop tranquility of the mind, and to be mindful and recollective of realities. The mindfulness that is the path out of suffering is aware of the realities as they truly are. In normal circumstances, whenever you and I have feelings, we might think of that feeling as being ours, or that we are that feeling. Have you ever thought "I am angry?" --- this thought contradicts the nature of anger. If anger doesn't last, why should one identify that one is the anger? If anger arises whenever we experience something we don't like (and hence we don't have control over anger), why should we identify ourselves with anger which comes and goes with its own conditions? Whenever there is mindfulness of the true nature of realities (as non-self, as a conditioned realities), that is the path that the Buddha taught. There is no special circumstances required: I don't have to do anything (like you don't have to do anything to be angry --- anger has its own conditions just like mindfulness). Mindfulness doesn't happen by itself, though, as it is conditioned. The direct conditions for mindfulness of reality is the firm understanding of the true teaching of the Buddha. Hence, if there is to be mindfulness, one needs to firmly understand that there is nothing beyond the realities that the Buddha has mentioned, and that by learning about these realities, we can understand better ourselves, and eventually, this will lead out of suffering. Beyond the understanding of the Buddha teachings, one need to be as good as one can in order to have mindfulness. Wicked and really greedy people have less opportunities to have mindfulness than one who isn't. So I don't pray in order to have mindfulness, and I don't go to the temple in order to have mindfulness. I pray to the Buddha recollecting his good qualities (as a great beneficial teacher, as a purified person, as a truly compassionate person). > 1)Does meditating in the temple help you > relax? I nowadays don't do much mediations. Yoga helps me relax. Exercise helps me relax. Readings about dhamma help me relax. Discussing dhamma helps me relax. I am certain that meditations, even the wrong meditations, help some people relax. The correct meditations would help all people relax. > 2)Do you go to the temple every week? No, but I do go to dhamma discussions every week. > 3) How did the Buddha die? The Buddha passed away in old age near the city called Kusinara. There is a long story in the Buddhist text telling us about his circumstances and his teachings before his death. The death of the Buddha is very special, as he passed away completely, never to return, unlike us, who, when we die, would be reborn in another life immediately. > The question you asked me about am I > interested about Buddhism, I am fascinated about it! > Before I just thought it was a religion and that was > it and I now know that there are many things to learn > about Buddhism. > I am glad you are interested in Buddhism. The teachings of the Buddha really helps me a lot, and I know some people would benefit from it as well, if they give the teachings a chance. kom 20791 From: christine_forsyth Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 0:20pm Subject: The Help From Buddhaghosa For Christine Forsyth: Re: Aghata - Hatred Dear Suan, I am well and hope you are also. Thank you for your post, I appreciate your taking the time to help - the syntax walk-through will give me 'something to chew over'. I note the value of Buddhaghosa's commentary. I have to say, since starting to study Pali, that I have gained an immense respect for the knowledge and skill of translators, and wince at the memory of some criticisms I voiced about differences in translations. The uni. course is going well, one of the aims in this elementary course is to ignite enthusiasm for studying Pali and allay anxiety. (I'm still at the stage of "The serpent gets food from the poet" and "He carried a monkey to the mountain" - and I am truly astonished by the number of oxen I come across in the text book. :-)) metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "abhidhammika" wrote: > > > Dear Christine > > How are you? > > I now have an opportunity to demonstrate that Buddhaghosa's > commentaries do have a very important role to play in our efforts to > understand the Buddha's statements found in Suttam Pi.taka. > > As you are a student of Pali, I made sure that my translation was > literal so that you could perform a Syntax Walk-through. > > Here is the commentary explanation in Section 30,Aaghaatapa.tivinaya > Suttava.n.nanaa, Navakanipaata Paa.li, Anguttaranikaayo. > > "tam kutettha labbhaati "tam anatthacara.nam maa > ahosii"ti etasmim puggale kuto labbhaa" > > "'Tam kutettha labbhaa' means "How could it be possible in this > person (for me) to wish that that execution of damage did not happen?" > > Notes > > Tam = refers back to "anattham me acari, he inflicted damage on me" > > Tam = tam anatthacara.nam (that execution of damage) > > Kutettha = kuto ettha > > Labbhaa = to be possible, to have a chance, > > Ettha (in this) = (etasmim puggale )= in this person, in (the context > of) this person > > What the Buddha was teaching here was for us to accept that the > damage has been already done. We were unable to prevent it, so no use > to dwell on the past. > > Even though we may not be able to adopt this type of attitude of > resignation easily or quickly, the Buddha recommended it as one of > the techniques for us to consider in our efforts to manage our anger. > > With kind regards, > > Suan Lu Zaw > > http://www.bodhiology.org 20792 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 0:59pm Subject: RE: [dsg] 10 great Dhamma quotes Dear Dan, > -----Original Message----- > From: Dan D. [mailto:dhd5@c...] > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:26 PM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: [dsg] 10 great Dhamma quotes > > > I have compiled 10 great Dhamma quotes that I > never tire of reading: > Very nice. Would appreciate more if you have some more! kom 20793 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 1:03pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Smallchap, > -----Original Message----- > From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:21 PM > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "kenhowardau" > Dhamma does > have its funny side. > In return, I should warn > > you against "striving." > ----------------------- > > The Buddha actually praised those who strive for > enlightment. See > commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166. > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2g.htm#th eraattadattha Dan just posted this: (6) Great effort is not necessarily beneficial: "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? [Katamam tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti?]" "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." Dhammasangani (376) ["That time" is the time when lobha (greed, lust, craving) arises.] I think the Buddha urges the right efforts, and not the wrong efforts. Not all efforts are equivalent. kom 20794 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:26pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Christine & KKT, > -----Original Message----- > From: phamdluan2000 [mailto:phamdluan@a...] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 1:04 PM > > Dear Christine, > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > "christine_forsyth" > wrote: > > Thus have I heard, On one occasion the Blessed > One was dwelling at > Savatthi in Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's Park. > Then, when the night > had advanced, a certain devata of stunning > beauty, illuminating the > entire Jeta's grove, approached the Blessed One. > Having approached, > he paid homage to the Blessed One, stood to one > side, and said to him: > "How, dear sir, did you cross the flood?" > "By not halting, friend, and by not straining I > crossed the flood." > "But how is it, dear sir, that by not halting and > by not straining > you crossed the flood?" > "When I came to a standstill, friend, then I > sank; but when I > struggled, then I got swept away. It is in this > way, friend, that by > not halting and by not straining I crossed the flood." > > {The devata:} > 1. "After a long time at last I see > A brahmin who is fully quenched, > Who by not halting, not straining, > Has crossed over attachment to the world." > > This is what that devata said. > The Teacher approved. Then that devata, thinking, > "The Teacher has > approved of me, " paid homage to the Blesed One > and, keeping him on > the right, disappeared right there. > > As well, there is Thanissaro Bhikkhus's translation at: > http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/samyutta/sn01 -001.html#n1 Here are some info from the Thai Commentaries: 1) The commentaries explicitly that this is a he who came to see the Buddha. 2) The flood here refers the ogha 4 which are: a) Kama Ogha - attachment to the 5 sensualities b) Bhav-Ogha - attachment to the jhana attainment c) Ditth-Ogha - attachment to the wrong views d) Avij-Ogha - ignorance, arising with all the akusala states The commentaries expand on the meaning of ogha further: its meaning [ogha] is that it brings large number of beings toward lower destinations, including all the unhappy plane of existence. Or in another way, it doesn't bring the beings to nibbana, but to rebirth in the 3 places of birth [kama-bhava, rupa-bhava, and arupa-bhava]. 3) The buddha's first answer is difficult to understand, because he intended to rid the conceit of the deva who thought he would know thoroughly what the Buddha replied, because one with conceit is still not a suitable receptacle of dhamma. After the deva had listened to the first answer, the conceit is eliminated (because he knew he doesn't know the meaning of what the Buddha just said). 4) The commentaries explained the second answers in the following different ways [each comparing the different states] a) Because of kilesa, one is said to sink. Because of abhi-sankara [bad and good kamma], one is said to be swept away. b) Because of attachment and wrong view, one sinks. Because of the rest of kilesa and abhi-sankhara, one is swept away. c) Because of attachment, one sinks. Because of dithi, one is swept away. d) Because of the wrong view of eternalism, one sinks. Because of the wrong views of annihiliation, one is swept away. This is because bhava-dithi is attached to the self [???], but vibhava-dithi is attached to what is unknown [speculative?]. e) Because of attachment, one sinks. Because of the udhacca, one is swept away. f) Because of self-torture, one sinks. Because of over-indulgence, one is swept away. g) Because of all the akusala states, one sinks. Beause of all the mundane kusala states, one is swept away. 5) The deva achieved sotapanna after the 2nd answer. 6) The deva said after a long time because he saw the Buddha Kassapa, after which there were no other Buddha until this one. The other interpretation is that he said a long time, referring to the time he hasn't achieved the vision (sotapanna). My comment: How is one not halting or straining, not sinking or not getting swept away? Through the one way: the 8-fold path. Through satipathana. When there is mindfulness of realities, one neither sinks nor floats. But the mindfulness that (I think) truly can claim of not sinking or floating is the supramundane path, for it doesn't result in rebirth (unlike the mundane mindfulness). I think the meanings of some or all of the above comparisons will become more evident as one learns what is and what isn't the path. As one is walking on the path in the beginning, one tend to fall off it by staying (sinking) or by overshooting (getting swept away). For example, in 4c), because of attachment to mindfulness, one sinks, and because of the thought that I must follow this and that ritual to have this mindfulness, one is swept away. kom kom 20795 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 2:29pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi KKT, I don't think that it is useful or skillful here to talk about whether things exist or not. It is speculative to think of self as soul, and I don't think the Buddha taught whether self exists or not. The teaching is not about the view on the existence of self. Liberation is neither the realization nor the experience of no-self, where the idea of no-self is a misconception. The third noble truth, the cessation of dukkha, is realized not by dropping the feeling that you mentioned. It is through dispassion that one is released, and one becomes dispassionate through disenchantmet with every conditioned phenomenon. Every conditioned phenomenon is impermanent. What is impermanent is unsatisfactory. What is impermanent, unsatisfactory, subject to change is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment thus: "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." In this sense I wrote that what is dukkha is not self. This might sound circular, but the right discernment in this context is stated exactly as "This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self." And seeing thus, one grows disenchanted with the conditioned phenomenon. There are different classfications of conditioned phenomena. They can be classified as the five aggregates or they can also be classified as eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, and intellect. Conditioned phenomena also include birth, ageing, death, illness, not getting what is wanted, separation from the loved ones. However they are classified, the purpose of these classifications is not to prove that there is no self. To realize the goal of liberation takes effort. To see each and every conditioned phenomenon in it's three characteristics is a necessary but not sufficient condition that leads to release. In other words, seeing the three characteristics in the conditioned phenomena does not mean one has realized the third Noble Truth, the cessation of dukkha. Before one is fully released, there is work that needs to be done. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "phamdluan2000" wrote: > Dear Victor, [snip] > > Self never exists ! > > There is no such thing as self or soul ! > > Either the Buddha taught that > or did not teach that, > the self also never exists ! > > So what exists then? > > What exists is people's wrong > << belief >> in the existence of such a self. > > This illusory belief << crystallizes >> > in people into the feeling or sensation > or thought of << I, me, mine, myself >> > > Therefore liberation means > to be free from this feeling. > > This is the meaning of Buddha's phrase > << This is not mine. This I am not. This is not my self >> > > Upon hearing this phrase from > the Buddha, some disciples of > the Buddha << experienced >> > the freedom from this feeling and > became right on the spot Arahats. > > Thus the << dropping >> of this > feeling is a << real >> experience > and not just the realization > of a mere concept or idea. > --------------- [snip] > > The aim of the Buddhist path is liberation. > > And liberation, in my opinion, > is synonym of the experience of no-self > ie. the realization of no-self. > (but not the realization of the << idea >> > of no-self which is merely an intellectual stuff) > -------------- [snip] > > Could you tell me > what is the nature of the > << discernment >> you talk above? > > Is it a concept? > > If it is simply a concept > then I'm afraid it is of little use. > > (In Mahayana Buddhism, > this special kind of << discernment >> > is called Prajna-Paramita or > Trancendental Wisdom and > is the << key >> for liberation > in Mahayana Buddhism) > -------------- [snip] > > What is the use of such > classification into the 5 aggregates > by the Buddha if not for > the purpose of liberation? > > I don't think the Buddha was > interested in the psychology > stuff just for the sake of itself ! > -------------- > [snip] > > What is impermanent > is dukkha, OK. But I don't see > clearly how << what is dukkha >> > could be << not self >> ? > > Could you give an explanation? > > What I see clearly is that > the analysis into 5 aggregates > is an evident proof of no-self. > And this is precisely the << purpose >> > of the Buddha in making such analysis. > -------------- [snip] > > The experience of no-self > is a << real >> experience. > It is the experience of liberation. > > It is not the result of just << seeing >> or > of mere intellectual reasoning with concept. > > Otherwise Arahathood would be > easy to achieve, would it not? > > This is my view on this question. > > Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Victor. > > > Peace, > > > KKT 20796 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 3:42pm Subject: Way 69, Clear Comprehension 5 Commentary on the Satipatthana Sutta, 'The Way of Mindfulness" trans. & ed. Soma Thera, Commentary, Buddhaghosa Thera, Subcommentary (tika), Dhammapala Thera. The Section on the Four Kinds of Clear Comprehension (purpose, suitability, resort, non-delusion), http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/bps/misc/wayof.html 5. Clear comprehension in the partaking of food and drink As to purpose, there is the eightfold purpose referred to with the words, "Not for sport" and so forth in the formula of reflection on the four requisites of a bhikkhu. As such should clear comprehension of purpose be known. Non-suitable to one is the food by which to that one there is discomfort, whatever the food may be in quality or taste: coarse or fine or bitter or sweet or anything else. Suitable is food that does not cause discomfort. Just irreversibly non-suitable are these: the food acquired by wrong means of livelihood and the food by which good decreases and evils increase in one who partakes of it. Food which is got by right means and food which does not cause decrease of good and increase of evil in the one taking it are suitable. In this matter of the partaking of food, clear comprehension of suitability should be understood according to the explanation given above, and the clear comprehension of resort should be understood by way of the non-abandoning of the subject of meditation. Within there is no eater called a self. As stated already, by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, there is the receiving of food in the bowl; by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, there is the descent of the hand into the bowl; and by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, the making of the food into suitable lumps, the raising of the lumps from the bowl, and the opening of the mouth take place. No one opens the jaws with a key. No one opens the jaws with a contrivance. Just by the diffusion of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, take place the putting of a lump of food in the mouth, the pestle-action of the upper row of teeth, the mortar-work of the lower row of teeth, and the tongue's activity comparable to that of the hand collecting together material that is being crushed. Thus that lump of food in the mouth is mixed together with the thin saliva at the end of the tongue and the thick saliva at the root of the tongue. That food in the mortar of the lower teeth, turned by the tongue, moistened by the saliva, and ground fine by the pestle of the upper teeth is not put into the stomach by anyone with a ladle or a spoon. Just by the process of oscillation it goes on. There is no one within who having made a straw mat is bearing each lump that goes in. Each lump stands by reason of the process of oscillation. There is no one who having put up an oven and lit a fire is cooking each lump standing there. By only the process of caloricity the lump of food matures. There is no one who expels each digested lump with a stick or pole. Just the process of oscillation expels the digested food. It is oscillation [vayodhatu] that does the taking onward, the moving away from side to side; and it is oscillation that bears, turns round, pulverizes, causes the removal of liquidity, and expels. Extension [pathavidhatu] also does bearing up, turning round, pulverizing and the removal of liquidity. Cohesion (apodhatu] moistens and preserves wetness. Caloricity [tejodhatu] ripens or digests the food that goes in. Space [akasadhatu] becomes the way for the entering of the food. Consciousness [viññanadhatu] as a consequence of right kind of action knows in any particular situation. According to reflection of this sort, should the clear comprehension of non-delusion be understood here. [Tika] Taking onward: moving on up to the mouth. [T] Moving away from side to side: taking forwards from there to the belly. Again, taking onward = carrying beyond the mouth-aperture. [T] Moving away from side to side = taking what is going belly-wards, side-wise. [T] Bears = causes to stand in the stomach. [T] Turns round = causes to turn back and forth. [T] Pulverizes = causes the complete powdering as if by a pestle. [T] Expels = causes the depositing outside the belly. [T] In regard to the functions of the process of extension, too, the explanation is similar to that which has been already stated. [T] Indeed, these -- bearing, turning, pulverizing, drying -- the process of oscillation is able to do, only, together with the process of extension. Not singly by itself. Therefore, these -- bearing, turning, pulverizing, the removal of liquidity or drying -- too, are stated by way of the function of the process of extension. [T] Moistens = makes humid. [T] Preserves wetness: Just as there is no very great drying by the process of oscillation and so forth, so the process of cohesion preserves wetness by not wetting quite. [T] The way = the way for entering, turning round, expelling (actually the openings or vacuities which provide the range for such functions). [T] Process of consciousness = mind-consciousness process, the knowledge in regard to seeking food, swallowing and the like. [T] In any particular situation = in any function of seeking, swallowing or other similar act. [T] Right kind of action. The act which even completes a function and becomes a condition for any particular kind of knowledge. That act causes fulfillment of even the knowledge of the scope of that function, by reason of that knowledge not arising without the act. [T] Knows. Perceives, understands, by way of seeking, by way of full experience of swallowing, by way of the digested, the undigested and so forth. [T] It should be understood that as knowledge is always preceded by the adverting or the turning of the mind to a thing, knowledge too is included here. 20797 From: Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:03pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Hi Jon, you wrote: "J: Are you referring to the passage that I cited recently in a post to Dan (at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/message/20504)? L: Concepts are sense objects. Mind sense. J: Yes, but the context of this discussion is the objects of the 5 sense-doors. There is no suggestion that the mind-door object is intrinsically pleasant or unpleasant." L: Yes. Good job finding it! I don't see any limitation as to 5-sense door objects only. As this snippet shows, the "intrinsic" is euphemistic, doesn't mean paramatta. Larry 20798 From: smallchap Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 4:53pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Kom, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Smallchap, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] > > Sent: Saturday, March 29, 2003 8:21 PM > > > --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, > > "kenhowardau" > Dhamma does > > have its funny side. > > In return, I should warn > > > you against "striving." > > ----------------------- > > > > The Buddha actually praised those who strive for > > enlightment. See > > commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166. > > http://web.ukonline.co.uk/buddhism/dmpada2g.htm#th > eraattadattha > > Dan just posted this: > > (6) Great effort is not necessarily beneficial: > "What at that time is the faculty of effort/energy/endeavor? > [Katamam > tasmim samaye viriyindriyam hoti?]" "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." Dhammasangani (376) ["That time" is the time when > lobha > (greed, lust, craving) arises.] > > I think the Buddha urges the right efforts, and not the > wrong efforts. Not all efforts are equivalent. > > kom ------------- Yes. This I understand. Even right effort have varying degrees of intensities. Some right effort is better than no effort. smallchap 20799 From: nina van gorkom Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 8:31pm Subject: Perfecons, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 10 Perfecons, Ch 8, Truthfulness, no 10 We should consider what was said about applying energy for the welfare of beings. We should not have selfish motives, not act for our own sake when we are giving support to others. We need energy, otherwise we could not help others in an unselfish way. We should support others as far as we are able to, such as sharing in the performance of their tasks, alleviating their burden. At such moments we can realize immediately that we need energy when we want to help others. We can understand that, in order to eradicate defilements, we should follow the example of the Bodhisatta¹s practice. We should apply energy for the welfare of beings in whatever way we can, depending on the situation of our daily life, even by way of speech, by giving guidance to others. It may be somewhat troublesome for us to help others, but our support can be a condition for others also to develop a great deal of kusala in their lives. We can give support to others if we apply energy for their benefit. As we read in the Commentary: ³He should be capable of enduring everything whether desirable or undesirable.² When we are infatuated with something, we may realize that this not ordinary attachment, but a stronger degree of lobha. We may be absorbed in the object of attachment, but when sati sampajañña arises we can realize that we should endure everything, whether desirable or undesirable. If we very gradually learn to be patient, we shall know what the characteristic of true patience is. We can accumulate patience in all situations, no matter whether we experience objects through the bodysense or hear someone else¹s speech. We can learn to be patient and not complain about cold, heat or difficult situations in life. Then we shall understand what patience is. As we read in the Commentary, ³he should speak without deception.² A righteous person speaks in accordance with the truth, whereas an evil person utters deceptive speech. As we read in the Commentary, ³He should suffuse all beings with universal loving-kindness and compassion.² One¹s loving-kindness should be universal, without partiality. Generally, people have loving-kindness for someone who is righteous, not for an evil person. This shows that loving-kindness and compassion are not extended to all beings, that they are not yet universal. If someone has developed loving-kindness, he can extend it to all beings, be they righteous or evil. Then sati-sampajañña is aware and understands what is proper and what is improper. When we are angry and displeased, when we look down upon someone who is evil or commits bad deeds, we have akusala citta; our citta is equal to the citta of the evil person, because we have contempt for him. Even a short phrase of the Dhamma can help us to develop sati-sampajañña and to have a growing understanding of the realities arising within ourselves, so that we can further develop kusala. 20800 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 10:01pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Questions again....(kom) Hi Kom & All, --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: Janice: > > Recently, there has been a > > serious case of the epidemic, Pneumonia and it is > > quite frightening. > K: > Yes, I have heard about that too, and I agree that it is > quite frightening. It is only frightening when we think > about it, though. Do you see that if you don't think about > the disease (and about the people who are affected by it), > we might not be frightened then. ***** Thanks for your good reminders as always. It’s true that we are all very alarmed here in Hong Kong and our daily lives are being seriously affected. For the children, all schools, colleges and educational institutions have been closed down to try and halt the virus (as contagious as the common cold it seems, but very deadly), I’ve had to close down all my classes, all restaurant and hotel staff now wear masks, as do most people in the streets. Most concerts and shows are cancelled (yes, the Stones cancelled on Saturday and we were very relieved to have the decision made for us;-)) and so on. It’s a real disaster for most businesses. One person has been affected in Jon’s Government office building so far, so staff are clamouring for the building to be closed like so many others, but no luck so far;-( A friend asked me to repeat something I once mentioned about cancer on list and a reminder K.Sujin had given. I forget the words I used, but I think it’s so helpful to understand that life and the world and the epidemic or War or cancer or any other supposed sources of anxiety are just in the dhammas at the present moment. As you (Kom) say, if there is no thinking about ‘epidemic’ or ‘cancer’ now, where is it? In other words, we’re so used to being lost in the concepts without awareness, that we forget that all that is real at this moment are namas (mental phenomena) such as thinking, seeing, touching and so on and rupas (physical phenomena) such as hardness, visible object, sound and so on. Anxiety or attachment will always find an object to latch on to, whether it’s a set of concepts about a loss, the war, this epidemic or another illness. However, by understanding more about the dhammas arising at this moment, there will be some insight into what the real problems in life are. There can even be a little wise consideration about the inherently unsatisfactory nature of these same namas and rupas which arise and fall regardless of whether there is any knowledge about them or not. I think what I may have said before is that through the body-sense there is the experience of hardness or heat or motion only. The cancer is just at the moment of thinking. Christine asked about lobha, dosa and moha (attachment, aversion and ignorance). I find that even when I’m reading the daily news and statistics about the epiedemic, that there isn’t just dosa (aversion and anxiety). In between there is so much attachment to finding out the information, to looking at the pictures on the News and in between, ignorance at all those times when there isn’t any awareness or wholesome states of any kind. Seeing how intermingled the various kilesa (defilements) are helps us to know that these states don’t last at all. In between the attachment and ignorance there are also all the processes of seeing and hearing and other sense-door cittas (consciousness) when there is no idea at all about illness or war or computer. Understanding more about realities doesn’t mean ‘no action’ or not taking precautions to avoid sickness. In the recent ‘Way’ extracts (eg Way 69) it discusses Clear Comprehension of what is suitable. For example, it says under the section on food, “Non-suitable to one is the food by which to that one there is discomfort...”. One follows precautions as we’re all doing here in Hong Kong for the virus. However, even when reading these conventionally worded precautions and pieces of advice, such as those recently quoted from other suttas too, we should reflect on the meaning in terms of absolute truths which lies behind whatever we hear or read. So in the section of ‘Way’ from which I just quoted about “Non-suitable...”, we read a little further on the passage which starts: “Within there is no eater called a self. As stated already, by the diffuseness of the process of oscillation born of mental activity, only, there is the receiving of food in the bowl...” It continues further by giving the details of the various dhatus (elements) involved. Thus whatever we read in the texts should be understood by what has been ‘stated already’, i.e khandhas (aggregates), dhatus (elements), ayatanas (sense-fields) and so on, otherwise, there will always be the clinging to an idea of self taking actions and of concepts such as loss of dear ones, wars and epidemics as being the causes of our problems. Metta, Sarah p.s Kom, James & All - there will be very few posts from Starkids during these few weeks as I won't be seeing them. ========================= 20801 From: buddhatrue Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 10:52pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Questions again....(kom) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > > p.s Kom, James & All - there will be very few posts from Starkids during > these few weeks as I won't be seeing them. > ========================= Hi Sarah, I am sorry to hear that and to hear of your current difficulties. Do take care. Metta, James 20802 From: kenhowardau Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 11:14pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Smallchap, You wrote: ---------- > The Buddha actually praised those who strive for enlightenment. See commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166 > ----------- I'm sure he did; especially if their striving was of the Right kind, a factor of the Path. Not just Right Effort, but all kusala effort is potentially a condition for sympathetic joy (mudita), to arise in another person who recognises it. My question is; is it possible to strive for enlightenment in a kusala way, that is not also the way the Buddha taught? The Right Effort that the Buddha taught, is conditioned by, and follows on, Right Understanding -- in the same mind-moment. So Right Understanding comes first. If we attempt to have Right Effort or Right Concentration first, then we are DENYING Right Understanding at that moment. How can that be kusala? How could the Buddha, or anyone, have praise (or mudita), for that? Is this how you see it? Kind regards, Ken H 20803 From: Sarah Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 11:38pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi Dharam, Sorry for the delay and thank you for all your very well-considered comments. Most of what you say I agree with and could never have expressed so eloquently. Just a few more comments in context of some of your comments, rudely snipped for now. --- bodhi342 wrote: D:> Let us take > notice of the Buddha's method - he could easily have given the > standard answer to almost any question asked of him related to > Dukkha, and its solution. Let us reflect on why he chose to tailor > the answer to the question, and to the questioner.... ..... well-tailored to the context, but I believe the same truths regardless of the listener’s ability to comprehend ..... D: > I must admit to mild disappointment that 'exploration' is too often > based on who can quote the best sutta, rather than the more messy and > laborious working through on first-principles. ..... I think for most of us here, there is the idea that if A’s experience/gut reaction/inner meditative intuition/thinking says XYZ and B’s says the opposite, then we are interested to see what the sutta may say as a kind of ‘referee’ of the Buddha’s Teachings which is what we are interested in understanding after all. It gets interesting when there are different interpretations of that sutta (as happens all the time). Then, for some of us at least, we prefer to look at what the ancient commentaries say than again relying on contrary experiences, gut reactions and so forth. ..... D:> Truth, IMHO, is not > something to be placed on an alter, with us bowing intellectually, > and being seen to be bowing intellectually towards. Truth is to > be picked up, felt, prodded, kneaded, and ultimately incorporated > into one's being [anatta notwithstanding ;-) ], IF it passes those > tests. And what if not? Then, respect the other opinion on its > value, and revisit later. The essence of those tests is > unrelenting honesty and just skepticism. ..... Very good and beautifully put. In fact the original appeal to me of the Buddha’s Teachings was simply the fact that it could be be “picked up, felt, prodded, kneaded, and ultimately incorporated into one's being [anatta notwithstanding ;-) ]”. In other words, there is nothing that needs to be accepted because one is told it is so. Initially the picking up and prodding has to be done intellectually, but gradually awareness can and does develop to make it possible for panna (understanding) to really know what is truth and what isn’t. The current discussions on concepts and realities is an example of this. Pick up, prod and knead, but it’ll be found that only realities can be known and never concepts which have no inherent characteristics and can only ever be imagined or conceptualised. ..... D:> Finally, the ability to transmit one's understanding is important. > Here, Erwin Schrodinger's words ring out like a bell: > "If you cannot - in the long run - tell everyone what you have been > doing, your doing has been worthless." Try transposing the > word 'thinking' in the place of 'doing', if you like. ..... I like this and very much agree in sentiment. Perhaps I’d transpose doing and thinking with ‘understanding’. The argument of being ‘beyond words’ has never appealed to me, especially as the Buddha was never at a loss for those words. Hence the value of a discussion list;-) ..... > D: These may be points that I suggest, but keep in mind the method of > inquiry. The method of questioning is not to justify one position > over another. It is to explore together, and either convince or be > convinced, or neither as the case may be. The method, is to shed > light on areas that may have been overlooked, are causing pause, or > seem inconsistent. ..... Again well-put and I’m very much in favour of the ‘explore together’ approach and the great value of new input on DSG shedding light on “areas that may have been overlooked, are causing pause, or seem inconsistent”. It’s easy to become compacent when everyone agrees. I think contrary views, comments and questions do us all a big favour and we learn a lot by our own responses. ..... D:> I would expect most of you to indeed suggest that the Buddha's > teachings are superior, otherwise A) why would you be here; and B) > why would I come to you for learning? The next step, however, is > to consider if that assumption is correct. This is emotionally too > difficult for most to even consider, and it is not my intention to > stress anyone. Paradoxically, it requires relinquishing of 'self- > importance'. .... I think the point of my post (and also see Mike’s comments) was to partly suggest that we have no interest at all in comparing the Buddha’s Teachings to other Teachings. We’re here simply because we find an extraordinary depth in these Teachings, all the answers to the questions we’ve always had and therefore don’t find a need to explore elsewhere. I don’t see any ‘self-importance’ or ‘conceit’ necessarily involved at all, though as Mike said, these particular kilesa are rampant during much of daily life regardless. Perhaps it’s like when one has a job that one is happy with and feels fulfilled in. One doesn’t bother to look at other jobs or to compare. If one has misgivings or is unhappy, one may however be inclined to look around or keep another option up one’s sleeve;-) ..... ***** D:> You assume that my 'problem' is related to baggage - which means the > reluctance to relinquish cherished beliefs, in this instance. .... I thought I was careful to emphasise that I don’t think other baggage or cherished beliefs should be relinquished. I tried to stress they have their own value and goal and “these should not be rejected or are worthless”. I was merely trying to suggest caution with regard to comparing different beliefs or Teachings,like comparing apples with oranges - one taste at a time to know it, but it may not have been very skilful in conception or conveyance. I apologise for any negative sounding connotations which I had not meant to imply. ..... D:> BTW is it easy to > dump 'accumulations'? ;-) .... ;-) I can see some understanding of anatta taking firm root. .... D:> Seems a shame, > so much wasted - effort, time, comforts, relationships on and on. > You can tell by now that I prefer repair to replacement!! ..... Well, in a sense we can say there is replacement at each moment regardless of any wishes to the contrary. No need to look back of cling to past cherished anythings. what’s been has gone completely. ..... D: > More..... ecologically sound ;-). This depends on the surgeon one > chooses to correct the deformity. .... ....or my preference is to look at an alternative treatment. Initially keep the surgery as a ‘fall-back’ or safety-net. If the alternative treatment has effect, one will become less and less interested in the surgery. It can be difficult to integrate the various treatments. Ok, I need to stop talking in riddles;-) ..... D:> One wonders if the Buddha only got converts by similarly insisting on > irretrievably checking baggage for newcomers. Difficult to tell > after so long, but most 'newcomer' religions poach on believers, > rather than non-believers. ;-) Therefore, it is likely that he > taught redirection rather than erasing as an initial step. This > speculation is beyond my pay grade. .... ;-) I think that all we can say is that understanding has to develop and ignorance has to decrease. The next question is, understanding of what and ignorance of what?? ..... D:> Sukin and I have discussed these issues before using the analogy of > bridges. What you are saying is that I should jump without knowing > where I will land, and assuming there is no bridge to the place where > I am now at. In other words, take what you say as Truth, even if > all is not yet revealed. All prior truth is not only subordinated, > but relinquished forever. Is jumping courage or foolishness or > desperation or sufficiently accumulated insight? Somehow, at this > age, I go for bridges. .... Me too. Walk slowly and carefully as Nina suggested, take a good look at the other side - test, prod and knead. It’ll depend on conditions whether you stay, return or go to and forth;-) No rules and certainly no blind leaps. ..... D:> The alternate question may be "Whose > baggage is more burdensome?" (No need to answer, gentle Sarah.) .... ..but I can’t resist;-) No need to compare and I certainly agree that we need to be concerned with our own. Thx for the reminder too. .... > D: I am very glad you posted it. Disagreeing does not have to be > disagreeable. I know you mean well, I hope you know that I mean > well too. We go about it in different ways. What you say about > recognition of attachment is absolutely true, and should be one of > the central preoccupations of pursuing "..............". ..... Actually, it’s always agreeable for me to read your posts and write. Reminds me of discussions I had with Goglerr (whom I missing) in terms of the kind speech regardless of agreement/disagreement. .... D:> I have learnt a great deal from you, Nina, Mike, RobK, Jon, Larry et > al, and last, but not in any way least, Sukin. It is time now to > move on. I thank you for your patience, compassion, effort, time > and humor. > > I wish all of you anumodana. May your pursuit be fruitful. ..... Thank you Dharam. I sincerely hope that as you ‘move on’, you keep in touch with us all here and continue to prod and so on. We can all learn a lot from you in this and many other regards, especially that of fine right speech. Metta, Sarah ====== 20804 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Sun Mar 30, 2003 11:50pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Smallchap & All, > -----Original Message----- > From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 4:54 PM > > Dear Kom, > > > > > I think the Buddha urges the right efforts, and not the > > wrong efforts. Not all efforts are equivalent. > > > > kom > ------------- > > Yes. This I understand. Even right effort have > varying degrees of > intensities. Some right effort is better than no effort. > This is where the details in the Abhidhamma become really useful to us. Wrong efforts are those efforts that arise with the akusala states. There are many kinds of wrong efforts: efforts in over indulgence, efforts in doing bad things, and surprisingly, efforts in following the rite and rituals in regard to the practice, even in one who seems to remember many stories from the tipitakas. The right efforts are just the opposite. It arises with all the kusala states, but there is a kind of right efforts that only the sammasam-buddha can teach: the right effort that is part of the 8-fold path. This effort arises whenever there is mindfulness of the reality that is appearing, and along with the right effort, right view, right thought, right mindfulness, and right concentration are conascent with the right effort. We learn from the abhidhamma that within a single (complete, or nearly complete) citta process, there must be kusala and akusala states within the process. Hence, there is already efforts whenever we see, hear, taste, touch, or think, or even within a jhana state, regardless of whether or not we are trying to do anything. There is already effort when we are really sleepy and tired. There is already effort when we are relaxing, perhaps enjoying music. There is also effort whenever we give, abstain from bad deed, and whenever there is mindfulness of reality. Efforts come with all kusala and akusala states regardless of whether or not we are attempting to exert/not to exert any efforts. Wrong efforts are easy and subtle, so I think we should be careful and thorough in examining our own efforts. kom 20805 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 0:02am Subject: RE: [dsg] Questions again....(kom) Dear Sarah, > -----Original Message----- > From: Sarah [mailto:sarahdhhk@y...] > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 10:02 PM > > Hi Kom & All, > > --- Kom Tukovinit wrote: > Understanding more about realities doesn’t mean > ‘no action’ or not taking > precautions to avoid sickness. In the recent > ‘Way’ extracts (eg Way 69) it > discusses Clear Comprehension of what is > suitable. For example, it says > under the section on food, “Non-suitable to one > is the food by which to > that one there is discomfort...”. One follows > precautions as we’re all > doing here in Hong Kong for the virus. Somebody asked me about a question (related to the war) about the Buddhist view in regard to what we can do when facing with dangers (from a person). I said, one can always run away, if one can, and she said amusingly (or is it wise-cracking?) that "yeah, we are not stupid." This also reminds me one of the practice mentioned in the tipitaka in which one follows a path regardless of where it leads to, even off a cliff. I think this is a very unsuitable sort of practice, I think one cannot develop mindfulness when one pass on to another life where there is no such condition [to develop mindfulness] ;-). kom 20806 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 0:06am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi Sukin, I’ve been glad to read your recent posts. Please don’t feel discouraged about posting whenever James disagrees with you - none of us would be here posting if we followed your example;-) As James says or implies, we need to keep the lively posters in order for there to be any discussion;-) --- Sukinderpal Singh Narula wrote: > As you know I am inclined against any type of formal practice and the > following of rites and rituals, I want to express in this regard my > appreciation for the teachings of Guru Nanak the founder of Sikh > religion. He like Krishnamurti another person that I admire, is > against the idea of following any 'fixed' activity with the idea of > attaining purity and wisdom. In fact i believe that Krishnamurti was > influenced very much by Theravada teachings as a young man. .... I think I’ve mentioned before that when I first became interested in Buddhism (and was a keen meditator), I used to also read Krishnamurti and discuss his writings with Munindra in Bodh Gaya. A few years later, I went to some talks Munindra gave near my home in England. At one of these, when I was very impressed by what he said, I rather boldly asked him why he didn’t acknowledge that what he said was contained in the Buddha’s Teachings. It was so much in essence more ‘correct’ according to my understanding of the Teachings than what I heard so many Theravada teachers saying. He didn’t reply and I understood his silence to suggest that there was no need to put labels on truths. I appreciate this. I think, however, that by recognising the Buddha’s wisdom and acknowledging it, it allows one to explore the Teachings more deeply. ..... Also I > have heard that Guru Nanak went around India and the Middle East > collecting teachings from various wisdom traditions, so maybe he too > came in contact with Buddhism?! But maybe not. .... I’m afraid I really know very little about Guru Nanak but I believe that any teacher with influence who discourages exploration of truth rather than following a fixed activity is worthy of respect as well. ..... Sukin, I really appreciate the way you express the following. To my mind, what you express shows confidence in Truth and is not in the slightest bit ‘manipultive’ with any negative connotations: Sukin: >We become familiar with gross manifestations of > realities, this is done with a corresponding level of panna. In the > beginning the ignorance is very "thick". When sati arises, ignorance > does not, so each time sati and panna arises, we become more intimate > with these realities. As intimacy grows finer and finer > manifestations of characteristic become known, first the individual > and unique characterisic, later the general one common to all > realities, namely the tilakkhana. The idea of putting ones mind into > noticing rise and fall may well be an act of ignorance. Intention > does not do that job, sati and panna does. Panna has to grow slowly > through being intimate, that is the only way. ..... What you write here is also what I wished to convey and I think Mike too: ..... Sukin: > And why this conviction does not necessarily condition conceit or > seeing that Buddhism is superior to other religions. My object is > right view not the glory of buddhism. But I do understand why > outsiders would see differently. ..... Sukin: > Like Sarah, I too feel a some hesitation in sending this post, but > I'll do it anyway, hoping that I will be able to mend any damage done. ...... Your style may be forceful (like many others’), but I always appreciate your kind intentions and am always glad to read your ideas. I know James would never wish to discourage anyone from expressing contrary views either and like him, I think it’s healthy for everyone (Starkids included) to read different understandings and come to their own conclusions. After all, did any of us just believe what we were told as children, let alone as adults??? Metta, Sarah ======= 20807 From: smallchap Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 0:39am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Ken, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "kenhowardau" wrote: > Dear Smallchap, > > You wrote: > ---------- > > The Buddha actually praised those who strive for > enlightenment. See commentary to Dhammapada Verse 166 > > > ----------- > > My question > is; is it possible to strive for enlightenment in a > kusala way, that is not also the way the Buddha taught? ---------- S: The answer is a definitive "no". ------------------------------ > The Right Effort that the Buddha taught, is conditioned > by, and follows on, Right Understanding -- in the same > mind-moment. So Right Understanding comes first. --------------------- S: I am not sure if right understanding is the only condition for the arising of right effort. -------------------------- > If we attempt to have Right Effort or Right Concentration > first, then we are DENYING Right Understanding at that > moment. How can that be kusala? How could the Buddha, > or anyone, have praise (or mudita), for that? > > Is this how you see it? > --------------------- S: The first (few) moment(s) may be without right undertsnading when attempt is made for right effort. The sebsequent thought moments are not necessary without right understanding. There is a sutta, Bhumija Sutta, though not eaxctly illustrate this point, but close enough to be used as an example: "......... But as for any priests or contemplatives endowed with right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, & right concentration: If they follow the holy life even when having made a wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when both having made a wish and having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. If they follow the holy life even when neither having made a wish nor having made no wish, they are capable of obtaining results. Why is that? Because it is an appropriate way of obtaining results. ............" http://www.accesstoinsight.org/canon/majjhima/mn126.html smallchap 20808 From: smallchap Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:02am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Kom, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "Kom Tukovinit" wrote: > Dear Smallchap & All, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: smallchap [mailto:smallchap@y...] > > Sent: Sunday, March 30, 2003 4:54 PM > > > > Dear Kom, > > > > > > > > I think the Buddha urges the right efforts, and not the > > > wrong efforts. Not all efforts are equivalent. > > > > > > kom > > ------------- > > > > Yes. This I understand. Even right effort have > > varying degrees of > > intensities. Some right effort is better than no effort. > > > > This is where the details in the Abhidhamma become really > useful to us. Wrong efforts are those efforts that arise > with the akusala states. There are many kinds of wrong > efforts: efforts in over indulgence, efforts in doing bad > things, and surprisingly, efforts in following the rite and > rituals in regard to the practice, even in one who seems to > remember many stories from the tipitakas. > > The right efforts are just the opposite. It arises with all > the kusala states, but there is a kind of right efforts that > only the sammasam-buddha can teach: the right effort that is > part of the 8-fold path. This effort arises whenever there > is mindfulness of the reality that is appearing, and along > with the right effort, right view, right thought, right > mindfulness, and right concentration are conascent with the > right effort. > > We learn from the abhidhamma that within a single (complete, > or nearly complete) citta process, there must be kusala and > akusala states within the process. Hence, there is already > efforts whenever we see, hear, taste, touch, or think, or > even within a jhana state, regardless of whether or not we > are trying to do anything. There is already effort when we > are really sleepy and tired. There is already effort when > we are relaxing, perhaps enjoying music. There is also > effort whenever we give, abstain from bad deed, and whenever > there is mindfulness of reality. Efforts come with all > kusala and akusala states regardless of whether or not we > are attempting to exert/not to exert any efforts. > > Wrong efforts are easy and subtle, so I think we should be > careful and thorough in examining our own efforts. > > kom ---------- Thank you for the explanation of right and wrong efforts. I appreciate it very much. smallchap 20809 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:31am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi James, --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Hi Sarah, > > I am sorry to hear that and to hear of your current difficulties. > Do take care. > > Metta, James ..... Thanks for this James and for all the metta you show the kids and all of us. I will make sure that sooner or later they do all see the wonderful letters you, KKT, Kom and others have been writing, but these closures were so sudden that I didn’t even have a chance to see most the children first to make any arrangements. Quite a headache for working parents and the kids themselves, especially as no one knows how long it’ll last. The masks have become uniform now for children;-) Anyway, as you’re the first to appreciate, life is full of misfortunes! ..... While I’m talking to you, I’d like to make a few comments on another post you wrote (to Nina): --- buddhatrue wrote: > > > I want to address, from my perspective, why the knowledge of dhammas > isn't comparable to the knowledge that arises from vipassana > practice. The mind states, and thoughts, and consciousness factors > that you are talking about occur very fast, so fast that they cannot > be caught without intense concentration and mindfulness of them. If > one tries to catch them, with everyday mind, in order to be aware of > their influence, it is too late. With everyday mind the most you > can hope to be aware of is a mind state after it has already > occurred, not while it is occuring. By then, it is too late, the > damage has already been done. ..... I understand just what you are saying here. Perhaps we should however consider a) why we are so concerned to ‘catch’ anything and b) if at the present moment we are typing/reading/cooking/shopping/teaching, how does it help to have the idea of another time/place/practise? c) what vipassana practice is according to the texts. ..... >The type of negative mind states that > you are describing are of only the grossest and most obvious types. > Of course you can notice the aversion that comes when your e-mail > crashes; that is easy to notice and doesn't require any knowledge of > the Abhidhamma. ..... I agree with you here! ..... >But can you notice the aversion that comes second > after second from just the most basic of things as sitting in the > chair, hearing the starting music, reading a word, hitting a key, > hitting more keys, entering your password, seeing the screen change, > seeing the little AOL charater run, hearing "You've Got Mail"etc., > etc., etc.,...can you really be aware of the aversions, attractions, > and neutral reactions that occur during each of these moments while > they are happening? .... I agree with these comments too. Just as you ask, is there any awareness of “aversions, attractions, and neutral reactions” at these times, let alone moments of seeing, hearing and bodily experiencing in between? Good questions! ..... >Not with everyday mind. How about after they > have already happened? Not possible because there are more reactions > taking your attention. What you are describing is noticing the type > of mind states that have reached a critical mass, and by then it is > too late. The damage is already done, the ego has already been > reinforced, the karma has been created anew. .... OK, lots of agreement so far .... > The only way to get to the root of the problem, to be mindful and > aware of the reactions as they occur, to cease those reactions simply > from observation of them, is during Vipassana practice. This cannot > be done with everyday mindfulness. .... I agree that ‘everyday mindfulness’ or conventional mindfulness is not the key. However I fail to see how any ‘practice’ at another time would help sati and panna arise at the present moment when we’re sitting at the computer (btw, I don’t have any little AOL character telling me I’ve got mail;-( ). Surely only present moment sati and panna are of any use? ..... > Now, what is the difference between someone who just lets their > reactions occur and someone who labels them with Abhidhamma terms > after they have already occured? The person who labels the events > after they occur believes that he/she have a knowledge of something > which others don't have. They also believed that have stopped the > influence of something negative when they really haven't. ..... Any reflecting or using of labels is merely intellectual understanding at best. However, if it’s ‘right’ reflecting, it is kusala (wholesome) and a condition for more right reflecting and thereby direct understanding to develop. We read the Buddha’s reminders about meeting the good friend, hearing, considering and wise attention as being the appropriate conditions for wisdom and vipassana to develop. If anyone thinks that merely by thinking wisely that they “have stopped the influence of something negative”, this would be wrong view. In just the same way, during your meditation practice, moments of wise reflection or other wholesome states will be a condition for more in future, but any attachment or wrong view will bring the reverse. ..... >Because > this person truly hasn't elimated the root of desire, this thinking > that they know something special and have done something special > grows into a very strong conceit. So the first type of person has > suffering, while the second type of person has suffering and > conceit. ..... I think we all agree here that attachment and conceit are defilements to know and understand when they arise. I appreciate the constant reminders about them on DSG. Like Sukin and I mentioned to Dharam, however, I don’t understand conceit to necessarily arise when talking about realities, abhidhamma or any other aspect of the Buddha’s Teachings. We have to learn to be sincere and honest about the present states, I agree and oten it’s easy to kid ourselves about nobler motives and purposes and not to see the more subtle kilesa (defilements) as Chris was indicating. ..... >If the roots are not destroyed through Vipassana meditation > practice, Abhidhamma knowledge results in more ignorance than non- > Abhidhamma knowledge. .... I think we also agree here. If Abhidhamma knowledge is merely book knowledge and is not accompanied by any development of panna and vipassana, the danger of merely accumulating attachment and conceit is as high as when one accumulates any other kind of book knowledge. Hence we read about how the bhikkhu who is “ill-trained in the Abhidhamma, makes his mind run to excess in metaphysical ab?tractions and thinks of the unthinkable.....madness or vexation will be the portion of him who does so.” (Athasalini transl p31). Having agreed so far, perhaps we need to discuss what the Buddha means (and says he means) by ‘Vipassana meditation practice’, because for some of us vipassana has a very specific meaning as used in the texts and always refers to the present moment and highly developed wisdom of namas and rupas. On the other hand, I expect most members on the list either share your sentiments about meditation practice or like others of us, have followed similar practices before and so fully understand and appreciate your viewpoint in this regard. ..... I hope I have made this clear without being > offensive, but I don't know any other way to put it. This is my > perspective, and, as always, could be mistaken. .... I’m appreciating all the kind words everyone is expressing recently. Sometimes these are dearly held ideas and practices and we’re all bound to step on a few toes from time to time in spite of our mostly good intentions;-). I know these are sensitive areas (read lots of clinging) for us all. Btw, only some of the older kids have internet access at home, but perhaps I’ll call around if the closures continue and try to explain to them how to see your letters and encourage them to respond if they feel inclined to do so. Metta, Sarah ======= 20810 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:45am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Larry (& Howard), --- LBIDD@w... wrote: > Hi Howard, > > I looked up the answer to this question and found that the very > unintuitive abhidhamma does in fact confirm your intuition, with a few > qualifications. I'm using for my source an essay on paticcasamuppada by > Nyanatiloka in his "Guide Through the Abhidhamma Pitaka". ..... I liked the way you presented this very much indeed - sometimes, Larry, you come out with just the right quotes and impress me very much with the resources you us;-) Howard, I've snipped it all now, but the extract Larry gave and the book he refers to are good examples of a direct summary of the Abhidhamma texts. I think you'd find it a useful little book. It's always been available from the BPS, I'm not sure about elsewhere, but it would be cheap. Let me just re-quote the last few paragraphs with Larry's good comment at the very end: Nyantiloka: > In other words, these 5 kinds of sensuous consciousness cannot arise > without the pre-arising, presence, and the faculty of the 5 physical > sense-organs as Support. > > The physical Organ of Mind is, during life-continuity, to the Mind-Base > (consciousness) a condition by way of Support, PRE-nascence, > Dissociation, Presence, and Non-disappearance. > > In other words, consciousness, during life-continuity, depends on the > Support, PRE-arising and Presence of the physical Organ of Mind. quote> Larry: > L: So, to answer the question of sequence in the consciousness, > namarupa, sense base formula, it is all mostly co-nascent, with a few > pre-nascences, and one post-nascence. Additionally, they all three > include aspects of one another. ***** Look forward to more, Larry and thx Howard for the prompts and all your other questions and comments elsewhere. Metta, Sarah ======= 20811 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 5:04am Subject: Correction: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) CORRECTION In the following in, it should read: "A few years later, I went to some talks KRISHNAMURTI gave near my home in England." Apologies, Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Sukin, > I used to also read Krishnamurti > and > discuss his writings with Munindra in Bodh Gaya. A few years later, I > went > to some talks Munindra gave near my home in England. 20812 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:02am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Mike I am not in disagreement with anything you say here ;-)) M: "The Buddha often spoke in purely conventional terms (e.g. on the benefits of using a toothbrush in the Vinaya) and didn't, I think, limit his speech or meanings exclusively to paramattha dhammas." J: Agreed, but even in such apparently mundane matters as this toothbrush rule there are levels other than the purely superficial and most conventional. For example, was the Buddha's concern here purely for the oral hygiene of his monks, or did it have implications for the monk's life in general, and for samatha bhavana and vipassana bhavana in particuloar? M: "... to deny the conventional expressions in the tipitaka seems to me not only dismiss a large portion of the tipitaka but also to deny the validity of the understanding of those who know the dhamma only on the level of vohaara sacca--a necessary level of understanding to begin to approach abhidhamma for most people, I think." J: I did not mean to deny the conventional aspect, but simply to point out that there was more to it than that. M: "'Dukkha', like 'dhamma' has different connotations dependent on context, I think." J: Exactly so. Shouldn't we be trying to understand at whatever level we are capable of? Going back to the statement of the first Noble Truth, "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are dukkha.", note the implication of the words "In short", in relation to the other 11 preceding aspects of the truth. The Visuddhi-Magga says in connection with the 5 aggregates as the truth of suffering (Vis XVI): "60. It is impossible to tell it all without remainder, showing each kind of suffering, even by going on doing so for many aeons, so the Blessed One said 'In short the five aggregates [as objects] of clinging are suffering' in order to show in short how all that suffering is present in any of a five aggregates [as objects] of clinging in the same way that the taste of the water in the whole ocean is to be found in a single drop of its water." Jon --- "m. nease" wrote: > Jon, > (By the way, an interesting but parenthetical point: what, if any, is the relationship between pa.tisandhi citta and the arising of each moment of consciousness? I'd be very interested in any citations from the texts linking the two). OK, how about 'association with the unbeloved, separation from the loved and not getting what is wanted'? Paramattha dhammas can surely be inferred from these concepts (all pointing at domanassa associated with forms of dosa I suppose) but still these are conventional, conceptual expressions, aren't they? The Buddha often spoke in purely conventional terms (e.g. on the benefits of using a toothbrush in the Vinaya) and didn't, I think, limit his speech or meanings exclusively to paramattha dhammas. Another example: "Sleeping till sunrise, adultery, irascibility, malevolence, evil companions, avarice -- these six causes ruin a man. "The man who has evil comrades and friends is given to evil ways, to ruin does he fall in both worlds -- here and the next. "Dice, women, liquor, dancing, singing, sleeping by day, sauntering at unseemly hours, evil companions, avarice -- these nine causes ruin a man. "Who plays with dice and drinks intoxicants, goes to women who are dear unto others as their own lives, associates with the mean and not with elders -- he declines just as the moon during the waning half. "Who is drunk, poor, destitute, still thirsty whilst drinking, frequents the bars, sinks in debt as a stone in water, swiftly brings disrepute to his family. "Who by habit sleeps by day, and keeps late hours, is ever intoxicated, and is licentious, is not fit to lead a household life." Digha Nikaya 31 Sigalovada Sutta I think you know that I'm reasonably convinced of abhidhamma and that it is the 'high teaching'. But to deny the conventional expressions in the tipitaka seems to me not only dismiss a large portion of the tipitaka but also to deny the validity of the understanding of those who know the dhamma only on the level of vohaara sacca--a necessary level of understanding to begin to approach abhidhamma for most people, I think. 'Dukkha', like 'dhamma' has different connotations dependent on context, I think. Corrections welcomed! mike 20813 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:07am Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Howard H: Forgive me, Jon, but it seems to me that you are radically reinterpreting clear language here to force it to fit your preferred framework. J: I hope not, Howard, in this instance at least. But it's good to know I wouldn't be allowed to get away with it ;-)) H: It is indeed conventional events here that the Buddha is saying are found to be distressing. The fact that they do not exist as they appear, "out in the world", but only as percepts in the mind, doesn't change matters. It is, indeed, our experiences of loss of those apparent things that we crave, of not getting those things we seem to want, and so on that cause us distress. This is the grossest and most powerful form of dukkha, namely strong distress and grief, that the Buddha is pointing to in these passages. When a loved one passes on, there has actually been a mere continuation of the dhammic flow, and were that all we were to "see", no grief would result - but the primary distress results from the conventional knowledge that "our loved one is gone, that sweet, loving person who was so much a part of our life is no longer present, and will not be present again (in this lifetime)". J: Yes, there is indeed dukkha in the sense you describe here, i.e. that 'conventional events ... are found to be distressing'. But is that all there is to the truth that the Buddha discovered? I don't think so. H: That is how it appears to the mind, and that is the source of great distress, not, for example, such a matter as the hardness of a moment ago no longer being present. Our dukkha arises from *mental concocting* - from our thoughts, desires, and hates, virtually all directed towards conventional things. J: Yes this is how it seems to us, that if only there was no 'mental concocting', there would be no more suffering, apart from painful feeling (i.e., the result of akusala kamma through the body-sense). However, the Buddha's discovery was that all conditioned dhammas have the inherent characteristic of dukkha. This is something about which we have very little idea, due to our lack of understanding of the true nature of dhammas. H: On the other hand, the *solution* to the problem of dukkha, how this can be brought to an end, is the application of skillful means of many sorts taught by the Buddha, operating at multiple levels of our mentality including the conventional levels, but the core ingredient of which is the microscopic, concentrated vipassana that gives insight into the ultimate nature of what is, and especially coming to see the impermanence (and conditionality), unsatisfactoriness, and impersonality of all that is experienced. Step by step, the mind is transformed until sufficient wisdom has arised to uproot the essential defilements and give us peace. J: I'm not sure if I have understood you here, but I would say that dukkha is a characteristic that pertains to all dhammas, whether those dhammas are internal or external, whether experienced by an arahant or by an ordinary person. Eradication of the tendency to mental proliferation, as in the arahant, does not mean the disappearance of this aspect of dukkha. Indeed, the development of insight necessary for that enlightenment means that this characteristic is seen all the more keenly (but we may be in agreement on this). Jon 20814 From: Jonothan Abbott Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:36am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Larry --- LBIDD@w... wrote: ... > I don't see any limitation as to 5-sense door objects only. No, not in the passage quoted. But the immediately preceding passage in CMA makes specific reference to 'the fivefold sense consciousness', and that is clearly the context. > As this snippet shows, the "intrinsic" is > euphemistic, doesn't mean paramatta. Not sure what you mean when you say that 'intrinsic' doesn't mean paramattha here. Which part of the quote are you referring to? Jon 20815 From: Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 3:17am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi, Sarah (and James) - In a message dated 3/31/03 4:33:47 AM Eastern Standard Time, sarahdhhk@y... writes: > >The only way to get to the root of the problem, to be mindful and > >aware of the reactions as they occur, to cease those reactions simply > >from observation of them, is during Vipassana practice. This cannot > >be done with everyday mindfulness. > .... > I agree that ‘everyday mindfulness’ or conventional mindfulness is not the > key. However I fail to see how any ‘practice’ at another time would help > sati and panna arise at the present moment when we’re sitting at the > computer (btw, I don’t have any little AOL character telling me I’ve got > mail;-( ). Surely only present moment sati and panna are of any use? > ============================= Just a comment (and small idea) with respect to this issue. I don't think that it is exactly so that awakening can occur only *during* vipassana practice, but I do think that deep and sharp meditation is important. Deep meditation, with the mind highly focussed is a cultivating activity, one among several cultivation activities taught by the Buddha. [Others include, for example, observing sila, thereby calming the mind by faultless action (or as close as one can approximate that), and also guarding the senses.] It is like preparing a field for planting. The seed can then be dropped into the soil at any time, not necessarily while tilling the field. I'm also reminded of slowly chilling a solution to a critical point - then the slightest vibration could change its state to ice. I think about the followers of the Buddha who became enlightened when hearing a teaching from the Buddha - their minds had already been cultivated. All that was further needed was what the Zen folks call a "turning word". Another thought that comes to mind are all the Zen stories of a person becoming enlightened to some degree or other at the sound of a pebble sharply striking a bamboo tree. In each case, it is the straw that broke the camel's back after that camel had carried heavy loads for many trips. Just as an aside, my own history includes two "enlightenment experiences" [I'm *not* claiming to be enlightened! ;-))], neither of which occurrred *while* meditating. But each occurred at a time at which I *had* been engaged in a period of regular and intensive formal meditation. The first occurred at a Goenka retreat involving six one-hour meditation periods a day (for me) and maintaining nearly complete silence throughout, but the "event" didn't occur while meditating - it occurred at night after awaking from a period of sleep. The second experience occurred at a time in my day to day life when I been been formally meditating regularly, every day, for two one-hour sittings, but the actual occurrence was while driving my car!! ;-)) 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) 20816 From: phamdluan2000 Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:49am Subject: Correction: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Dear Sarah, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: CORRECTION In the following in, it should read: "A few years later, I went to some talks KRISHNAMURTI gave near my home in England." Apologies, Sarah --- Sarah wrote: > Hi Sukin, > I used to also read Krishnamurti and > discuss his writings with Munindra in Bodh Gaya. > A few years later, I went > to some talks Munindra gave near my home in England. KKT: So the person to whom you put the question is Krishnamurti and not Munindra? There might be another correction in your post: << I'm afraid I really know very little about Guru Nanak but I believe that any teacher with influence who discourages exploration of truth rather than following a fixed activity is worthy of respect as well. >> I think it should be << encourages >> rather than << discourages >> ? Metta, KKT 20817 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:04am Subject: Citta now and mudita. Dear James and all, James was wondering whether citta only occurs in Abhidhamma and not in Suttanta. I do understand this problem, because in English the translation of mind or consciousness is used. Not everybody is inclined to Pali but here it helps to know just a few terms. Take the Satipatthana sutta, under: Contemplation of Consciousness: citta is used here. Many types are enumerated here: you have to know citta with lust, with anger, with delusion, and those without these akusala mental adjuncts (cetasikas). When citta is classified as khandha, the word vinnana is used. We have to see the khandhas in a very dynamic way. When there is seeing, seeing-consciousness is vinnanakkhandha. We read in the suttas: khandha is past, present or future. Seeing is only one moment. Citta sees. I had a good correspondance with a friend about citta and its conditions. He wrote to me that before studying Dhamma he found it hard to be polite, considerate and patient with his parents. But now he says:"I really think it is knowing the conditioned nature of kindness and respectfulness that has made the difference. I no longer think in terms of 'I must try harder with them.' " He feels that he can be good company to his parents now when he visits them. I wrote back: "I am always touched to see people's kusala citta. Also on those occasions when they apologize so sincerely as here on dsg. Before I was so impatient with my father, but by Lodewijk's example and A. Sujin insisting on the perfections I learnt a little more patience, and I never knew it can be trained and accumulated, just a little more. It is thanks to the Abhidhamma to realize one's cittas more, but we all know so well that we are in Kindergarten." I find his words about knowing the conditioned nature of kindness and respectfulness important. Reading and considering Dhamma conditions the natural arising of these qualities. And so it is with awareness and understanding of realities in daily life. No need to have an idea of I am trying, when there are the right conditions they can naturally arise. I wrote before about appreciation of other people's kusala, and this is included in mudita, sympathetic joy. You rejoice in other people's gains and also in their kusala. And also when you do not hide your kusala, you give others opportunity to have kusala citta also, to rejoice in it. I wrote to him: "When you write about kusala, it is not showing off, we see that it is conditioned, not mine. But, as I learnt in Thailand, you give others the opportunity to rejoice in your kusala, that is a kind of dana. Westerners may not understand at first, in Thailand it comes very naturally. It is dhamma. The others can have mudita." I think it is helpful to know that there are many possibilities for dana, including forgiving, as I wrote before. If we do not know about them, how can we develop them? This shows again the conditioned nature of kusala, and the importance of study of the scriptures. James is so worried that Abhidhamma leads to conceit about a special knowledge. No, it should not, but if you study in the wrong way it can lead to madness. It is dangerous to believe that you have university degrees when you are only in kindergarten. I spoke about kindergarten (school for very young children according to dictionary). We know, as Kom said, that there is the level of theoretical understanding, the level of practice, when you begin to be aware, and the level of realization of the truth. Through the Abhidhamma but also through suttanta and vinaya, you see many more faults and vices than before, you are less deluded about yourself. You know that these are conditioned, and just material to be known, to be eventually realized as not self. But we do not know when that will be. We should not be wishing and hoping for results. You know that there can be clinging to awareness, but you can realize such moments. Akusala has no nationality as Kom explained. Lobha (attachment) and dosa (aversion) are just lobha and dosa, not Dutch, not American. They have characteristics to be studied when they appear. Nina. 20818 From: nina van gorkom Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:04am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Kom, op 31-03-2003 00:26 schreef Kom Tukovinit op kom@a...: > because of attachment to mindfulness, one sinks, and because > of the thought that I must follow this and that ritual to > have this mindfulness, one is swept away. N: I like very much your elaboration, and your remarks. It is so good to talk about this, what you just said: because of attachment to mindfulness, one sinks. For all of us. Although we know that this slows down, that it makes progress on the Path impossible, we still get caught, don't we? How grateful I am to A. Sujin to remind us time and again. Even when someone has reached stages of insight, there are still the imperfections of insight. Among them clinging. She makes us see how stubborn such clinging is and how subtle it can be. We were also reminded by A. Sujin that this is the second noble truth: clinging. This is not at all some abstract notion we have to learn from a book. Here is the second noble truth, but we do not notice it. It leads us astray, away from the end of the cycle of birth and death, from dukkha. Nina. 20819 From: dwlemen Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 10:13am Subject: Kamma and rebirth Everyone, I have been doing some more reading and have gotten myself confused again! Specifically, I was reading about Kamma and rebirth. I have 2 questions, one philisophical, the other more theoretical. 1.) If we are to say that one's situation in the present is dictated by Kamma seeds laid in the past, then do we say that people in essence "deserve" the plight they are in? So, for example, we could say that the Iraqi children who might be currently suffering are in that situation because of bad Kamma they acquired in the past. 2.) It seems to me that Kamma/Rebirth would lead us into some form of predestination. If my next birth and life are dictated by my actions in this one (and others), then would there not have to be some knowledge of how that new life will shape out. As another example; a very good friend of mine lost his wife last year to Mennengitis. Now, her death caused great suffering to him, his children, and her family. If we were to say that her parent's grief of watching their daughter die was due to their Kamma from the past, then how did the Universe know that that child would grow up and get a disease in her late 20's? It just seems that if we are to be suffering consequences of past actions, then the order to things must be very precise (or pre-determined). I hope my questions make sense. And, as always, I appreciate everyone's insights and wisdom (and patience) with my questions! I do learn a lot from you all. I am so glad I found this group! Peace, Dave 20820 From: christine_forsyth Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:51am Subject: Re: Kamma and rebirth Hi Dave, It's good to hear your questions. Everyone has wondered about this at some stage in their Buddhist journey - (as well as how can there be rebirth and kamma if there is no-self?). People's circumstances can seem heartrending, but, I find it helpful to look at all that happens against the background of Beginningless Time - even if only over a hundred thousand lifetimes, each of us is likely to have been (considering only this plane of existence) victim and perpetrator in many different scenarios. No-one *deserves* good or bad fortune - it is just a natural law, consequences follow actions. Kamma means intentional action by thought, word and deed. The Texts gave me the most hope when considering kamma and rebirth. At work, when I see a very sick baby, dying painfully and slowly over its first week of life, I try to see that this little one is not only four days old, but has lived through many, many previous lifetimes creating good and bad kamma, and that this painful vipaka (fruit), at least, will not have to be experienced again. I don't think kamma is an exact re-experience of a previous deed - and I don't think everything experienced is kamma. Kamma is just one of the twenty-four conditions (pacaya). I'm not sure what you have been reading, so this post may be recommending something you've already had a look at: Narada Thera has a comprehensive article at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Runway/5787/kammaandrebirth1.ht ml Bhikkhu Bodhi's article is very concise, under headings: http://www.beyondthenet.net/dhamma/kamma.htm and the Useful posts - three headings mentioning Kamma and one on Rebirth. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/dhammastudygroup/files/Useful_Posts metta, Christine --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I have been doing some more reading and have gotten myself confused > again! Specifically, I was reading about Kamma and rebirth. I have > 2 questions, one philisophical, the other more theoretical. > > 1.) If we are to say that one's situation in the present is dictated > by Kamma seeds laid in the past, then do we say that people in > essence "deserve" the plight they are in? So, for example, we could > say that the Iraqi children who might be currently suffering are in > that situation because of bad Kamma they acquired in the past. > > 2.) It seems to me that Kamma/Rebirth would lead us into some form of > predestination. If my next birth and life are dictated by my actions > in this one (and others), then would there not have to be some > knowledge of how that new life will shape out. As another example; a > very good friend of mine lost his wife last year to Mennengitis. > Now, her death caused great suffering to him, his children, and her > family. If we were to say that her parent's grief of watching their > daughter die was due to their Kamma from the past, then how did the > Universe know that that child would grow up and get a disease in her > late 20's? It just seems that if we are to be suffering consequences > of past actions, then the order to things must be very precise (or > pre-determined). > > I hope my questions make sense. And, as always, I appreciate > everyone's insights and wisdom (and patience) with my questions! I > do learn a lot from you all. I am so glad I found this group! > > Peace, > > > Dave 20821 From: yu_zhonghao Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 0:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, This is what I was saying: 1. A computer is not a concept. 2. A computer is different from the concept of a computer. 3. They are closely related but are not one and the same. 4. They are dependent on each other, and this interdependency is the relation between nama and rupa. Regards, Victor --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Jonothan Abbott wrote: > Victor > [snip] > > I'm not sure if I've understood you here, Victor. Are you are saying > that there are: > - dhammas such as are analysed and described in terms of the 5 > khandhas, namas and rupas etc > - concepts, which are wholly mind-constructed > - 'objects' that are neither of the above? > > I am not aware that this 3rd category is found in the teachings (but > I may have misunderstood you). > > Jon 20822 From: m. nease Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:18pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Computer as dukkha Hi Jon, ----- Original Message ----- From: Jonothan Abbott > I am not in disagreement with anything you say here ;-)) That's a relief! > M: "The Buddha often spoke in purely conventional terms (e.g. on the > benefits of using a toothbrush in the Vinaya) and didn't, I think, > limit his speech or meanings exclusively to paramattha dhammas." > > J: Agreed, but even in such apparently mundane matters as this > toothbrush rule there are levels other than the purely superficial > and most conventional. For example, was the Buddha's concern here > purely for the oral hygiene of his monks, or did it have implications > for the monk's life in general, and for samatha bhavana and vipassana > bhavana in particular? Yes, all three, in my opinion. I'm more and more convinced that the vinaya (in the sense of the monastic code) was mainly about creating an environment for jhaana bhavana--mainly for yogis already accustomed to this pursuit--with an eye toward eventually turning the yogis' attention to satipa.t.thaana vipassanaa. Somewhat parenthetically, I thought you might be interested in this passage from the copy of CMA that you and Sarah gave me, from the Guide to the Process of Absorption, Process of Absorption Javanas in the Mind Door, Compendium of the Cognitive Process (page 168): "In accordance with the way the mind is conveyed (yathaabhiniihaaravasena): This means that the absorption citta that arises is conditioned by the direction the meditator gives to his mind. If he wishes to attain the first jhaana, then he conveys his mind towards that jhaana through the development of calm concentration (samatha), and so too for the attainment of the higher jhaanas. If the meditator aims at reaching the path and fruit, then he conveys his mind towards the path and fruit through the development of insight (vipassanaa)." > M: "... to deny the conventional expressions in the tipitaka seems > to me not only dismiss a large portion of the tipitaka but also to > deny the validity of the understanding of those who know the dhamma > only on the level of vohaara sacca--a necessary level of > understanding to begin to approach abhidhamma for most people, I > think." > > J: I did not mean to deny the conventional aspect, but simply to > point out that there was more to it than that. Yes, I think I overstated my objection--no offense! > M: "'Dukkha', like 'dhamma' has different connotations dependent on > context, I think." > > J: Exactly so. Shouldn't we be trying to understand at whatever > level we are capable of? Definitely. > Going back to the statement of the first Noble Truth, > > "Birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, > lamentation, pain, grief, & despair are dukkha; association with the > unbeloved is dukkha; separation from the loved is dukkha; not getting > what is wanted is dukkha. In short, the five clinging-aggregates are > dukkha.", > > note the implication of the words "In short", in relation to the > other 11 preceding aspects of the truth. The Visuddhi-Magga says in > connection with the 5 aggregates as the truth of suffering (Vis XVI): > > "60. It is impossible to tell it all without remainder, showing each > kind of suffering, even by going on doing so for many aeons, so the > Blessed One said 'In short the five aggregates [as objects] of > clinging are suffering' in order to show in short how all that > suffering is present in any of a five aggregates [as objects] of > clinging in the same way that the taste of the water in the whole > ocean is to be found in a single drop of its water." Excellent! mike 20823 From: m. nease Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 1:25pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Robert, This was a really outstanding post--I keep coming back to it. Not only a good refutation of Ven. Buddhadassa's accusations but more--very useful for investigating the riddle of kamma and rebirth. Difficult to get all this down and keep it straight (for me anyway). mike ----- Original Message ----- From: rjkjp1 To: Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2003 9:40 PM Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "christine_forsyth" < I am particularly interested in Buddhadasa Bhikkhu's thoughts as > he is so widely respected and influential both in the East and West. > Indeed, Prof. Donald K. Swearer often edits his writings and has > mentioned him as being the modern day Nagarjuna. > > I think I gave the url links for the sources of my quotes in my > original post? > The quote with regard to the 'kanha dhamma' is: "My teacher, the late > Ven. Náyaka Thera, said in private that nobody had ever become arahat > through listening to the books of the Abhidhamma Pitaka. He did not, > however, say that they were wrong. But if you refer to the passage > from the Anguttara Sutta that I have quoted above, you will see that > a teaching that does not lead to awakening (or enlightenment) -- that > is, if it sets out to do so -- can be called a kanha dhamma, a 'dark > teaching'. This prompts the thought that the books of the Abhidhamma > Pitaka originated, not as tradition describes, but as the kanha > dhamma resulting from mistaken abhidhamma discussion by monks > undeveloped in body, virtue, mind, and understanding." ____________ Dear Christine, Thanks for giving the expanded quote by Nanavira. It still doesn't clarify for me why he believed this. Is there some point you feel is convincing that he has made somewhere? I'm sure we could find a hundred monks who don't like Abhidhamma - but it doesn't help much unless they give reasons and discuss it. ____________ > > Regarding Buddhadasa Bhikkhu: The chapter from which the quotes were > taken is Ch. 4 "Buddhadasa and his Interpretation of Buddhism', and > is itself is 35 pages long: > http://archiv.ub.uni-bielefeld.de/disshabi/2001/0059/chapter4.pdf > > "Buddhasdasa illustrates this argument [re Hindu concepts in the > Visuddhimagga] through historical evidence, such as Buddha's Own > Word, the Suttas in the Tipitaka. In his book he wrote the > title "What is Paticcasamuppada" (1971) showing the distinction > between what he considers the interpretation of Buddhist teaching > using Hindu concepts and in the Buddhist sense. He is convinced that > uncritical adherence to the Buddhaghosa orthodoxy has obscured a real > encounter with the Buddha's dhamma." > This book may be able to be obtained free of charge: > http://www.geocities.com/wave_books/freebooks.htm _____________ Thanks for this. Fortunately I have this book or a later edition(not with me right now) and have made notes. I will add some here: I read Practical Dependent Origination (Paticcasamuppada)by Ven. Buddhadasa Bhikkhu (of Thailand)after some prior discussions about it. In these discussions it was suggested that the Buddha did not teach rebirth and that this was a wrong idea that had come into the teachings. This book was cited as a source and guide. I think it has many useful points and I certainly appreciate any book on this most profound teaching of Paticcasamuppada. However, I remain convinced that the Buddha taught rebirth and that it is indeed a necessary corrollary of anatta and conditionality. I'd like to begin with these comments from the venerable Buddhadasa's book. He writes that p6 "therefore teaching Paticcasamupada in such a way that there is a self persisting over a series of lives is contrary to the principle of dependent origination." This is evident to anyone who has had even a cursory look at the Tipitaka; anatta is really the bedrock of Dhamma. There is no self persisting over lives. However, in the next sentence he says that "dependent origination is on no way concerned with morality which must depend upon a theory of Eternalism". This I don't follow. Kamma is simply a conditioned phenomenon - and it is just natural law that certain types of action lead to certain results. We can think of this as a moral law without evoking any self. In the following paragraph p.6 he says that an incorrectly explained theory has been taught for a thousand years. On p8 he explains with regard to this that the "during the time the commentaries were composed there arose a widespread tendency to explain matters of ultimate truths in terms of the Eternalist theory." He lays the blame for this on Buddhaghosa (ancient composer of the Visuddhimagga and many important commentaries) p8."the same person who collected all the commentaries together so that total blind acceptance..will allow only one voice to be heard." He is not sure how this wrongview arose but he speculates that it either happened because of lack of insight OR he thinks that it was a deliberate plot to destroy Buddhism for Brahmins who believed in atta (self)see page 51-52. He notes that there is no written evidence before the time of the Visuddhimagga [written by Buddhaghosa]where Paticcasamupada was explained wrongly. And that at the time of the third council (long before Buddhaghosa ) if one had "said there was a self that spun around in the cycle of birth and death and rebirth as in the case of Bhikkhu Sati he was held to be holding wrong views in the sense of Eternalism and was made to leave the order" . He equates such wrong views with the Visuddhimagga. He does note that Buddhaghosa p60 "is a man of great knowledge." He then says ."BUT I don't agree with him at all regarding Dependent Origination because he spoke of it in terms of a soul and so it became Brahministic." And he carries on (p63) to note that he "is not going to defile of defame or villify Buddhaghosa..I only want to make some observations. Buddhaghosa was born a Brahmin..and he completed a study of the three vedas like any other Brahmin. His spirit was that of a Brahmin..if he later came to explain the Buddhist theory of Dependent Origination as a form of Brahminism it is most reasonable to supsect that he was careless and forgetful so that he cannot be considered to be an Arahat."" So to sum up venerable Buddhadasa is suggesting that Buddhaghosa taught an Eternalistic (self, atta) version of the Paticcasamuppada, because of his brahmin (hinduistic) background. Is that true? I think it is best to let the ancient texts speak for themselves. From the relevant section of the Visuddhimagga Chapter XV11 Dependent origination 113 "but how does a man who is confused about these things perform these three kinds of formations? Firstly, when he is confused about death, instead of taking death thus 'death in every case is break up of aggregates(khandas, not-self)' he figures that it is lasting being's transmigration to another incarnation and so on". 115 "when he is confused about the round of rebirths, instead of taking the round of rebirths as pictured thus: 'an endless chain of aggregates(khandas) of elements(dhatus) bases(ayatanas) that carries on unbrokenly is what is called 'the round or rebirths' he figures that it is a lasting being that goes from this world to another world, that comes from another world to this world"endquote 117"when he is cofused about independently-arisen states, instead of taking the occurence of formations to be due to ignorance etc., he figures that it is a self that knows or does not know, that acts and causes action..." 161 "a mere state that has got its conditions ushers in the ensuing existence; While it does not migrate from the past, with no cause in the past it is not. So a mere material and immaterial state, arisen when it has obtained its conditions, that is spoken of, saying that it comes into the next becoming; it is not a lasting being, not a soul. And it has neither transmigrated from the past nor yet is it manifested here without cause from that"....... " 273 "Becomings wheel reveals no known beginning; no maker, no experiencer there; Void with a twelvefold voidness,"" 313 "one who sees this rightly abandons the self view by understanding the absence of a maker. One who sees it wrongly clings to the moral -inefficacy of action view because he does not perceive that the causative function of ignorance etc us established as a law.." 314 "[and so] let a wise man with mindfulness so practice that he may begin to find a footing in the deeps of the dependent origination" Now another point about the book. On page 62 Venerable Buddhadasa says that by explaining Paticcasamuppada as happening over several lives and suggesting that "kamma in this life gives rise to results in some far off future life it as if there are no kammic results(vipaka) at all which we receive in the birth in which the deed was done.....to suggest that defilements and kamma from a past life become effective in this, a later life, is impossible"" Firstly, I'd like to say that truly there is no one who receives results but that results arise by conditions (just to be pedantic). From the Visuddhimagga 172"Experiencer is a convention for mere arising of fruit (vipaka);" Secondly he doesn't acknowledge that the commentaries (and tipitaka) say that the results of kamma can indeed arise in this life,..(or at the time of death or in future lives). They say it is pretty much unpredictable (except to the Buddha) when the results will arise because of the many other conditions that support or impede kamma. Here is a quote from the Tipitaka: " Threefold, however, is the fruit of karma: ripening during the life-time (dittha-dhamma-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in the next birth (upapajja-vedaníya-kamma), ripening in later births (aparápariya-vedaníya kamma) ...." (A.VI, 63). I can add more if you like, Christine. Anyway I think venerable Buddhadasa's belief that the ancient commentaries and Buddhaghosa believed in a soul that transmigrates is quite mistaken. To me the whole of the Abhidhamma - and much of the commentaries- is pointing to the anattaness (no selfness, no soul anywhere) of each moment. It is so real and helpful. I was explaining to a friend who had some worries today. I said if one can start- just a little - to see the difference between the 6 doors then life becomes more understandable and handleable. You see it is always the thinking that causes our upsets. What appears through the senses is merely different objects. Yesterday I got tax bill out the blue for an apartment I own. I thought I was exempt because I live in another country but apparently not. I have to pay about 5000 dollars. It took me back for about a minute - until I saw that it was only thinking that was causing the pain. All that had happened was that seeing had arisen based on visble object and eyebase- and then concepts about what was seen , and then papanca that conditioned aversion. Seeing this meant the aversion and thinking about it dropped away. No need to try to surpress the thinking, but by understanding there weren't anymore conditions for clinging to these concepts. This is basic Abhidhamma. RobertK 20824 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 4:09pm Subject: Re: Kamma and rebirth Hi Dave, I still owe you more on Dependent Origination, but I hope you don't mind me jumping in here. There is an excellent book, "Dying to Live - The Role of Kamma in Dying and Rebirth" by Aggacitta Bhikkhu. http://www.geocities.com/ekchew.geo/dying2live.htm If you download my class notes from the files section of this DSG, you will find a summary of this book on pages 49-58. I will attempt to supplement Christine's answers to your specific questions in a few hours. Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > Everyone, > > I have been doing some more reading and have gotten myself confused > again! Specifically, I was reading about Kamma and rebirth. I have > 2 questions, one philisophical, the other more theoretical. > > 1.) If we are to say that one's situation in the present is dictated > by Kamma seeds laid in the past, then do we say that people in > essence "deserve" the plight they are in? So, for example, we could > say that the Iraqi children who might be currently suffering are in > that situation because of bad Kamma they acquired in the past. > > 2.) It seems to me that Kamma/Rebirth would lead us into some form of > predestination. If my next birth and life are dictated by my actions > in this one (and others), then would there not have to be some > knowledge of how that new life will shape out. As another example; a > very good friend of mine lost his wife last year to Mennengitis. > Now, her death caused great suffering to him, his children, and her > family. If we were to say that her parent's grief of watching their > daughter die was due to their Kamma from the past, then how did the > Universe know that that child would grow up and get a disease in her > late 20's? It just seems that if we are to be suffering consequences > of past actions, then the order to things must be very precise (or > pre-determined). > > I hope my questions make sense. And, as always, I appreciate > everyone's insights and wisdom (and patience) with my questions! I > do learn a lot from you all. I am so glad I found this group! > > Peace, > > > Dave 20825 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 5:05pm Subject: Re: Abhidhamma and practice --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah wrote: > Hi James, Hi Sarah, Actually, I am not much in the mood right now to respond to this post, but I feel I must. I don't want to leave anything or anyone hanging. First, about your comment: "Anyway, as you're the first to appreciate, life is full of misfortunes!" I don't know if I am the first to appreciate this, but maybe I am the first to appreciate something different. Just as it is important to accept the reality of misfortune, it is also important to accept the need of those involved in such things to receive comfort and validation. I don't think I approve of the advice of some to minimize these events and think of something different to `block it out'. While that may be good advice for some, like those fixated on their misfortune, it isn't good advice for everyone or the majority. Some people need straightforward comfort, understanding, and compassion. My heart feels for your deep loss and situation and I don't believe you or anyone else should minimize it. As far as the rest of your post, I am thankful that Howard answered the majority of it. I really don't feel up to it (My cold has come back again with a vengeance…which is unusual and telling…and, for those who are wondering, no I am not HIV positive). I stress meditation so much in this group because I feel that I need to. Actually, in meditation discussion groups, I usually emphasize that meditation isn't everything…until they get fed up with me and kick me out. ;-) I think I see that the Abhidhamma without meditation results in conceit, but meditation without right view and understanding results in mental disorder. If it is any consolation, I find this group closer to the dhamma than any I have found, as I have posted many times to this group, but maybe I try to hard to interfere in karma??? I don't know. I am too tired to figure it out right now. Take care and keep yourself well. Love, James 20826 From: Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 5:37pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Computer as desirable/undesirable object Hi Jon, You are right that the 5-door process is specifically mentioned, but I would interpret this passage differently. Here's the passage: "Here, under all circumstances, when an object is undesirable, the fivefold sense consciousness, reception, investigation, and registration (that arise) are unwholesome-resultants..." L: I would contend that "object", in this case, is a mix of 5-door objects (plural) and concept. This is the nature of the vast majority of objects the average person experiences, plus the desirability of an object is a consensus value, "distinguishable according to what is found desirable at one time and undesirable at another time by average (men such as) accountants, government officials...etc." Accountants and government officials don't usually tally up their fate (vipaka) according to the crispness and pleasant color characteristics of their dollar bills. Another issue might be that perhaps you are saying concept cannot be vipaka. I couldn't find a textual answer to this. What does Nina say??? Larry 20827 From: rjkjp1 Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 6:08pm Subject: Re: Buddhaghosa --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "m. nease" wrote: > Robert, > > This was a really outstanding post--I keep coming back to it. Not only a > good refutation of Ven. Buddhadassa's accusations but more--very useful for > investigating the riddle of kamma and rebirth. Difficult to get all this > down and keep it straight (for me anyway). > > mike Dear Mike, Thanks Mike. I'd be happy to discuss further any points about dependent origination, kamma and anatta. Robk > > ----- 20828 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 7:39pm Subject: Re: Kamma and rebirth Hi Dave, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "dwlemen" wrote: > 1.) If we are to say that one's situation in the present is dictated > by Kamma seeds laid in the past, then do we say that people in > essence "deserve" the plight they are in? So, for example, we could > say that the Iraqi children who might be currently suffering are in > that situation because of bad Kamma they acquired in the past. ===== I note that you put the word "deserve" in quotation marks. As Christine points out, kamma is a "natural law" (like gravity). A seed meets the right conditions for it to mature into a plant. From this plant, another seed is produced which (when conditions are right) matures into a second plant. The second plant is not the same as the first plant, but nor is it totally different. In this analogy, there is no self, there is no soul, but there is "life" and because of laws of nature, plant life is continued. With a plant, we are talking about physical life; but consider it as an analogy to "mental life". Our stream of consciousness is impacted by conditions and responds according to laws of nature (kamma). Just as with physcial life, when considering a stream of consciousness, we can say that there is no self, there is no soul, but there is "life" and because of laws of nature, the stream of consciouness is continued. Hope this helps! ===== > 2.) It seems to me that Kamma/Rebirth would lead us into some form of > predestination. If my next birth and life are dictated by my actions > in this one (and others), then would there not have to be some > knowledge of how that new life will shape out. ===== It is something like predestination, except that it cannot be foretold with any precision (except by a Buddha). Your current situation is largely a result of kamma, though there are other laws of nature (seasons, etc.) which can also be factors. How you react to your current situation is a function of your habits. Many people think that there is "free will". This is an illusion. We do not "choose" to be restless, we do not "choose" to be confused, we do not "choose" to be angry (knowing that anger is one letter away from danger). If there is no "self", what is it that has "free will"? What is it that "chooses", if there is no "self"? So what happens to us comes from our past kamma. How we react is based on our habits (accumulations). The willed action resulting from our reaction creates new kamma. Perhaps a diagram might help. Past action -1-> current situation -2-> new action -3-> new situation -1-> : kamma is a condition for the current situation to arise -2-> : accumulations are a condition for the new action to arise -3-> : kamma (new + old) is a condition for the new situation to arise Each second, we experience millions of thoughts and each thought creates "kammic seeds" which have the potential to mature at a later time. The surrounding conditions determine which of the kammic seeds surrounding me at this moment will mature; but the nature of what matures is based on the nature of the maturing kammic seed. ===== > As another example; a > very good friend of mine lost his wife last year to Mennengitis. > Now, her death caused great suffering to him, his children, and her > family. If we were to say that her parent's grief of watching their > daughter die was due to their Kamma from the past, then how did the > Universe know that that child would grow up and get a disease in her > late 20's? It just seems that if we are to be suffering consequences > of past actions, then the order to things must be very precise (or > pre-determined). ===== Even the week-old baby in Christine's post has uncountable kammic seeds waiting for the appropriate conditions to arise. Your friend, his wife, the children and the parents all had countless kammic seeds waiting for the conditions to arise for them to mature. As Christine pointed out, one must consider the big picture (this is one of counteless existences). Sorry for cutting this short, but gotta run for a meeting! Metta, Rob M :-) 20829 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:17pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi James, Many thanks for your concern - much appreciated and I’m sorry to hear your nasty cold has returned. I do hope you get well soon. Each day here we go into a stage of higher alert as the latest figures are released. Many of my friends have put themselves under voluntary ‘house arrest’ and I now avoid public transport, indoor restaurants, shops (having stockpiled on basics), close contact with anyone except Jon and so on. I also wear a mask in lifts and lobbies, such as everytime I go in or out of my building. No way of blocking out or minimizing, but I think the point was that the unnecessary thinking, proliferations with anxiety and fear are useless and that there are still only the present moment realities to be known at these times. When one’s sick it’s the same - there is the physical discomfort, but don’t the stories about the discomfort make it so much worse? On the other hand when one reflects on dhamma, one may forget about the discomfort completely for a while. I remember Dan was very sick with pneumonia for a long while, but he said at the time (hope I've got it more or less right, Dan;-)), reflecting on dhamma and being confident that awareness can arise at anytime -- even whilst sick in bed -- was very reassuring. If one feels there cannot be any 'practice' at these times, it's a problem. Just a little more: --- buddhatrue wrote: > > Just as it is > important to accept the reality of misfortune, it is also important > to accept the need of those involved in such things to receive > comfort and validation. I don't think I approve of the advice of > some to minimize these events and think of something different > to `block it out'. While that may be good advice for some, like > those fixated on their misfortune, it isn't good advice for everyone > or the majority. Some people need straightforward comfort, > understanding, and compassion. ..... I do understand what you’re saying here. Before the school closures, my students and I were having helpful discussions about the War and the atypical pneumonia (latest name) and I agree it can be helpful for everyone to discuss ideas, clarify points and so on. It’s important for children to be able to express their fears and worries too. ..... >My heart feels for your deep loss > and situation and I don't believe you or anyone else should minimize > it. ..... We’ve actually been very tired recently as this came straight on after Jon’s last trip to his mother’s funeral and he, in particular, has been working hard since, whilst having to put all these extra precautions and spy-like diversions in normal routine into place. So we’re trying to get extra rest as a precaution. ..... > > As far as the rest of your post, I am thankful that Howard answered > the majority of it. ..... I’ll try to discuss it further with Howard and you can lie back and enjoy or cheer him on;-) ..... > I stress > meditation so much in this group because I feel that I need to. > Actually, in meditation discussion groups, I usually emphasize that > meditation isn't everything…until they get fed up with me and kick > me out. ;-) ..... I suspected as much (not the kicking you out but the emphasizing ‘meditation isn’t everything’ to others) ;-) ..... >I think I see that the Abhidhamma without meditation > results in conceit, but meditation without right view and > understanding results in mental disorder. If it is any consolation, > I find this group closer to the dhamma than any I have found, as I > have posted many times to this group, but maybe I try to hard to > interfere in karma??? ..... It’s a great consolation, James. I mentioned to a friend that though you may often seem to disagree with some of us, I know you appreciate the friendships here and we do with you too. As for the ‘interfering in karma’, I think that regardless of any of our understandings of the dhamma, the best we can all do is to try to help each other accordingly, to share what we know or understand, be mindful of our intentions (e.g metta/kindness vs attachment to others seeing things our way;-)), and considerate of different viewpoints and shortcomings. We all have plenty to learn. .... >I don't know. I am too tired to figure it > out right now. Take care and keep yourself well. ..... You too, James. Persistent colds are no fun at all. Fortunately we’re both well and healthy right now at any rate. Very best wishes and thank you again for the sympathy which I’ll also pass on to any of the Starkids I speak to. (Some may have even left Hong Kong for all I know). Metta, Sarah ======= 20830 From: Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 8:41pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Dependent Origination for Laymen (Part I) Hi Sarah, I like this little book too (Nyanatiloka's "Guide Through the Abhidhamma Pitaka"). It gives a peek at each book of the abhidhamma and the essay on paticcasamuppada gives a succinct analysis of dependent arising with all the conditions for the arising of each link. I had bought it years ago and, at the time, couldn't make heads or tails of it. I had forgotten that I had it until a note in the Buddhist Dict. reminded me. To my surprise, it started to make sense :-))) Larry 20831 From: Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 4:32pm Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Kamma and rebirth Hi, Rob - In a message dated 3/31/03 10:45:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, rob.moult@j... writes: > Many people think that there is "free will". This is an illusion. We > do not "choose" to be restless, we do not "choose" to be confused, > we do not "choose" to be angry (knowing that anger is one letter > away from danger). ========================== What you say here is quite true if the "we" you speak of is taken literally. But if using "we" is understood to be just convention, then it is not quite so true. Do we ever choose to calm ourselves? Do we ever choose to let our anger go?Do we ever choose to pay attention? I say "yes" to all of these! (In fact, the "we" business is just "so to speak" stuff, but the choosing is a reality.) 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) 20832 From: robmoult Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 9:42pm Subject: [dsg] Re: Kamma and rebirth Hi Howard, I am going to repeat one of my favourite quotes: Words are one kind of bridge to one level of understanding. On the Path, when you reach each such level, you leave each bridge behind. But you can't leave your bridge behind until you are beyond it. This applies to words and concepts, but I suspect that it also applies to the concept of free-will. Early in the journey, we need to feel that there is an "I" making progress, an "I" taking initiative, an "I" making a choice to improve. Later the realization arises that there can be progress, there can be initiative, there can be choice and there can be improvement without an "I". Metta, Rob M :-) --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, upasaka@a... wrote: > Hi, Rob - > > In a message dated 3/31/03 10:45:15 PM Eastern Standard Time, > rob.moult@j... writes: > > > Many people think that there is "free will". This is an illusion. We > > do not "choose" to be restless, we do not "choose" to be confused, > > we do not "choose" to be angry (knowing that anger is one letter > > away from danger). > ========================== > What you say here is quite true if the "we" you speak of is taken > literally. But if using "we" is understood to be just convention, then it is > not quite so true. Do we ever choose to calm ourselves? Do we ever choose to > let our anger go?Do we ever choose to pay attention? I say "yes" to all of > these! (In fact, the "we" business is just "so to speak" stuff, but the > choosing is a reality.) > > With metta, > Howard > 20833 From: Kom Tukovinit Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 10:43pm Subject: RE: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa / A. Sujin Dear Nina, > -----Original Message----- > From: nina van gorkom [mailto:nilo@e...] > Sent: Monday, March 31, 2003 9:05 AM > To: dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa > > > Dear Kom, > > get caught, don't we? How > grateful I am to A. Sujin to remind us time and > again. Even when someone has > reached stages of insight, there are still the > imperfections of insight. > Among them clinging. She makes us see how > stubborn such clinging is and how > subtle it can be. > We were also reminded by A. Sujin that this is > the second noble truth: > clinging. This is not at all some abstract notion > we have to learn from a 2> book. Here is the second noble truth, but we do > not notice it. It leads us > astray, away from the end of the cycle of birth > and death, from dukkha. My favorite (from A. Sujin), for which I am very grateful, is, what do we study dhamma for? To understand realities, at the current moment. To start letting go of ignorance. Whenever I study to know more than other people, I am reminded of this teaching. Whenever I study as if this is an academic study, I am reminded of this teaching. Whenever I try to finish a lot of stories just for the sake of finishing a book, I am reminded of this teaching. This teaching can be understood at other levels too. Whenever there is the wrong (crooked) mindfulness, are we attempting to have mindfulness just for the sake of mindfulness, or for the sake of being one who develops mindfulness? Do we so much desire to have more and more understanding? This is not the purpose, this is not the path, but it is, like you said, samudaya, bondage to samsara, dhamma that slows the development, dhamma that blocks the development, dhamma that entangles. The understanding is the path, and that is what we should develop. kom 20834 From: Sarah Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:19pm Subject: Re: Correction: Re: [dsg] Re: A bit of a rave (was: Arahants) Hi KKT, --- phamdluan2000 wrote: > KKT: So the person to whom > you put the question is > Krishnamurti and not Munindra? ..... Yes, correct ..... > There might be another > correction in your post: > > << > I'm afraid I really know very little about Guru Nanak > but I believe that any teacher with influence who discourages > exploration of truth rather than following a fixed activity > is worthy of respect as well. > >> > > I think it should be > << encourages >> rather > than << discourages >> ? ..... thank you, yes - yours is correct, I've really been caught speeding too! Whilst chatting, there are a couple of your posts I've appreciated a lot - firstly your one to StarKid Ki Young and secondly your recent one to Victor (20777) which I thought was very well-written and I agreed with your conclusions here (even if Victor didn't;-)): ..... KKT: “The experience of no-self is a << real >> experience. It is the experience of liberation. It is not the result of just << seeing >> or of mere intellectual reasoning with concept. Otherwise Arahathood would be easy to achieve, would it not?” ***** Thx again, KKT and also for reading more posts more carefully than I do;-) Metta, Sarah ===== 20835 From: buddhatrue Date: Mon Mar 31, 2003 11:36pm Subject: Re: Kamma and rebirth --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, "robmoult" wrote: > Hi Howard, > > I am going to repeat one of my favourite quotes: Hi Rob M, I don't see how this post is a response to what Howard had to say. Yes, volition (free will) is non-self, it doesn't belong to us, just as body, feelings, perception, and consciousness, etc. don't belong to us. This is what the Buddha taught. But he didn't teach that it doesn't exist or that it is illusion. Volition is a feature of being human that we all have. It isn't an illusion (at least the way you are referring to it.) The only illusion is that we create the idea of a permanent self through that volition…as well as through the body, feelings, etc. With the volition that we all have we can choose to follow the eightfold path. That will be laying the groundwork for enlightenment and if we didn't have volition, enlightenment wouldn't be impossible (we might as well be rocks or clouds). However, final enlightenment cannot come through volition…we cannot choose to become enlightened. It is only by dropping attachment to volition, by seeing that it is non-self, that enlightenment is possible. I don't think that denying the existence of volition is going to stop attachment to it. At least the Buddha didn't teach that...but maybe that works for you. I think that most people have to really acknowledge and understand that there are choices being made, but there is no self making them. Just my input. Metta, James 20836 From: smallchap Date: Tue Apr 1, 2003 0:00am Subject: [dsg] Re: Buddhaghosa Dear Nana, --- In dhammastudygroup@yahoogroups.com, nina van gorkom wrote: Even when someone has > reached stages of insight, there are still the imperfections of insight. > Among them clinging. Clinging is present even for one who has attained the 3rd stage of enlightenment, Anagami. smallchap 20837 From: Sarah Date: Tue Apr 1, 2003 0:29am Subject: Re: [dsg] Re: Abhidhamma and practice Hi Howard, Thanks for your comments. I may sound like a stuck record here - no surprises;-) --- upasaka@a... wrote: > Just a comment (and small idea) with respect to this issue. I > don't > think that it is exactly so that awakening can occur only *during* > vipassana > practice, but I do think that deep and sharp meditation is important. ..... Let me just butt in here to say that ‘vipassana practice’ and ‘meditation’ are loaded terms. with all due respect, there is a question about whether the way they are used freely in meditation centres is related to how they are used in the texts. ..... > Deep > meditation, with the mind highly focussed is a cultivating activity, one > among several cultivation activities taught by the Buddha. ..... I think this is similar to a point Swee Boon has made recently. Highly focussed meditation is common to many practices and religions. Unless we are talking about the specific development of kusala, particularly satipatthana, then I don’t understand it as being taught by the Buddha. ..... [Others > include, > for example, observing sila, thereby calming the mind by faultless > action (or > as close as one can approximate that), and also guarding the senses.] It > is > like preparing a field for planting. ..... Nina translated some of the text and commentary of D16 recently regarding sila, samadhi and panna: http://www.escribe.com/religion/dhammastudygroup/m16611.html In conclusion, she wrote: Nina: “As we have seen sila includes much more than just the precepts. This whole text pertains to the person who is going to be an arahat, he eradicates all defilements. Thus, there must be vipassana from the beginning to the end, all along, also when he observes the four purities of sila, also when he is concentrated. Concentration is accompanying lokuttara citta as we see. This concentration can be of jhana, or not, depending on the person's accumulations. This does not mean that I understand this text completely. As I see it, this pertains to the arahat and the Buddha did not tell us beginners: first keep the precepts, then apply concentration, then vipassana.” **